Abstract
Ensemble precipitation forecast is effective in reducing the uncertainty and providing reliable probabilistic streamflow forecast. However, for operational applications, precipitation forecasts must go through bias correction in mean and spread. Although post-processing methods, such as BMA, have demonstrated good performance in ensemble-based calibration, the spatial correlation between stations may be altered after post-processing. In this research, ensemble precipitation forecasts of four NWP models, including ECMWF, UKMO, NCEP, and CMA within the TIGGE database, was bias-corrected and post-processed using quantile mapping and BMA for a case study basin in Iran. The ECC method was then used to recover the spatial correlation of ensemble forecasts. Subsequently, probabilistic streamflow forecast was conducted using post-processed precipitation forecasts. The results showed that the errors in the mean and spread of ensemble precipitation forecasts were corrected for each of the four NWP models while the ECC method was effective in maintaining spatial correlation. Furthermore, the results of probabilistic streamflow forecast showed that the performance of the forecast models improved after post processing, with the ECMWF model providing the best forecasts. More work is recommended to improve the impact of the ECC method on NWP models’ performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aminyavari S, Saghafian B, Delavar M (2018) Evaluation of TIGGE ensemble forecasts of precipitation in distinct climate regions in Iran. Adv Atmos Sci 35:457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-017-7082-6
Baran S (2014) Probabilistic wind speed forecasting using Bayesian model averaging with truncated normal components. Comput Stat Data Anal 75:227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.02.013
Benke KK, Norng S, Robinson NJ, Benke LR, Peterson TJ (2018) Error propagation in computer models: analytic approaches, advantages, disadvantages and constraints. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32:2971–2985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1555-8
Bouallègue ZB, Heppelmann T, Theis SE, Pinson P (2016) Generation of scenarios from calibrated ensemble forecasts with a dual-ensemble copula-coupling approach. Mon Weather Rev 144:4737–4750. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0403.1
Bröcker J, Smith LA (2007) Increasing the reliability of reliability diagrams. Weather Forecast 22:651–661. https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF993.1
Clark M, Gangopadhyay S, Hay L, Rajagopalan B, Wilby R (2004) The Schaake shuffle: a method for reconstructing space–time variability in forecasted precipitation and temperature fields. J Hydrometeorol 5:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2004)005%3c0243:TSSAMF%3e2.0.CO;2
Coron L, Perrin C, Michel C (2016) airGR: suite of GR hydrological models for precipitation-runoff modelling. R package version 1.0. 2
Engeland K, and Steinsland I (2014) Probabilistic post-processing models for flow forecasts for a system of catchments and several lead times. Water Resour Res 50(1):182–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/2012WR012757
Feldmann K, Scheuerer M, Thorarinsdottir TL (2015) Spatial postprocessing of ensemble forecasts for temperature using nonhomogeneous Gaussian regression. Mon Weather Rev 143:955–971. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00210.1
Flowerdew J (2014) Calibrating ensemble reliability whilst preserving spatial structure. Tellus A Dyn Meteorol Oceanogr 66:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v66.22662
Fragoso TM, Bertoli W, Louzada F (2018) Bayesian model averaging: a systematic review and conceptual classification. Int Stat Rev 86:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12243
Fraley C, Raftery AE, Gneiting T, Sloughter JM (2007) EnsembleBMA: an R package for probabilistic forecasting using ensembles and Bayesian model averaging. Washington University Seattle Department of statistics
Fraley C, Raftery AE, Gneiting T (2010) Calibrating multimodel forecast ensembles with exchangeable and missing members using Bayesian model averaging. Mon Weather Rev 138:190–202. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR3046.1
Gneiting T, Stanberry LI, Grimit EP, Held L, Johnson NA (2008) Assessing probabilistic forecasts of multivariate quantities, with an application to ensemble predictions of surface winds. Test 17:211–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11749-008-0114-x
Han K, Choi J, Kim C (2018) Comparison of statistical post-processing methods for probabilistic wind speed forecasting. Asia-Pac J Atmos Sci 54(1):91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-017-0062-z
Hemri S, Lisniak D, Klein B (2015) Multivariate postprocessing techniques for probabilistic hydrological forecasting. Water Resour Res 51:7436–7451. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016473
Kolachian R, Saghafian B (2018) Deterministic and probabilistic evaluation of raw and post processed sub-seasonal to seasonal precipitation forecasts in different precipitation regimes. Theor Appl Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-018-2680-5
Lee JA, Kolczynski WC, McCandless TC, Haupt SE (2012) An objective methodology for configuring and down-selecting an NWP ensemble for low-level wind prediction. Mon Weather Rev 140:2270–2286. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00065.1
Liu J, Xie Z (2014) BMA probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasting over the Huaihe basin using TIGGE multimodel ensemble forecasts. Mon Weather Rev 142:1542–1555. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00031.1
Möller A, Lenkoski A, Thorarinsdottir TL (2013) Multivariate probabilistic forecasting using ensemble Bayesian model averaging and copulas. Q J R Meteorol Soc 139:982–991. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2009
Piani C, Weedon GP, Best M, Gomes SM, Viterbo P, Hagemann S, Haerter JO (2010) Statistical bias correction of global simulated daily precipitation and temperature for application of hydrological models. J Hydrol 395:199–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.10.024
Raftery AE, Gneiting T, Balabdaoui F, Polakowski M (2005) Using Bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles. Mon Weather Rev 133:1155–1174. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR2906.1
Sahu N, Robertson AW, Boer R, Behera S, DeWitt DG, Takara K, Kumar M, Singh RB (2017) Probabilistic seasonal streamflow forecasts of the Citarum River, Indonesia, based on general circulation models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1747–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1297-4
Schefzik R (2011) Ensemble copula coupling. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Schefzik R (2015) Physically coherent probabilistic weather forecasts using multivariate discrete copula-based ensemble postprocessing methods. Doctoral dissertation. https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00018028
Schefzik R (2017) Ensemble calibration with preserved correlations: unifying and comparing ensemble copula coupling and member-by-member postprocessing. Q J R Meteorol Soc 143:999–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2984
Schefzik R, Thorarinsdottir TL, Gneiting T (2013) Uncertainty quantification in complex simulation models using ensemble copula coupling. Stat Sci 28:616–640. https://doi.org/10.1214/13-STS443
Scheuerer M (2014) Probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasting using ensemble model output statistics. Q J R Meteorol Soc 140:1086–1096. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2183
Scheuerer M, Hamill TM (2015) Variogram-based proper scoring rules for probabilistic forecasts of multivariate quantities. Mon Weather Rev 143(4):1321–1334
Scheuerer M, Hamill TM (2018) Generating calibrated ensembles of physically realistic, high-resolution precipitation forecast fields based on GEFS model output. J Hydrometeorol 19:1651–1670. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-18-0067.1
Schmeits MJ, Kok KJ (2010) A comparison between raw ensemble output, (modified) Bayesian model averaging, and extended logistic regression using ECMWF ensemble precipitation reforecasts. Mon Weather Rev 138:4199–4211. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3285.1
Sene K (2010) Hydrometeorology. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23546-2
Sloughter JML, Raftery AE, Gneiting T, Fraley C (2007) Probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasting using Bayesian model averaging. Mon Weather Rev 135:3209–3220. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3441.1
Tomasella J, Sene Gonçalves A, Schneider Falck A, Oliveira Caram R, Rodrigues Diniz FL, Rodriguez DA, Rodrigues do Prado MC, Negrão AC, Sueiro Medeiros G, Chagas Siquiera G (2019) Probabilistic flood forecasting in the Doce Basin in Brazil: effects of the basin scale and orientation and the spatial distribution of rainfall. J Flood Risk Manag 12:e12452. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12452
Vrac M, Friederichs P (2015) Multivariate—intervariable, spatial, and temporal—bias correction. J Clim 28:218–237. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00059.1
Vrugt JA, Clark MP, Diks CG, Duan Q, Robinson BA (2006) Multi-objective calibration of forecast ensembles using Bayesian model averaging. Geophys Res Lett 33:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027126
Wang X, Yang T, Li X, Shi P, Zhou X (2017) Spatio-temporal changes of precipitation and temperature over the Pearl River basin based on CMIP5 multi-model ensemble. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1077–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-016-1286-7
Wilks DS (2011) Forecast verification. Int Geophys 100:301–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385022-5.00008-7
Wilks DS (2015) Multivariate ensemble model output statistics using empirical copulas. Q J R Meteorol Soc 141:945–952. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2414
Zomerdijk L (2015) Performance of multi-model ensemble combinations for flood forecasting (Master's thesis, University of Twente)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aminyavari, S., Saghafian, B. Probabilistic streamflow forecast based on spatial post-processing of TIGGE precipitation forecasts. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 33, 1939–1950 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01737-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-019-01737-4