Rich
I'd take a look at RUC and HRRR data to see about higher resolution.
I'll see what I might spin up, here, too, and let you know. I might be
able to give you something in a couple of weeks. As for the literature
review... I've been working on one lately for another project, and would
do almost anything to distract myself right now!
gerry
Rich Signell wrote:
Gerry,
I'm really interested in looking at coastal Massachusetts, where
indeed the resolution of NAM leaves a bit to be desired. I'm not hard
over on NAM -- I'm just wondering how well atmospheric models do with
clouds in coastal regions, and I thought I'd look at models and data
in IDV to get some intuition (as a more fun prelude to doing a
literature review. ;-)
-Rich
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gerald Creager <gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rich, NAM's on a 3 hour output and the resolution depends on which one you
get. They decimate the original model for a variety of uses. Are you looking
at a whole-CONUS region? Is NAM your model of choice or are there
alternatives, or some leeway in model selection?
OF the NCEP models, NAM has about the best resolution unless you want to run
something special, at 12 km. That's not necessarily cloud-resolving, though.
The HRRR and RUC have higher resolutions that you can work with, but are
shorter in duration.
gerry
Rich Signell wrote:
What would be the best space and time resolution datasets available in
IDV to compare with "total cloud cover" from a model like NAM?
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
