1. we carried out the QPF verification of the three model versions (COSMO-I7, COSMO-7, COSMO-EU) with the following specifications: From January 2006 till July 2007 Dataset: high resolution network of rain gauges coming from COSMO dataset and Civil Protection Department  about 1300 stations Method: 6h or 24h averaged cumulated precipitation value over meteo-hydrological basins Last results on precipitation verification over Italy (Elena Oberto, Marco Turco - ARPA Piemonte) We performed the seasonal trend over the last year (mam’06- mam’07) We performed the daily trend we present COSMO-I7 verification results over a long period (from 2003 till now) over Italy and a comparison between COSMO-I7 and COSMO-I2

2. COSMO-I7COSMO-7COSMO-EU BIAS D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 BIAS D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 BIAS D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 The BIAS has a quite similar pattern for the three versions for North Italy: in general there is an overestimation over the mountain areas and an underestimation over the lowlands. For central and South Italy COSMO-7 and COSMO-EU are similar: there are more cases of underestimation, while COSMO-I7 presents more cases of overestimation. (the values in the Abruzzo region maybe are due to observed data problems)

3. COSMO-I7COSMO-7COSMO-EU POD D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 POD D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 POD D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 The best values are in the North but the three versions have different skill; COSMO-7 has very good values over alpine chain; COSMO-EU has good values in the Northwest. In general, the Eastern side presents the lowest values. (the low POD values in the Abruzzo region maybe are due to observed data problems)

4. COSMO-I7COSMO-7COSMO-EU FAR D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 FAR D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 FAR D+2 10mm/24h 200601-200707 The three versions have quite similar pattern skill: the worst values are in the South, central, and mountains areas. Slightly more false alarm for COSMO-I7. (the high FAR values in the Abruzzo region maybe are due to observed data problems)

5. COSMO-EU COSMO-7 Seasonal comparison between COSMO-EU/COSMO-7 (D+2) mam06, jja06, djf7: COSMO-7 better than COSMO-EU; mam07, better bias for COSMO- EU, better pod COSMO-7 It seems there is a better skill in latest three seasons, less FAR, more POD

6. COSMO-7 COSMO-I7 Seasonal comparison between COSMO-7/COSMO-I7 (D+2) mam06, son06, djf07, mam07: COSMO-7 better than COSMO-I7 It seems there is a better skill in latest three seasons, less FAR, more POD

7. COSMO-EU COSMO-I7 Seasonal comparison between COSMO-EU/COSMO-I7 (D+2) djf07 and mam07: COSMO- EU better BIAS than COSMO-I7 but worse POD; jja06, better COSMO-I7 than COSMO-EU It seems there is a better skill in latest three seasons, less FAR, more POD

8. COSMO-7 Seasonal comparison: MAM 2007 (for-obs)/obs % COSMO-I7COSMO-EU Balance of negative and positive error distributed all over the territory !

9. COSMO-7 COSMO-I7 COSMO-EU Daily trend from Jan06 to Aug07 General remarks: bias>1 (particularly for COSMO-I7) It is evident a sort of diurnal cycle COSMO-7 COSMO-I7 COSMO-EU 35 Open question: for low thresholds the bias peak occurs during midday, but for high thresholds it is shifted to midnight. Why?? (For high thresholds the events mainly occurred during spring-summer so the precipitation have a great convective component…)

10. FOCUS ON COSMO-I7: SEASONAL TREND for the period from 200212 to 200706 (DJF’03- MAM’07)

11. FOCUS ON COSMO-I7: SEASONAL TREND for the period from 200212 to 200706 (DJF’03- MAM’07) In general there is not a remarkable trend. It has been chosen the 20 mm/24h threshold because of a slightly positive trend. There is a seasonal cycle with generally better skills during autumn and worse skills during summer. D+2 is worse than D+1

12. COMPARISON COSMO-I7/COSMO-I2: 200705-200707 BIAS; D+1 (+00/+24H); PERIOD: 200705-200707 BIAS; D+2 (+24/+48H); PERIOD: 200705-200707 + COSMO-I7  COSMO-I2 + COSMO-I7  COSMO-I2 Above 10 mm/24 the bias difference is statistically significant: COSMO-I2 overestimates more then COSMO-I7

13. COMPARISON COSMO-I7/COSMO-I2: 200705-200707 POD; D+1 (+00/+24H); PERIOD: 200705-200707 POD; D+2 (+24/+48H); PERIOD: 200705-200707 + COSMO-I7  COSMO-I2 + COSMO-I7  COSMO-I2 statistically significant differences for high thresholds with better POD for COSMO-I2 statistically significant differences for medium-high thresholds with better POD for COSMO-I2

14. COMPARISON COSMO-I7/COSMO-I2: 200705-200707 FAR; D+1 (+00/+24H); PERIOD: 200705-200707 FAR; D+2 (+24/+48H); PERIOD: 200705-200707 + COSMO-I7  COSMO-I2 + COSMO-I7  COSMO-I2 statistically significant differences for medium thresholds with greater false alarm numbers for COSMO-I2

15. ….to sum up The error spatial pattern shows a general underestimation on the plain and overestimation on the mountain. The seasonal trend over the last year (mam’06- mam’07) seems to have a better skill in the latest three seasons..positive trend! We performed the diurnal cycle: moving from low to high precipitation amount the overestimation peak is shifted from midday to midnight  open discussion COSMO-I7 verification results over a long period (from 2003 till now) over Italy do not show a worsening but the improvement is only relative to high thresholds. The comparison between COSMO-I7 and COSMO-I2 during last three months generally shows a better scores for COSMO-I7