Search

The Met Office in the United Kingdom has developed a completely new probabilistic postprocessing system called IMPROVER to operate on outputs from its operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) forecasts and precipitation nowcasts. The aim is to improve weather forecast information to the public and other stakeholders while better exploiting the current and future generations of underpinning kilometer-scale NWP ensembles. We wish to provide seamless forecasts from nowcasting to medium range, provide consistency between gridded and site-specific forecasts, and be able to verify every stage of the processing. The software is written in a modern modular framework that is easy to maintain, develop, and share. IMPROVER allows forecast information to be provided with greater spatial and temporal detail and a faster update frequency than previous postprocessing. Independent probabilistic processing chains are constructed for each meteorological variable consisting of a series of processing stages that operate on predefined grids and blend outputs from several NWP inputs to give a frequently updated, probabilistic forecast solution. Probabilistic information is produced as standard, with the option of extracting a most likely or yes–no outcome if required. Verification can be performed at all stages, although it is only currently switched on for the most significant stages when run in real time. IMPROVER has been producing real-time output since March 2021 and became operational in spring 2022.

We present a comparison of a reference and a fast radiative transfer model using numerical weather prediction profiles for the Zeeman-affected high-altitude Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder channels 19–22. We find that the models agree well for channels 21 and 22 compared to the channels' system noise temperatures (1.9 and 1.3 K, respectively) and the expected profile errors at the affected altitudes (estimated to be around 5 K). For channel 22 there is a 0.5 K average difference between the models, with a standard deviation of 0.24 K for the full set of atmospheric profiles. Concerning the same channel, there is 1.2 K on average between the fast model and the sensor measurement, with 1.4 K standard deviation. For channel 21 there is a 0.9 K average difference between the models, with a standard deviation of 0.56 K. Regarding the same channel, there is 1.3 K on average between the fast model and the sensor measurement, with 2.4 K standard deviation. We consider the relatively small model differences as a validation of the fast Zeeman effect scheme for these channels. Both channels 19 and 20 have smaller average differences between the models (at below 0.2 K) and smaller standard deviations (at below 0.4 K) when both models use a two-dimensional magnetic field profile. However, when the reference model is switched to using a full three-dimensional magnetic field profile, the standard deviation to the fast model is increased to almost 2 K due to viewing geometry dependencies, causing up to ±7 K differences near the equator. The average differences between the two models remain small despite changing magnetic field configurations. We are unable to compare channels 19 and 20 to sensor measurements due to limited altitude range of the numerical weather prediction profiles. We recommended that numerical weather prediction software using the fast model takes the available fast Zeeman scheme into account for data assimilation of the affected sensor channels to better constrain the upper atmospheric temperatures.