Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 12 of 12 items for :

  • Model performance/evaluation x
  • Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Inter-Comparison Project (ICP) x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All
Christian Keil and George C. Craig

ncep, consistent with the subjective evaluation ( Table 4 ), but the difference is not large in either ranking. All models perform best on 26 April, where moderate precipitation intensities lead to comparably small-amplitude errors. The worst performance is identified for the previously discussed forecast on 13 May. In general, the values of DAS, the human-generated expert score, and the traditional scores do not appear to be particularly well correlated, although this is perhaps not surprising

Full access
Caren Marzban, Scott Sandgathe, Hilary Lyons, and Nicholas Lederer

1. Introduction Variograms and correlograms are both invariant under additive intensity errors. Under multiplicative intensity errors, however, only the correlogram is invariant; that is, a correlogram captures displacement (and shape–size) error only, not additive or multiplicative intensity errors. It is now clear that the quality of forecasts of gridded parameters such as precipitation or temperature cannot be evaluated by a simple gridpoint by gridpoint comparison of the forecast field with

Full access