Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Verification of a downscaling approach for large area flood prediction over the Ohio River Basin
N. Voisin, J.C. Schaake and D.P. Lettenmaier University of Washington, Seattle, WA AMS Annual Meeting, Phoenix AZ Jan 2009
2
Objective Predict streamflow and associated hydrologic variables, soil moisture, runoff, evaporation and snow water equivalent : Applicable to large river basins, eventually globally: spatial consistency, ungauged basins Using a fully distributed hydrology model Using ensemble weather forecasts Lead time up to 2 weeks
3
Objective Forecast schematic
BCSD = Bias correction and statistical downscaling Forecast schematic Several years back Medium range forecasts (2 weeks) ECMWF EPS 50 ensemble members Daily ERA-40 surrogate for near real time analysis fields Daily ECMWF Analysis BCSD to 0.25 degree BCSD with forecast calibration, 0.25 degree Atmospheric inputs VIC Hydrology Model Hydrologic model spinup 0.25 degree Hydrologic fcst (stream flow, soil moist., SWE, runoff ) Initial State Flow fcst calibration
4
Objective Compare different downscaling techniques
Applicable at a global scale For precipitation forecast Improve or conserve the skill
5
Outline Existing downscaling methods
Analog technique and various variations of it Forecast Verification at different spatial and temporal scales: Mean errors Predictability, reliability Spatial rank structure
6
1. Downscaling techniques
MOS (Glahn and Lowry 1972, Clark and Hay 2004) Bias correction followed by spatial and temporal resampling for seasonal forecast (Wood et al and 2004) National Weather Service (NWS) Ensemble Precipitation Processor (EPP) ( Schaake et al. 2007) Analog techniques ( Hamill and Whitaker 2006)
7
2. Analog technique 3 methods for choosing the analog:
( adapted from Hamill and Whitaker 2006) Retrosp. FCST dataset, +/- 45 days around day n 1 degree resolution Corresp. Observation (TRMM) 0.25 degree resolution FCST D DAY OBS D DAY Downscaled FCST day n 0.25 degree FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST D DAY OBS D DAY FCST n +/- 45 days Year-1 OBS n +/- 45 days Year-1 FCST day n 1 degree 5 degree 3 methods for choosing the analog: Closest in terms of RMSD, for each ensemble 15 closest in terms of RMSD, to the ensemble mean fcst Closest in terms of rank, for each ensemble 5 degree
8
2. Analog technique Spatial domain for the analog
Choose an analog for the entire domain (Maurer et al. 2008): entire US, or the globe Ensure spatial rank structure Need a long dataset of retrofcst-observation. Moving spatial window (Hamill and Whitaker 2006): 5x5 degree window (25 grid points) Choose analog based on ΣRMSD, or Σ(Δrank) Date of analog is assigned to the center grid point
9
2. Analog technique Ens. Mean Fcst, 20050713 Fcst 20050713
4 closest analogs in the retrospective forecast dataset Corresponding 0.25 degree TRMM for the analogs, Downscaled ensemble forecast members Downscaled ens. mean forecast TRMM (obs) ( adapted from Hamill and Whitaker 2006)
10
3. Forecast Verification
Evaluate the different analog techniques, simple interpolation, and basic resampling downscaling Verification conditioned on the forecast: Mean errors Reliability Predictability Verification conditioned on the observation Discrimination (ROC) For lead times 1,5 and 10 days at 0.25 and 1 degree spatial resolution, Daily and 5 day accumulation
11
Mean Errors 0.25 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
12
Reliability of ens. spread
0.25 degree Ohio Basin TRMM as obs Improved reliability
13
Predictability 0.25 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
14
Discrimination ROC diagram 0.25 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006
TRMM as obs Prob. of detection Or hit rate False alarm rate
15
Spatial structure 2005, Jul 13th 75th Percentile
basin daily acc., TRMM
16
Conclusions The analog technique with a moving spatial window
improves: reliability (considerably), mean errors (slightly) Status quo on: discrimination,predictability Results consistent at different spatial and temporal scales ( not shown, 1 degree and 5 day acc.) More realistic precipitation patterns. Spatial rank structure? An analog technique with no moving spatial window would ensure it. Issue with short observed dataset. Try the NWS EPP.
17
Climatologies of forecasts
Ohio Basin
18
Mean Errors 0.25 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
19
Mean Errors 1 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
20
Mean Errors 0.25 degree 5 day acc. Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
21
Reliability 0.25 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
- Improved reliability - poor reliability for medium tercile - poor reliability lead time 10
22
Reliability 1 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
- Improved reliability - No reliability for medium tercile - No reliability lead time 10
23
Reliability 0.25 degree 5 day acc Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
- Improved reliability No reliability for medium tercile - Some reliability day 6-10
24
Sharpness 0.25 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Improved sharpness for lower tercile
25
Sharpness 1 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs Improved sharpness
for lower tercile
26
Sharpness 0.25 degree 5 day acc Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
No improvement
27
Predictability 0.25 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
28
Predictability 1 degree Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
29
Predictability 0.25 degree 5 day acc Ohio Basin 2002-2006 TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
30
Reliability of ens. spread
0.25 degree Ohio Basin TRMM as obs
31
Reliability of ens. spread
1 degree Ohio Basin TRMM as obs
32
Reliability of ens. spread
0.25 degree 5 day acc. Ohio Basin TRMM as obs
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.