Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comparative Verification of Guidance and Local Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts: Calibration Analyses

Comparative Verification of Guidance and Local Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts: Calibration... A comparative verification is reported of 2631 matched pairs of quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs) prepared daily from 1 October 1992 to 31 October 1996 by the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC) and the Weather Service Forecast Office in Pittsburgh (PIT). The predictand is the 24-h spatially averaged precipitation amount. The property of QPF being verified is calibration. Four interpretations of each QPF are hypothesized and verified: an exceedance fractile, a conditional exceedance fractile, the mean, and the conditional mean (with conditioning on precipitation occurrence). Time series of calibration statistics support the following conclusions. (i) The HPC QPF, which lacks an official interpretation, is calibrated as the 18%–19% exceedance fractile and as the conditional median, on average. (ii) It serves as a useful guidance to local forecasters. (iii) Pittsburgh forecasters adjust the guidance in the correct direction to produce PIT QPF, whose official interpretation is the (unconditional) median. (iv) Relative to this interpretation, HPC QPF has a substantial overestimation bias, which hampers the calibration of PIT QPF. (v) The calibration of each QPF lacks consistency over time. (vi) To improve the potential for good calibration, the guidance QPF and the local QPF should be given the same probabilistic interpretation; the conditional median of the spatially averaged precipitation amount is recommended. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Weather and Forecasting American Meteorological Society

Comparative Verification of Guidance and Local Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts: Calibration Analyses

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-meteorological-society/comparative-verification-of-guidance-and-local-quantitative-YaNQ0X5dQF
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 American Meteorological Society
ISSN
1520-0434
DOI
10.1175/1520-0434(1999)014<0443:CVOGAL>2.0.CO;2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A comparative verification is reported of 2631 matched pairs of quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs) prepared daily from 1 October 1992 to 31 October 1996 by the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC) and the Weather Service Forecast Office in Pittsburgh (PIT). The predictand is the 24-h spatially averaged precipitation amount. The property of QPF being verified is calibration. Four interpretations of each QPF are hypothesized and verified: an exceedance fractile, a conditional exceedance fractile, the mean, and the conditional mean (with conditioning on precipitation occurrence). Time series of calibration statistics support the following conclusions. (i) The HPC QPF, which lacks an official interpretation, is calibrated as the 18%–19% exceedance fractile and as the conditional median, on average. (ii) It serves as a useful guidance to local forecasters. (iii) Pittsburgh forecasters adjust the guidance in the correct direction to produce PIT QPF, whose official interpretation is the (unconditional) median. (iv) Relative to this interpretation, HPC QPF has a substantial overestimation bias, which hampers the calibration of PIT QPF. (v) The calibration of each QPF lacks consistency over time. (vi) To improve the potential for good calibration, the guidance QPF and the local QPF should be given the same probabilistic interpretation; the conditional median of the spatially averaged precipitation amount is recommended.

Journal

Weather and ForecastingAmerican Meteorological Society

Published: Aug 20, 1998

There are no references for this article.