swvic wrote:PM me an email address and I'll send it to you
Thanks for the paper mate!!!
Summary is (which we kinda already knew):
"Overall, if two or more models predict TC genesis, there is a relatively low probability that all of the models are predicting an FA. Thus, the results from the various consensus experiments are better than those from any single model."
Other key statement is:
"The performance shows that the ECMWF misses many genesis events, but when the model does predict genesis, development usually occurs."
And some multi-model information:
"We also examined multiple model forecasts of genesis with three-model combinations. As expected, results from the three-model combinations generally are better than from the two-model combinations. Among the best are the GFS–NOGAPS–UKMET and the ECMWF–GFS–NOGAPS combinations, which yield a 100% chance that genesis does occur (albeit potentially at the wrong time)."
Of more interest however (and unfortunately this paper only investigated TC's in the Atlantic) is that some models have a greater success or failure rate in different areas of the Atlantic. That is, GFS is not as good as EC for instance in a particular quadrant of the Atlantic when it comes to forecasting TC's.
Would love to see a similar assessment done for the TC regions of Australia and the South Pacific. Anyone care to undertake this thesis?