AbstractA neighborhood postprocessing approach that relates quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF) to probability of precipitation (PoP) forecasts applied to a single model run was found by Schaffer et al. to be as good as traditional ensemble-based approaches using 10 members in 30-h forecasts of convective precipitation. The present study evaluates if PoP forecasts derived from additional variations of the approach can improve PoP forecasts further compared with previous methods. Ensemble forecasts from the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS) are used for neighborhood tests comparing a single model run and a traditional ensemble. In the first test, PoP forecasts for different combinations of training and testing datasets using a single model member with 4-km grid spacing are compared against those obtained with a 10-member traditional ensemble. Overall, forecasts for the neighborhood approach with just one member are only slightly less accurate to those using a more traditional neighborhood approach with the ensemble. PoP forecasts improve when using older data for training and newer data for testing. Assessments of the sensitivity of the neighborhood PoPs suggest that thinning of the horizontal grid at fine grid spacing is an effective way of maintaining the accuracy of PoP forecasts while reducing computational expenses. In an additional test, the diurnal variation of the forecast is examined on a day-by-day basis, showing good agreement between the two approaches for all but a few cases during 2008.
Weather and Forecasting – American Meteorological Society
Published: Aug 30, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera