Forecaster Feedback (Bill Nichols, Davenport, Iowa)

Usually, the QPF's are extremely close. My observations suggest biggest variances noted with marginal forcing/moisture events and also sometimes in evolution of a current QPF field. I've not been able to assess systematic trends in the differences yet that operationally we can say is an improvement...will keep monitoring.
Both model QPF schemes seem to suffer from RH problems in lower levels that sometimes manifest themselves (or don't) in QPF and Vertical Motion fields. I find these RH often overforecasted, and sometimes have major operational impacts. One example, last week, several runs of the ETA and ETAX show 80% plus RH that obviously wasn't going to happen (i.e. center arctic high)...not unusual...and yes, we were clear all day (DVV).
Both schemes suffer from missing or underestimating shallow moisture convergence with decent low level forcing. Also...notorious for missing light flurries/sprinkles or even light showers in late winter and early spring with cold air aloft.
In summary, the change to the new QPF fields would be modest at best...and for most operational forecasts, non sequitur; due to the daily larger scale challenges/biases of the model.

Both schemes suffer from missing or underestimating shallow moisture convergence with decent low level forcing. Also...notorious for missing light flurries/sprinkles or even light showers in late winter and early spring with cold air aloft.