Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Boundary currents x
  • Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Inter-Comparison Project (ICP) x
  • All content x
Clear All
Eric Gilleland, David Ahijevych, Barbara G. Brown, Barbara Casati, and Elizabeth E. Ebert

time of writing. The ICP has made available a number of test cases. The cases currently being studied include real examples of quantitative precipitation forecasts and verifying radar–gauge precipitation analyses, as well as perturbations from one of these real cases so that results can be compared with “known” errors. Additionally, some very simple geometric cases are being used and have, thus far, proven to be very useful for gaining a better understanding of the verification methods because of

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

enclosed within the CRA boundaries before or after the shift. The use of the same set of grid boxes is necessary to make a fair comparison of the errors before and after shifting the forecast. In the example in Fig. 1 , any values that were originally to the southeast of the light entity would be “brought into” the CRA by the shifting. If these introduced forecast grid boxes contain no rain, then there is no impact, but if they have nonzero values, then the shifting can introduce some apparent error

Full access
Heini Wernli, Christiane Hofmann, and Matthias Zimmer

2 , where the first term measures the normalized distance between the centers of mass of the modeled and observed precipitation fields: where d denotes the largest distance between two boundary points of the considered domain and x ( R ) denotes the center of mass of the precipitation field R in this domain. The values of L 1 are in the range [0 … 1] and a value of L 1 = 0 indicates that the centers of mass of the predicted and observed precipitation fields are identical. The

Full access