Verification was performed on ensemble forecasts of 2009 Northern Hemisphere summer tropical cyclones (TCs) from two experimental global numerical weather prediction ensemble prediction systems (EPSs). The first model was a high-resolution version (T382L64) of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Global Forecast System (GFS). The second model was a 30-km version of the experimental NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory’s Flow-following finite-volume Icosahedral Model (FIM). Both models were initialized with the first 20 members of a 60-member ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) using the T382L64 GFS. The GFS–EnKF assimilated the full observational data stream that was normally assimilated into the NCEP operational Global Statistical Interpolation (GSI) data assimilation, plus human-synthesized “observations” of tropical cyclone central pressure and position produced at the National Hurricane Center and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. The forecasts from the two experimental ensembles were compared against four operational EPSs from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), NCEP, the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC), and the Met Office (UKMO). The errors of GFS–EnKF ensemble track forecasts were competitive with those from the ECMWF ensemble system, and the overall spread of the ensemble tracks was consistent in magnitude with the track error. Both experimental EPSs had much lower errors than the operational NCEP, UKMO, and CMC EPSs, but the FIM–EnKF tracks were somewhat less accurate than the GFS–EnKF. The ensemble forecasts were often stretched in particular directions, and not necessarily along or across track. The better-performing EPSs provided useful information on potential track error anisotropy. While the GFS–EnKF initialized relatively deep vortices by assimilating the TC central pressure estimate, the model storms filled during the subsequent 24 h. Other forecast models also systematically underestimated TC intensity (e.g., maximum forecast surface wind speed). The higher-resolution models generally had less bias. Analyses were conducted to try to understand whether the additional central pressure observation, the EnKF, or the extra resolution was most responsible for the decrease in track error of the experimental Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS)–EnKF over the operational NCEP. The assimilation of the additional TC observations produced only a small change in deterministic track forecasts initialized with the GSI. The T382L64 GFS–EnKF ensemble was used to initialize a T126L28 ensemble forecast to facilitate a comparison with the operational NCEP system. The T126L28 GFS–EnKF EPS track forecasts were dramatically better than the NCEP operational, suggesting the positive impact of the EnKF, perhaps through improved steering flow.
Authors who have authored or contributed to this publication.