Browse

You are looking at 11 - 20 of 24 items for :

  • Weather and Forecasting x
  • Corrigendum x
  • Refine by Access: Content accessible to me x
Clear All
Oreste Reale
,
K. M. Lau
, and
Arlindo da Silva
Full access
Richard M. Mosier
,
Courtney Schumacher
,
Richard D. Orville
, and
Lawrence D. Carey
Full access
Haldun Karan
,
Patrick J. Fitzpatrick
,
Christopher M. Hill
,
Yongzuo Li
,
Qingnong Xiao
, and
Eunha Lim
Full access
Waylon G. Collins
,
Charles H. Paxton
, and
Joseph H. Golden
Full access
Lindsey R. Barnes
,
David M. Schultz
,
Eve C. Gruntfest
,
Mary H. Hayden
, and
Charles C. Benight

Abstract

Two items need to be clarified from an earlier work of the authors. The first is that the layout of the 2 × 2 contingency table was reversed from standard practice, with the titles of “observed event” and “forecast” transposed. The second is that FAR should have represented “false alarm ratio,” not “false alarm rate.” Unfortunately, the terminology used in the atmospheric sciences is confusing, with authors as early as 1965 having used the terminology differently from currently accepted practice. More recent studies are not much better. A survey of peer-reviewed articles published in American Meteorological Society journals between 2001 and 2007 found that, of 26 articles using those terms, 10 (38%) used them inconsistently with the currently accepted definitions. This article recommends that authors make explicit how their verification statistics are calculated in their manuscripts and consider using the terms probability of false detection and probability of false alarm instead of false alarm rate and false alarm ratio.

Full access
Edward A. O’Lenic
,
David A. Unger
,
Michael S. Halpert
, and
Kenneth S. Pelman
Full access
T. P. Legg
and
K. R. Mylne

Abstract

In an earlier paper the authors described the use of ensemble information for the generation of early warnings of defined severe-weather events within the United Kingdom. A comprehensive verification of the system was also included in this study. However, an error was later found within the verification code for relative operating characteristic and reliability, which affects most of the results (though the Brier skill scores were not affected). The purpose of the present corrigendum is to provide amended verification results. Briefly, what was found before was that skill appeared to exhibit a maximum for these severe-weather events at 4 days ahead, but, although the results for day 4 remain good, the authors underestimated the skill at other days and so the 4-day skill maximum is no longer clear; instead, skill is useful at days 1–4, and tails off only slowly at days 5–6.

Full access
Allan W. MacAfee
and
Peter J. Bowyer
Full access
Full access
Full access