Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Performance of National Weather Service Forecasts Compared to Operational, Consensus, and Weighted Model Output Statistics

Jeffrey A. Baars Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Search for other papers by Jeffrey A. Baars in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
and
Clifford F. Mass Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Search for other papers by Clifford F. Mass in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Dec 2005
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF896.1
Page(s):
1034–1047
Restricted access

Abstract

Model output statistics (MOS) guidance has been the central model postprocessing approach used by the National Weather Service since the 1970s. A recent advancement in the use of MOS is the application of “consensus” MOS (CMOS), an average of MOS from two or more models. CMOS has shown additional skill over individual MOS forecasts and has performed well compared to humans in forecasting contests. This study compares MOS, CMOS, and WMOS (weighting component MOS predictions by their past performance) forecasts of temperature and precipitation to those of the National Weather Service (NWS) subjective forecasts. Data from 29 locations throughout the United States from 1 August 2003 through 1 August 2004 are used. MOS forecasts from the Global Forecast System (GMOS), Eta (EMOS), and Nested Grid Model (NMOS) models are included, with CMOS being a simple average of these three forecasts. WMOS is calculated using weights determined from a minimum variance method, with varying training periods for each station and variable.

Performance is analyzed at various forecast periods, by region of the United States, and by time/season, as well as for periods of large daily temperature changes or large departures from climatology. The results show that CMOS is competitive or superior to human forecasts at nearly all locations and that WMOS is superior to CMOS. Human forecasts are most skillful compared to MOS during the first forecast day and for periods when temperatures differ greatly from climatology. The implications of these results regarding the future role of human forecasters are examined in the conclusions.

Corresponding author address: Jeffrey A. Baars, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, Box 351640, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. Email: jbaars@atmos.washington.edu

Abstract

Model output statistics (MOS) guidance has been the central model postprocessing approach used by the National Weather Service since the 1970s. A recent advancement in the use of MOS is the application of “consensus” MOS (CMOS), an average of MOS from two or more models. CMOS has shown additional skill over individual MOS forecasts and has performed well compared to humans in forecasting contests. This study compares MOS, CMOS, and WMOS (weighting component MOS predictions by their past performance) forecasts of temperature and precipitation to those of the National Weather Service (NWS) subjective forecasts. Data from 29 locations throughout the United States from 1 August 2003 through 1 August 2004 are used. MOS forecasts from the Global Forecast System (GMOS), Eta (EMOS), and Nested Grid Model (NMOS) models are included, with CMOS being a simple average of these three forecasts. WMOS is calculated using weights determined from a minimum variance method, with varying training periods for each station and variable.

Performance is analyzed at various forecast periods, by region of the United States, and by time/season, as well as for periods of large daily temperature changes or large departures from climatology. The results show that CMOS is competitive or superior to human forecasts at nearly all locations and that WMOS is superior to CMOS. Human forecasts are most skillful compared to MOS during the first forecast day and for periods when temperatures differ greatly from climatology. The implications of these results regarding the future role of human forecasters are examined in the conclusions.

Corresponding author address: Jeffrey A. Baars, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, Box 351640, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. Email: jbaars@atmos.washington.edu

Save
Cover Weather and Forecasting
Weather and Forecasting

  • Bosart, L. F., 1975: SUNYA experimental results in forecasting daily temperature and precipitation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 103 , 1013–1020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Brooks, H. E., and Doswell C. A. , 1996: A comparison of measures-oriented and distributions-oriented approaches to forecast verification. Wea. Forecasting, 11 , 288–303.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Daley, R., 1991: Atmospheric Data Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 457 pp.

  • Dallavalle, J. P., and Dagostaro V. J. , 2004: Objective interpretation of numerical weather prediction model output—A perspective based on verification of temperature and precipitation guidance. Preprints, Symp. on the 50th Anniversary of Operational Numerical Weather Prediction, College Park, MD, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 6.1.

  • Glahn, H. R., and Lowry D. A. , 1972: The use of model output statistics (MOS) in objective weather forecasting. J. Appl. Meteor., 11 , 1203–1211.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gyakum, J. R., 1986: Experiments in temperature and precipitation forecasting for Illinois. Wea. Forecasting, 1 , 77–88.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hirschberg, P., cited. 2004: Amended: Change to issuance time of Eta MOS guidance effective February 17 2004 at 1200 UTC. [Available online at http://nws.noaa.gov/om/notifications/tin03-48eta_mos_aaa.txt].

  • Jensenius J. S. Jr, , Dallavalle J. P. , and Gilbert S. A. , 1993: The MRF-based statistical guidance message. NWS Tech. Procedures Bull. 411, NOAA, 11 pp.

  • MDL, cited. 2005: MDL's on-line MOS archives. [Available online at http://www.mdl.nws.noaa.gov/mos/archives/].

  • Murphy, A. H., and Winkler R. L. , 1987: A general framework for forecast verification. Mon. Wea. Rev., 115 , 1330–1338.

  • Neilley, P., and Hanson K. A. , 2004: Are model output statistics still needed? Preprints, 20th Conf. on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/16th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 6.4.

  • Sanders, F., 1973: Skill in forecasting daily temperature and precipitation: Some experimental results. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 54 , 1171–1178.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Taylor, A., and Stram M. , cited. 2003: MOS verification. [Available online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/mdl/verif/].

  • Vislocky, R. L., and Fritsch J. M. , 1995: Improved model output statistics forecasts through model consensus. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 76 , 1157–1164.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Vislocky, R. L., and Fritsch J. M. , 1997: Performance of an advanced MOS system in the 1996–97 National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78 , 2851–2857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilks, G. E., cited. 1998: Intercomparisons among the NGM-MOS, AVN-MOS, and consensus temperature forecasts for West Texas. [Available online at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/topics/attach/html/ssd98-39.htm].

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 416 136 13
PDF Downloads 291 96 8