QPF results

## QPF scores: reds and greens but mostly whites

After collecting the scores for all date-parametrization combinations, we ended up with this collective score-table:

#### HNMS
comparison
results

    A1

    A2

    A3

    A4

    A5

    A6

    A7

    CON
    KFB

    CON
    MOD

    CON
    OFF

    CT
    RL

    DT
    20

    KFB

    LFS
    L3

    MIC
    RO1

    MIC
    RO2

    MIC
    RO3

    ORO

    QV
    090

    QV
    110

    RKB
    OTT

    RK

    RK
    SL3

    RK
    TP

    RLA
    M01

    RLA
    M10

    RLA
    M2

    RLA
    M50

    SCTO
    050

    SCTO
    250

    SEA
    01

    SEA
    40

    WSO
    080

    WSO
    120

15−09−2005 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
23−11−2005 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
26−11−2005 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

There are neither all-failed nor all-succeeded columns on this table, so we cannot accept or reject unconditionally any parametrization. Yet, some configurations seems less successive than others (A6, RLAM01, RLAM50). Unfortunately only A7 (using Analysis GME files) seemed to give better results (as expected)

In general, most parametrizations fall in the "indifferent" class. Although their results may differ substantially (as the chart table shows), their overall forecasts are qualitativelly about the same (at least with our subjective scoring method)