Which model is most accurate for Europe?
fhucho last edited by fhucho
The default for Europe is ECMWF but NEMS and ICON have higher resolution. Is there some statistical comparison of these models, i.e. what these models predicted versus actual observations from weather stations across Europe?
Not sure how should I choose between the models, I assume the default is the best in most aspects?
@fh In my personal experience, both ECMWF and ICON EU are very accurate. Maybe ICON is better cause it has a slightly better resolution. I don't use NEMS that much, because it lacks some computing power to compute certain perimeters.
However NEMS is much more accurate in mountainous region, in particular for temperature forecast, where other models fail.
You can do your own observation: Select « Reported temp. » or « Reported wind » and choose a weather station close to your location. Then you can compare which model show the closest values.
I know comparison of ECMWF model with few models including GFS in north extra tropical hemisphere, but not with ICON nor NEMS.
ECMWF is better in forecasting rain and wind (but overestimates wind gusts).
ICON (because of better resolution) forecasts better the temperature, low cloud cover and wind gusts.
For further reading:
fhucho last edited by
Looking at the temperature forecast for now at my location (Prague), the observed temperature is 20 °C, EMCWF shows 26 °C, the other models 23 °C.
And looking at the peak Snežka (1602 m), EMCWF shows 20 °C, observed temperature is 10 °C. GFS shows 23 °C (lol).
Weather.com is almost spot on for both locations, I wonder what model they use.
fhucho last edited by
It would make sense because in one cell of a 9 km grid, the elevation and therefore ground temperature can vary wildly.
BTW, I found that Weather Underground (owned by owners of weather.com) use their own model for US locations with hourly updates: https://www.wunderground.com/about/data. Dark Sky also use custom model: https://status.darksky.net/2017/06/14/hourly-updates.html.
chstdu last edited by
@theradarguy The German Meteorological Office (Deutscher Wetterdienst - DWD) offers such statistically optimized point forecasts for about 5400 locations around the world as open data called MOSMIX. (Forecasting time step and update interval is one hour and the maximum forecasting time is 240h - https://www.dwd.de/EN/ourservices/met_application_mosmix/met_application_mosmix.html) The ICON model and ECMWF model are used as input.
Any idea how windy could visualize these point forecasts?
Maybe it could be added as additional model to the city weather details?
windy have available altitude data for any location.
Also model's surface height for any grid point.
The method described here:
chstdu last edited by
@gkikas-lgpz Thank you for the information. These spot forecasts / city details seem to be the perfect place to also include MOSMIX. MOSMIX does not only adjust for altitude but takes into account a bunch of other statistical corrections and combines ICON and ECMWF, i.e., statistically the best of both worlds.
This post is deleted!
The Windy forum is not a place for advertising about your business. Just a place to talk about weather forecast.
jakubvrana | Premium last edited by
I compared the forecasted and observed wind at some paragliding spots in Czechia. This was the result:
- Arome, IconEu
- Aladin (local model not available in Windy)
- GFS, ECMWF
Raw data: https://pg.vrana.cz/meteo/
This matches my random observations. If IconEu and ECMWF disagrees then IconEu is usually right.
This site seems also interesting for such a comparison. I don't know it very well, but for Europe it provides 10 local forecast models with grids up to 1 km resolution...
The question was ‘’which model is most accurate for Europe’’, not which weather web site offers the greatest number of weather models.
The downloadable pdf in this document gives in particular the WMO scores for global models. Figures 13 and 14 compare the performances of these models like IFS (ECMWF), GFS (NCEP), ICON (DWD)...and more, for north hemisphere and Europe. And IFS is still the best one.
This comparison does not include the limited area models which are not really comparable with global models.
>>> *** The question was ‘’which model is most accurate for Europe", not "which weather web site offers the greatest number of weather models". ***
My response above just tried to help answer that very question.
I don't even know - and I don't care - if this holy web site offers the most models, but I still consider it interesting to better answer the main question in this thread.
My answer was strictly about comparing forecast models; I never compared Windy (I love it) to similar web sites.
Anyway, as a moderator, if you would consider it as a spam, please feel free to mark it as such.
Nevertheless, I just tried to help Windy users to get the best results from Windy.
panosrunner last edited by panosrunner
Each model has its strong and weak points, in short-term forecasts up to 48 hours let's say, for south-eastern Europe, like in Greece where I live, in wind (specially in gusts), temperature, humidity, cloudiness, the ICON-EU is real extremely accurate, as well as very good in heavy rainfalls such as storms etc, maybe the best I would say, it does not perform so well in weak local rainfalls, also for short-term forecasts up to 48 hours, the ARPEGE-EU and the NEMS4-12 do very well, NEMS4-12 also good for winds and temperature, but after ICON-EU, and the NEMS4-12 is underestimate the rainfall in this area of Europe, but NEMS4-12 have not so good performance through windy.com but from the parent page, because I think which has more options... for medium-term forecasts, ECMWF is one-way.