Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Elizabeth E. Ebert x
  • Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Inter-Comparison Project (ICP) x
  • User-accessible content x
Clear All Modify Search
Elizabeth E. Ebert

Abstract

High-resolution forecasts may be quite useful even when they do not match the observations exactly. Neighborhood verification is a strategy for evaluating the “closeness” of the forecast to the observations within space–time neighborhoods rather than at the grid scale. Various properties of the forecast within a neighborhood can be assessed for similarity to the observations, including the mean value, fractional coverage, occurrence of a forecast event sufficiently near an observed event, and so on. By varying the sizes of the neighborhoods, it is possible to determine the scales for which the forecast has sufficient skill for a particular application. Several neighborhood verification methods have been proposed in the literature in the last decade. This paper examines four such methods in detail for idealized and real high-resolution precipitation forecasts, highlighting what can be learned from each of the methods. When applied to idealized and real precipitation forecasts from the Spatial Verification Methods Intercomparison Project, all four methods showed improved forecast performance for neighborhood sizes larger than grid scale, with the optimal scale for each method varying as a function of rainfall intensity.

Full access
Elizabeth E. Ebert and William A. Gallus Jr.

Abstract

The contiguous rain area (CRA) method for spatial forecast verification is a features-based approach that evaluates the properties of forecast rain systems, namely, their location, size, intensity, and finescale pattern. It is one of many recently developed spatial verification approaches that are being evaluated as part of a Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Intercomparison Project. To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the CRA method, it has been tested here on a set of idealized geometric and perturbed forecasts with known errors, as well as nine precipitation forecasts from three high-resolution numerical weather prediction models.

The CRA method was able to identify the known errors for the geometric forecasts, but only after a modification was introduced to allow nonoverlapping forecast and observed features to be matched. For the perturbed cases in which a radar rain field was spatially translated and amplified to simulate forecast errors, the CRA method also reproduced the known errors except when a high-intensity threshold was used to define the CRA (≥10 mm h−1) and a large translation error was imposed (>200 km). The decomposition of total error into displacement, volume, and pattern components reflected the source of the error almost all of the time when a mean squared error formulation was used, but not necessarily when a correlation-based formulation was used.

When applied to real forecasts, the CRA method gave similar results when either best-fit criteria, minimization of the mean squared error, or maximization of the correlation coefficient, was chosen for matching forecast and observed features. The diagnosed displacement error was somewhat sensitive to the choice of search distance. Of the many diagnostics produced by this method, the errors in the mean and peak rain rate between the forecast and observed features showed the best correspondence with subjective evaluations of the forecasts, while the spatial correlation coefficient (after matching) did not reflect the subjective judgments.

Full access
David Ahijevych, Eric Gilleland, Barbara G. Brown, and Elizabeth E. Ebert

Abstract

Several spatial forecast verification methods have been developed that are suited for high-resolution precipitation forecasts. They can account for the spatial coherence of precipitation and give credit to a forecast that does not necessarily match the observation at any particular grid point. The methods were grouped into four broad categories (neighborhood, scale separation, features based, and field deformation) for the Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Intercomparison Project (ICP). Participants were asked to apply their new methods to a set of artificial geometric and perturbed forecasts with prescribed errors, and a set of real forecasts of convective precipitation on a 4-km grid. This paper describes the intercomparison test cases, summarizes results from the geometric cases, and presents subjective scores and traditional scores from the real cases.

All the new methods could detect bias error, and the features-based and field deformation methods were also able to diagnose displacement errors of precipitation features. The best approach for capturing errors in aspect ratio was field deformation. When comparing model forecasts with real cases, the traditional verification scores did not agree with the subjective assessment of the forecasts.

Full access
Eric Gilleland, David A. Ahijevych, Barbara G. Brown, and Elizabeth E. Ebert

Numerous new methods have been proposed for using spatial information to better quantify and diagnose forecast performance when forecasts and observations are both available on the same grid. The majority of the new spatial verification methods can be classified into four broad categories (neighborhood, scale separation, features based, and field deformation), which themselves can be further generalized into two categories of filter and displacement. Because the methods make use of spatial information in widely different ways, users may be uncertain about what types of information each provides, and which methods may be most beneficial for particular applications. As an international project, the Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Inter-Comparison Project (ICP; www.ral.ucar.edu/projects/icp) was formed to address these questions. This project was coordinated by NCAR and facilitated by the WMO/World Weather Research Programme (WWRP) Joint Working Group on Forecast Verification Research. An overview of the methods involved in the project is provided here with some initial guidelines about when each of the verification approaches may be most appropriate. Future spatial verification methods may include hybrid methods that combine aspects of filter and displacement approaches.

Full access
Eric Gilleland, David Ahijevych, Barbara G. Brown, Barbara Casati, and Elizabeth E. Ebert

Abstract

Advancements in weather forecast models and their enhanced resolution have led to substantially improved and more realistic-appearing forecasts for some variables. However, traditional verification scores often indicate poor performance because of the increased small-scale variability so that the true quality of the forecasts is not always characterized well. As a result, numerous new methods for verifying these forecasts have been proposed. These new methods can mostly be classified into two overall categories: filtering methods and displacement methods. The filtering methods can be further delineated into neighborhood and scale separation, and the displacement methods can be divided into features based and field deformation. Each method gives considerably more information than the traditional scores, but it is not clear which method(s) should be used for which purpose.

A verification methods intercomparison project has been established in order to glean a better understanding of the proposed methods in terms of their various characteristics and to determine what verification questions each method addresses. The study is ongoing, and preliminary qualitative results for the different approaches applied to different situations are described here. In particular, the various methods and their basic characteristics, similarities, and differences are described. In addition, several questions are addressed regarding the application of the methods and the information that they provide. These questions include (i) how the method(s) inform performance at different scales; (ii) how the methods provide information on location errors; (iii) whether the methods provide information on intensity errors and distributions; (iv) whether the methods provide information on structure errors; (v) whether the approaches have the ability to provide information about hits, misses, and false alarms; (vi) whether the methods do anything that is counterintuitive; (vii) whether the methods have selectable parameters and how sensitive the results are to parameter selection; (viii) whether the results can be easily aggregated across multiple cases; (ix) whether the methods can identify timing errors; and (x) whether confidence intervals and hypothesis tests can be readily computed.

Full access