Probabilistic Precipitation Forecast Postprocessing Using Quantile Mapping and Rank-Weighted Best-Member Dressing

Thomas M. Hamill NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Thomas M. Hamill in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Michael Scheuerer NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division, and Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Michael Scheuerer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Hamill et al. described a multimodel ensemble precipitation postprocessing algorithm that is used operationally by the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS). This article describes further changes that produce improved, reliable, and skillful probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasts (PQPFs) for single or multimodel prediction systems. For multimodel systems, final probabilities are produced through the linear combination of PQPFs from the constituent models. The new methodology is applied to each prediction system. Prior to adjustment of the forecasts, parametric cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of model and analyzed climatologies are generated using the previous 60 days’ forecasts and analyses and supplemental locations. The CDFs, which can be stored with minimal disk space, are then used for quantile mapping to correct state-dependent bias for each member. In this stage, the ensemble is also enlarged using a stencil of forecast values from the 5 × 5 surrounding grid points. Different weights and dressing distributions are assigned to the sorted, quantile-mapped members, with generally larger weights for outlying members and broader dressing distributions for members with heavier precipitation. Probability distributions are generated from the weighted sum of the dressing distributions. The NWS Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS), the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) global ensemble, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ensemble forecast data are postprocessed for April–June 2016. Single prediction system postprocessed forecasts are generally reliable and skillful. Multimodel PQPFs are roughly as skillful as the ECMWF system alone. Postprocessed guidance was generally more skillful than guidance using the Gamma distribution approach of Scheuerer and Hamill, with coefficients generated from data pooled across the United States.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0147.s1.

For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Dr. Thomas M. Hamill, tom.hamill@noaa.gov

Abstract

Hamill et al. described a multimodel ensemble precipitation postprocessing algorithm that is used operationally by the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS). This article describes further changes that produce improved, reliable, and skillful probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasts (PQPFs) for single or multimodel prediction systems. For multimodel systems, final probabilities are produced through the linear combination of PQPFs from the constituent models. The new methodology is applied to each prediction system. Prior to adjustment of the forecasts, parametric cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of model and analyzed climatologies are generated using the previous 60 days’ forecasts and analyses and supplemental locations. The CDFs, which can be stored with minimal disk space, are then used for quantile mapping to correct state-dependent bias for each member. In this stage, the ensemble is also enlarged using a stencil of forecast values from the 5 × 5 surrounding grid points. Different weights and dressing distributions are assigned to the sorted, quantile-mapped members, with generally larger weights for outlying members and broader dressing distributions for members with heavier precipitation. Probability distributions are generated from the weighted sum of the dressing distributions. The NWS Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS), the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) global ensemble, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ensemble forecast data are postprocessed for April–June 2016. Single prediction system postprocessed forecasts are generally reliable and skillful. Multimodel PQPFs are roughly as skillful as the ECMWF system alone. Postprocessed guidance was generally more skillful than guidance using the Gamma distribution approach of Scheuerer and Hamill, with coefficients generated from data pooled across the United States.

Supplemental information related to this paper is available at the Journals Online website: https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0147.s1.

For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Dr. Thomas M. Hamill, tom.hamill@noaa.gov

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Materials (PDF 373.68 KB)
Save
  • Bougeault, P., and Coauthors, 2010: The THORPEX Interactive Grand Global Ensemble. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 10591072, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS2853.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buizza, R., 2014: The TIGGE global, medium-range ensembles. ECMWF Tech. Memo. 739, 53 pp., https://www.ecmwf.int/en/elibrary/7529-tigge-global-medium-range-ensembles.

  • Fortin, V., A.-C. Favre, and M. Saïd, 2006: Probabilistic forecasting from ensemble prediction systems: Improving upon the best-member method by using a different weight and dressing kernel for each member. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132, 13491369, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.167.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Glahn, H. R., and D. P. Ruth, 2003: The new Digital Forecast Database of the National Weather Service. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 195202, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-2-195.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gneiting, T., and R. Ranjan, 2013: Combining predictive distributions. Electron. J. Stat., 7, 17471782, https://doi.org/10.1214/13-EJS823.

  • Hagedorn, R., T. M. Hamill, and J. S. Whitaker, 2008: Probabilistic forecast calibration using ECMWF and GFS ensemble reforecasts. Part I: Two-meter temperatures. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 26082619, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2410.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hagedorn, R., R. Buizza, T. M. Hamill, M. Leutbecher, and T. N. Palmer, 2012: Comparing TIGGE multimodel forecasts with reforecast-calibrated ECMWF ensemble forecasts. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 138, 18141827, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1895.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haiden, T., M. Janousek, J. Bidlot, L. Ferranti, F. Prates, F. Vitart, P. Bauer, and D. S. Richardson, 2016: Evaluation of ECMWF forecasts, including the 2016 resolution upgrade. ECMWF Tech. Memo. 792, 55 pp., https://www.ecmwf.int/en/elibrary/16924-evaluation-ecmwf-forecasts-including-2016-resolution-upgrade.

  • Hamill, T. M., 1999: Hypothesis tests for evaluating numerical precipitation forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 14, 155167, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1999)014<0155:HTFENP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., 2001: Interpretation of rank histograms for verifying ensemble forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129, 550560, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<0550:IORHFV>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., 2012: Verification of TIGGE multimodel and ECMWF reforecast-calibrated probabilistic precipitation forecasts over the contiguous United States. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 22322252, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00220.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., and S. J. Colucci, 1998: Evaluation of Eta–RSM ensemble probabilistic precipitation forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 711724, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<0711:EOEREP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., R. Hagedorn, and J. S. Whitaker, 2008: Probabilistic forecast calibration using ECMWF and GFS ensemble reforecasts. Part II: Precipitation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 26202632, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2411.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., E. Engle, D. Myrick, M. Peroutka, C. Finan, and M. Scheuerer, 2017: The U.S. National Blend of Models for statistical postprocessing of probability of precipitation and deterministic precipitation amount. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 34413463, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0331.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hou, D., and Coauthors, 2014: Climatology-calibrated precipitation analysis at fine scales: Statistical adjustment of stage IV toward CPC gauge-based analysis. J. Hydrometeor., 15, 25422557, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-11-0140.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Press, W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, 1992: Numerical Recipes in Fortran. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 963 pp.

  • Roulston, M. S., and L. A. Smith, 2003: Combining dynamical and statistical ensembles. Tellus, 55A, 1630, https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2003.201378.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scheuerer, M., and T. M. Hamill, 2015: Statistical postprocessing of ensemble precipitation forecasts by fitting censored, shifted Gamma distributions. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 45784596, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0061.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scheuerer, M., and T. M. Hamill, 2018: Generating calibrated ensembles of physically realistic, high-resolution precipitation forecast fields based on GEFS model output. J. Hydrometeor., 19, 16511670, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-18-0067.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scheuerer, M., T. M. Hamill, B. Whitin, M. He, and A. Henkel, 2017: A method for preferential selection of dates in the Schaake shuffle approach to constructing spatiotemporal forecast fields of temperature and precipitation. Water Resour. Res., 53, 30293046, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020133.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Siegert, S., J. Bröcker, and H. Kantz, 2012: Rank histograms of stratified Monte Carlo ensembles. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 15581571, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00302.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Swinbank, R., and Coauthors, 2016: The TIGGE project and its achievements. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 97, 4967, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00191.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thom, H. C. S., 1958: A note on the Gamma distribution. Mon. Wea. Rev., 86, 117122, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1958)086<0117:ANOTGD>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilks, D. S., 2011: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. 3rd ed. International Geophysics Series, Vol. 100, Academic Press, 704 pp.

  • Zhang, Y., L. Wu, M. Scheuerer, J. Schaake, and C. Kongoli, 2017: Comparison of probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasts from two postprocessing mechanisms. J. Hydrometeor., 18, 28732891, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0293.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1727 401 72
PDF Downloads 1770 340 53