• Antolik, M. S., 2000: An overview of the National Weather Service's centralized statistical quantitative precipitation forecasts. J. Hydrol., 239 , 306337.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ashok, K., , Parvinder M. , , and Singh V. , 1999: An operational model for forecasting probability of precipitation and yes–no forecast. Wea. Forecasting, 14 , 3848.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bluestein, H. B., 1992: Principles of Kinematics and Dynamics. Vol. I. Synoptic–Dynamic Meteorology in Midlatitudes, Oxford University Press, 431 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buizza, R., , Hollongsworth A. , , Lalaurette F. , , and Ghelli A. , 1999: Probabilistic predictions of precipitation using the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Wea. Forecasting, 14 , 168189.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carter, G. M., 1986: Moving towards a more responsive statistical guidance system. Preprints, 11th Conf. on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, Kansas City, MO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 39–45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Charba, J. P., 1998: The LAMP QPF product. Part I: Model development. Wea. Forecasting, 13 , 934965.

  • Elsner, J. B., , and Schmertmann C. P. , 1994: Assessing forecast skill through cross validation. Wea. Forecasting, 9 , 619624.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Glahn, H. R., , and Lowry D. A. , 1972: The use of model output statistics (MOS) in objective weather forecasting. J. Appl. Meteor., 11 , 12031211.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hall, T., 1996: BRAINMAKER: A new approach to quantitative and probability of precipitation forecasting. NWS Southern Region Tech. Attachment SR/HSD 96-2, Silver Spring, MD, 27 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hall, T., , Brooks H. E. , , and Doswell C. A. III, 1999: Precipitation forecasting using neural network. Wea. Forecasting, 14 , 338345.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klein, W. H., , Lewis B. M. , , and Enger I. , 1959: Objective prediction of five-day mean temperature during winter. J. Meteor., 16 , 672682.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knuepffer, K., 1996: Methodical and predictability aspects of MOS systems. Preprints, 13th Conf. on Probability and Statistics in Atmosphere Sciences, San Francisco, CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 190–197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krzysztofowitz, R., , Drzal W. J. , , Drake T. R. , , Weyman J. C. , , and Giordano L. A. , 1993: Probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasts for river basins. Wea. Forecasting, 8 , 424439.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuligowski, R. J., , and Barros A. P. , 1998: Localized precipitation forecast from a numerical weather prediction model using artificial neural networks. Wea. Forecasting, 13 , 11941204.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCullagh, P., , and Nelder J. A. , 1983: Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall, 511 pp.

  • Michaelsen, J., 1987: Cross-validation in statistical climate forecast models. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 26 , 15891600.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Olson, D. A., , Junker N. W. , , and Korty B. , 1995: Evaluation of 33 years of quantitative precipitation forecasting at NMC. Wea. Forecasting, 10 , 498511.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Řezáčová, D., , and Motl V. , 1990: The use of the simple 1D steady-state convective cloud model in the decision tree for determining the probability of thunderstorm occurrence. Stud. Geophys. Geod., 34 , 147166.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sigrest, A. A., , and Krysztofowitz R. , 1998: Spatially averaged versus point precipitation in Monongahela basin: Statistical distinctions for forecasting. Wea. Forecasting, 13 , 10631077.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vislocky, R. L., , and Young G. S. , 1989: The use of perfect prog forecasts to improve model output statistics forecasts of precipitation probability. Wea. Forecasting, 4 , 202209.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilks, D. S., 1995: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. Academic Press, 467 pp.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 102 102 2
PDF Downloads 11 11 1

MOS-Based Precipitation Forecasts for River Basins

View More View Less
  • 1 Institute of Atmospheric Physics AS CR, Prague, Czech Republic
© Get Permissions
Restricted access

Abstract

Statistical interpretation models of the Aire Limitée Adaptation Dynamique Développement International/Limited Area Modelling in Central Europe (ALADIN/LACE) numerical weather prediction (NWP) model outputs have been developed to improve both quantitative and probabilistic precipitation forecasts (QPF and PQPF, respectively) for the warm season. Daily means (from 0600 to 0600 UTC of the next day) of area precipitation are forecast for seven river basins by using the prognostic fields of the NWP model, which began the integration at 0000 UTC. The selected river basins differ in size and mean elevation above mean sea level. A dense network of rain gauges, where the mean distance between the two nearest neighbors is about 8 km, is used to calculate basin average precipitation amounts. Data from three warm seasons (April–September 1998–2000) were used to develop and verify statistical interpretation models. Several statistical models based on multiple linear regression were used to produce QPF and were compared. They estimated either the direct value of the areal mean precipitation or the difference between the NWP model forecast and the actual value. The statistical models also differed in the training data used to develop model parameters. Two different statistical models, multiple linear regression and logistic regression, were used to produce PQPF, and their performances were compared. Model output statistics (MOS) was used to find suitable predictors and to calculate model coefficients. MOS was applied to two seasons; the remaining one served as the independent verification dataset. All three combinations of seasons were considered. The statistical interpretation models significantly improved both the QPF and PQPF of the NWP model forecast. The root-mean-square error of the QPF from the direct NWP model forecast decreased by about 10%–30% for individual river basins.

Corresponding author address: Zbyněk Sokol, Institute of Atmospheric Physics AS CR, Boční II, 1401, 141 31 Prague 4, Czech Republic. Email: sokol@ufa.cas.cz

Abstract

Statistical interpretation models of the Aire Limitée Adaptation Dynamique Développement International/Limited Area Modelling in Central Europe (ALADIN/LACE) numerical weather prediction (NWP) model outputs have been developed to improve both quantitative and probabilistic precipitation forecasts (QPF and PQPF, respectively) for the warm season. Daily means (from 0600 to 0600 UTC of the next day) of area precipitation are forecast for seven river basins by using the prognostic fields of the NWP model, which began the integration at 0000 UTC. The selected river basins differ in size and mean elevation above mean sea level. A dense network of rain gauges, where the mean distance between the two nearest neighbors is about 8 km, is used to calculate basin average precipitation amounts. Data from three warm seasons (April–September 1998–2000) were used to develop and verify statistical interpretation models. Several statistical models based on multiple linear regression were used to produce QPF and were compared. They estimated either the direct value of the areal mean precipitation or the difference between the NWP model forecast and the actual value. The statistical models also differed in the training data used to develop model parameters. Two different statistical models, multiple linear regression and logistic regression, were used to produce PQPF, and their performances were compared. Model output statistics (MOS) was used to find suitable predictors and to calculate model coefficients. MOS was applied to two seasons; the remaining one served as the independent verification dataset. All three combinations of seasons were considered. The statistical interpretation models significantly improved both the QPF and PQPF of the NWP model forecast. The root-mean-square error of the QPF from the direct NWP model forecast decreased by about 10%–30% for individual river basins.

Corresponding author address: Zbyněk Sokol, Institute of Atmospheric Physics AS CR, Boční II, 1401, 141 31 Prague 4, Czech Republic. Email: sokol@ufa.cas.cz

Save