Explore open access research and scholarly works from NERC Open Research Archive

Advanced Search

A comparison of two statistical postprocessing methods for heavy‐precipitation forecasts over India during the summer monsoon

Angus, Michael; Widmann, Martin; Orr, Andrew ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5111-8402; Ashrit, Raghavendra; Leckebusch, Gregor C.; Mitra, Ashis. 2024 A comparison of two statistical postprocessing methods for heavy‐precipitation forecasts over India during the summer monsoon. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 150 (761). 1865-1883. 10.1002/qj.4677

Abstract
Accurate ensemble forecasts of heavy precipitation in India are vital for many applications and essential for early warning of damaging flood events, especially during the monsoon season. In this study we investigate to what extent Quantile Mapping (QM) and Ensemble Model Output Statistics (EMOS) statistical postprocessing reduce errors in precipitation ensemble forecasts over India, in particular for heavy precipitation. Both methods are applied to day-1 forecasts at 12-km resolution from the 23-member National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (NCMRWF) global ensemble prediction system (NEPS-G). By construction, QM leads to distributions close to the observed ones, while EMOS optimizes the ensemble spread, and it is not a priori clear which is better suited for practical applications. The methods are therefore compared with respect to several key aspects of the forecasts: local distributions, ensemble spread, and skill for forecasting precipitation amounts and the exceedance of heavy-precipitation thresholds. The evaluation includes rank histograms, Continuous Ranked Probability Skill Scores (CRPSS), Brier Skill Scores (BSS), reliability diagrams, and receiver operating characteristic. EMOS performs best not only with respect to correcting under- or overdispersive ensembles, but also in terms of forecast skill for precipitation amounts and heavy precipitation events, with positive CRPSS and BSS in most regions (both up to about 0.4 in some areas), while QM in many regions performs worse than the raw forecast. QM performs best with respect to the overall local precipitation distributions. Which aspects of the forecasts are most relevant depends to some extent on how the forecasts are used. If the main criteria are the correction of under- or overdispersion, forecast reliability, match between the forecasted distribution for individual days and observations (CRPSS), and the skill in forecasting heavy-precipitation events (BSS), then EMOS is the better choice for postprocessing NEPS-G forecasts for short lead times.
Documents
537032:223908
[thumbnail of Open Access]
Preview
Open Access
Quart J Royal Meteoro Soc - 2024 - Angus - A comparison of two statistical postprocessing methods for heavy‐precipitation.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

Download (10MB) | Preview
Information
Programmes:
BAS Programmes 2015 > Atmosphere, Ice and Climate
Library
Statistics

Downloads per month over past year

More statistics for this item...

Metrics

Altmetric Badge

Dimensions Badge

Share
Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email
View Item