Granted Patent B1

US 7,941,274 · App. 11/499,204 · Granted May 10, 2011

Abstract

Claims (36)

1. A system for presenting verification information to human forecasters for improved weather operational results comprising:

a database storing weather parameter information of past weather situations for a geographic region and a time period of interest;

a processor that accesses said past weather parameter information and determines past verification information; and

a display for presenting said verification information for more than one weather parameter to a human forecaster, for comparison of said past verification information to a present weather situation, wherein said comparison allows said human forecaster to determine whether to intervene to edit a machine generated forecast for said present weather situation,

the display including a first, second and third visual rendering of a map representing a geographic region, the first visual rendering including the machine generated forecast, the second visual rendering including the verification information, and the third visual rendering including an output forecast, the output forecast displaying a numerical representation of the effect of the edit to the machine generated forecast by said human forecaster,

wherein said numerical representation includes a magnitude, the magnitude being one of: a positive number if an edited value of at least one weather parameter was above a machine generated weather parameter, or a negative number if the edited value of the at least one weather parameter was below the machine generated weather parameter, and

wherein said numerical representation further comprises a color code to indicate whether said edit moved the forecast in the right direction, wherein a first color indicates that the edit moved the forecast in the right direction and improved the forecast, and a second color indicates that the edit moved the forecast in the wrong direction and made the forecast worse.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein said weather parameter information further comprises at least one of an unedited past weather parameter information, an edited past weather parameter information, or an observed past weather information.

3. The system of claim 1 , wherein said verification information further comprises at least one of a comparison of unedited, machine-generated forecasts to observed conditions; or a comparison of edited, human-intervened forecasts to observed conditions.

4. The system of claim 1 , wherein said operational result comprises a weather forecast; and said displayed past verification information comprises feedback from an array of different comparison products that may be used by said human forecaster to improve said forecast.

5. The system of claim 4 , wherein said array of different comparison products further comprises at least one of precipitation verification information; temperature verification information; computer model guidance information; high impact verification information, or forecast discussions.

6. The system of claim 5 , wherein said precipitation verification information further comprises at least one of precipitation verification maps displaying information on the performance of sensible weather or Qualitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) for past weather situations.

7. The system of claim 5 , wherein said temperature verification information further comprises temperature verification maps displaying information on the performance of temperature for past weather situations.

8. The system of claim 5 , wherein said computer model guidance information further comprises computer model guidance maps displaying technical information about the state of the atmosphere that was used at the time that the forecasts were generated with the same information that may be valid at the time of validation.

9. The system of claim 5 , wherein said high impact verification information further comprises high impact verification results of the geographic regions where weather made a high impact on the consumer public.

10. The system of claim 5 , wherein said forecast discussions further comprises narrative entered by a human forecaster that are classified and archived to the verification for each of the forecast days allowing said human forecaster to review and relate forecast logic with the results of the verification.

11. The system of claim 1 , further comprising forecast tools that may be presented to a human forecaster via said display device, wherein said forecast tools compare different forecasting models and look to at least one of an agreement or disagreement of said forecasting models at the time of making a forecast, wherein said forecasting tools may be used by said human forecaster as a tool in deciding whether or not to edit a machine-generated forecast for said present weather situation.

12. The system of claim 1 , wherein the second visual rendering of a map represents a relatively large geographic region of interest, wherein said second map comprises at least one of an unedited, computer-generated verification map; an edited, human-intervened verification map; or an observed verification map.

13. A system for presenting verification information to human forecasters for improved weather operational results comprising:

a database storing weather parameter information of past weather situations for a geographic region and a time period of interest;

a processor that accesses said past weather parameter information and determines past verification information;

a display for presenting said verification information for more than one weather parameter to a human forecaster for comparison of said past verification information to a present weather situation, wherein said comparison allows said human forecaster to determine whether to intervene to edit a machine generated forecast for said present weather situation; and

a map displaying a numerical representation of the effect of an edit to a machine-generated forecast by the human forecaster;

wherein said numerical representation includes a magnitude, the magnitude being one of: a positive number if an edited value of at least one weather parameter was above a machine-generated weather parameter, or a negative number if said edited value of said at least one weather parameter was below said machine-generated weather parameter; and

wherein said numerical representation further comprises a color code to indicate whether said edit moved the forecast in the right direction, wherein a first color indicates that the edit moved the forecast in the right direction and improved the forecast, and a second color indicates that the edit moved the forecast in the wrong direction and made the forecast worse.

14. A system for presenting verification information to human forecasters for improved weather operational results comprising:

a database storing weather parameter information of past weather situations for a geographic region and a time period of interest;

a processor that accesses said past weather parameter information and determines past verification information; and

a display for presenting said verification information for more than one weather parameter to a human forecaster for comparison of said past verification information to a present weather situation, wherein said comparison allows said human forecaster to determine whether to intervene to edit a machine generated forecast for said present weather situation;

ensemble spread information, wherein said ensemble spread information being used by a human forecaster as a forecast tool to identify potential areas of interest upon a determination to intervene and edit machine-generated forecasts, said ensemble spread information including:

a map of a geographic region of interest; and

a spread of forecasts from computer models presented over said map, wherein said spread of forecasts are represented as standard deviation of one or more weather parameters being forecasted by said models;

wherein a low standard deviation between said computer models is indicative of agreement between said models and wherein a high standard deviation between said models is indicative of disagreement between said models, wherein areas showing disagreement between the models would identify potential areas of interest to human forecasters, and

the map displaying a numerical representation of the effect of an edit to a machine-generated forecast by the human forecaster,

wherein said numerical representation includes a magnitude, the magnitude being one of: a positive number if an edited value of at least one weather parameter was above a machine-generated weather parameter, or a negative number if said edited value of said at least one weather parameter was below said machine-generated weather parameter; and

wherein said numerical representation further comprises a color code to indicate whether said edit moved the forecast in the right direction, wherein a first color indicates that the edit moved the forecast in the right direction and improved the forecast, and a second color indicates that the edit moved the forecast in the wrong direction and made the forecast worse.

Assignments (10)