Effect of the ensemble system size on the precipitation forecast accuracy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Phd, Atmospheric Science and Meteorological Research Center (ASMERC), Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Atmospheric Science and Meteorological Research Center (ASMERC) ), Tehran, Iran

10.30467/nivar.2023.375268.1233

Abstract

Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are not completely accurate and error free, and there is always some uncertainty. The errors in weather forecasting stem from the limitations of human theoretical understanding of the atmosphere and the operational capacity to produce forecasts. It is necessary to make a forecast, along with an estimate of its uncertainty. This is accomplished by creating ensemble systems of weather forecasts differing in the initial conditions or physical formulation of NWP models. There are several methods for post-processing of ensemble forecasting, including Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) and Ensemble Model Output Statistics (EMOS) that they are more popular because of higher efficiency and accuracy. In this research, first, an 18-member ensemble system is formed, which each member is an independent run of the WRF model with different physical configurations. BMA method was used to estimate the density function of predicting 24-hour cumulative precipitation. Due to some hardware limitations and access to an ensemble system with fewer number and more efficient members, the size of the ensemble system has been reduced to 7 members. Using the BMA method, a weight is assigned to each ensemble member. The size of the ensemble system is reduced by removing the members who had less weight. The probabilistic prediction verification obtained from the 7-member ensemble system in a test period from 15 January 2020 to 15 May 2020 has been checked using reliability diagram. The results show that the probabilistic predictions are sufficiently skilled for 24-hour cumulative precipitation.

Keywords

References

1.    آزادی، م.، محمدی، س. ع.، 1398، پیش‌بینی احتمالاتی دماهای کمینه و بیشینه روزانه برای ایران با استفاده از سامانه همادی دو عضوی، نیوار، 43، 57-66. 
2.    ده‌ملائی، م.، رضازاده، م.، آزادی، م.، 1400، بررسی پیش‌بینی‌ احتمالاتی سرعت باد ده متری با استفاده از دو روش پس‌پردازش همادی، پژوهش‌های اقلیم شناسی، 48، 69-84.
3.    فتحی، م.، آزادی، م.، کمالی، غ.، مشکوتی، ا. م.، 1397، واسنجی پیش‌بینی احتمالاتی بارش برونداد سامانه همادی به روش میانگین‌گیری بایزی روی ایران، نشریه هواشناسی و علوم جو، 2:1، 114-129.
4.    Baran, S., 2014. Probabilistic wind speed forecasting using Bayesian model averaging with truncated normal components. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 75, 227-238.
5.    Díaz, M., Nicolis, O., Marín, J.C. and Baran, S., 2019. Statistical post-processing of ensemble forecasts of temperature in Santiago de Chile. Meteorological Application, 27(1), 1-12.
6.    Gneiting, T., Raftery, A. E., Westveld, A. H. and Goldman, T., 2005. Calibrated probabilistic forecasting using ensemble model output statistics and minimum CRPS estimation. Monthly Weather Review, 133, 1098-1118.
7.    Lang, M.N., Lerch, S., Mayr, G.J., Simon, T., Stauffer, R., Zeileis, A., 2020. Remember the past: a comparison of time-adaptive training schemes for non-homogeneous regression: Nonlinear Process. Geophys, 27, 23–34.
8.    Mohammadi, S. A., Rahmani, M., Azadi, M., 2016. Meta-heuristic CRPS minimization for the calibration of short-range probabilistic forecasts. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 128, 429–440.
9.    Raftery, A. E., Gneiting, T., Balabdaoui, F. and Polakowski, M., 2005. Using Bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles. Monthly Weather Review 133, 1155-1174.
10.    Scheuerer, M. and Hamill, T. M., 2015. Statistical post-processing of ensemble precipitation forecasts by fitting censored, shifted gamma distributions. Monthly Weather Review, 143, 4578–4596.
11.    Schmeits, M.J. and Kok, K.J., 2010. A comparison between raw ensemble output, (modified) Bayesian model averaging, and extended logistic regression using ECMWF ensemble precipitation reforecasts. Monthly Weather Review, 138(11), 4199–4211.
12.    Skamarock, C., Klemp, B., Dudhia, J., Gill, O., Liu, Z., Berner, J., Wang, W., Powers, G., Duda, G., Barker, D.M., & Huang, X., 2019. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Model Version 4. Computer Science.
13.    Sloughter, J. M., Gneiting, T. and Raftery, A. E., 2010. Probabilistic wind speed forecasting using ensembles and Bayesian model averaging. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 25-37.
14.    Sloughter, J. M., Raftery, A. E., Gneiting, T. and Fraley, C., 2007. Probabilistic 
        quantitative precipitation forecasting using    Bayesian model averaging. Monthly Weather Review, 135, 3209-3220.
15.    Soltanzadeh, I., Azadi, M. and Vakili, G.A., 2011. Using Bayesian model averaging (BMA) to calibrate probabilistic surface 
 
        temperature forecasts over Iran. Annales de    Geophysique, 29, 1295–1303.
16.    Vannitsem, S., Wilks, D.S. and Messner, J., 2019. Statistical Postprocessing of Ensemble Forecasts. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
17.    Wilks, D. S., 2019. Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
 
 
Nivar
Volume 46, 118-119 - Serial Number 118
September 2022
Pages 73-84

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 December 2022
  • Revise Date: 19 December 2022
  • Accept Date: 01 January 2023
  • First Publish Date: 01 January 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics