B MAPPER

There are lots of changes and improvements to RAP v2. In particular, the planetary boundary layer (PBL) formulation is completed changed and improved. So, likely, you should see better more accurate soaring forecasts.

Walt WX

Walt: While we've got your attention...

My experience was that the NAM was way better than the RAP on cumulus forecasting and also cloud cover. The RAP seemed to be persistently far too dry, and the NAM about right in Northern Illinois. I presume this is about handling soil moisture and corn transpiration. Do you sense the new RAP will be better?

John Cochrane

Yes, RAP v2 should be much better at handling the planetary boundary layer (PBL - Thermal Layer) and soil moisture. There is a completely new Land Surface Model (LSM) with nine vertical and a new PBL forumulation (MYNN). All the reports I've seen show that it should be more accurate with temp/humidity at the lowest levels. Actually, RAP v2 has been running experimentally at the NOAA rapidrefresh.noaa.gov site for at least 5 years. Only recently (Feb 25th) did it go operational on the NCEP servers.

Here's a technical presentation that shows all the changes:

http://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov

and a Webinar:

http://ruc.noaa.gov/pdf/RAPv2-NWSweb...2014-FINAL.pdf

The people at NOAA GSD in Boulder are interested in how v2 RAP PBL is working in the "real world" especially w.r.t the NAM. Dr Stan Benjamin is the lead guy chief scientist. He is very much aware of soaring's unique needs for gliding forecasts. I recently replied to him with info on Gordon Boettger's flight. Dr John Brown is his lead parametrization guy for the RAP and HRRR. You can post your observations and comments to their forum:

http://ruc.noaa.gov/forum/eval/

Walt Rogers WX



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:38 AM UTC-8, wrote:


There are lots of changes and improvements to RAP v2. In particular, the planetary boundary layer (PBL) formulation is completed changed and improved. So, likely, you should see better more accurate soaring forecasts.



Walt WX



Walt: While we've got your attention...



My experience was that the NAM was way better than the RAP on cumulus forecasting and also cloud cover. The RAP seemed to be persistently far too dry, and the NAM about right in Northern Illinois. I presume this is about handling soil moisture and corn transpiration. Do you sense the new RAP will be better?



John Cochrane