...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Hydrology >Verification of temperature, precipitation, and streamflow forecasts from the NOAA/NWS Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service (HEFS): 2. Streamflow verification
【24h】

Verification of temperature, precipitation, and streamflow forecasts from the NOAA/NWS Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service (HEFS): 2. Streamflow verification

机译:来自NOAA / NWS水文集合预报服务(HEFS)的温度,降水和流量预报的验证:2.流量验证

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Retrospective forecasts of precipitation, temperature, and streamflow were generated with the Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service (HEFS) of the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS) for a 20-year period between 1979 and 1999. The hindcasts were produced for two basins in each of four River Forecast Centers (RFCs), namely the Arkansas-Red Basin RFC, the Colorado Basin RFC, the California-Nevada RFC and the Middle Atlantic RFC. In a companion paper, temperature and precipitation hindcasts were produced with the Meteorological Ensemble Forecast Processor (MEFP) and verified against observed temperature and precipitation, respectively. Inputs to the MEFP comprised raw precipitation and temperature forecasts from the frozen (circa 1997) version of the NWS Global Forecast System (MEFP-GFS) and a conditional or "resampled" climatology (MEFP-CLIM). For this paper, streamflow hindcasts were produced with the Community Hydrologic Prediction System and were bias-corrected with the Ensemble Post-processor (EnsPost). In order to separate the meteorological and hydrologic uncertainties, the raw streamflow forecasts were verified against simulated streamflows, as well as observed flows. Also, when verifying the bias-corrected streamflow forecasts, the total skill was decomposed into contributions from the MEFP-GFS and the EnsPost. In general, the streamflow forecasts are substantially more skillful when using the MEFP-GFS together with the EnsPost than using the MEFP with resampled climatology alone. However, both the raw and bias-corrected streamflow forecasts have lower biases, stronger correlations and are more skillful in CB- and CN-RFCs than AB- and MA-RFCs. In addition, there are strong variations in forecast quality with streamflow amount, forecast lead time, season and aggregation period. The relative importance of the meteorological and hydrologic uncertainties also varies between basins and is modulated by the same controls on forecast quality. For example, the MEFP-GFS accounts for the majority of skill in the CNRFC basins. This is associated with the greater predictability of large storms in the North Coast Ranges during the winter months. In CBRFC, much of the skill in the streamflow forecasts originates from the hydrologic modeling and the EnsPost, particularly during the snowmelt period. In AB- and MA-RFCs, the contributions from the MEFP and the EnsPost are more variable. This paper summarizes the verification results, describes the expected performance and limitations of the HEFS for short- to medium-range streamflow forecasting, and provides recommendations for future research. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:1979年至1999年之间的20年期间,美国国家气象局(NWS)的水文综合预报服务(HEFS)产生了降水,温度和水流的回顾性预报。四个河流预报中心(RFC),分别是阿肯色州-红色盆地RFC,科罗拉多州盆地RFC,加利福尼亚-内华达州RFC和中大西洋RFC。在随附的论文中,使用气象集合预报处理器(MEFP)产生了温度和降水的后预报,并分别针对观测到的温度和降水进行了验证。 MEFP的输入包括来自NWS全球预报系统(MEFP-GFS)的冻结版本(大约1997年)的原始降水和温度预测以及有条件的或“重新采样”的气候学(MEFP-CLIM)。在本文中,使用社区水文预报系统生成了后流预报,并使用了集成后处理器(EnsPost)对其进行了偏差校正。为了区分气象和水文的不确定性,针对模拟流量和观测流量对原始流量预测进行了验证。另外,在验证经过偏差校正的流量预测时,总技能被分解为MEFP-GFS和EnsPost的贡献。通常,将MEFP-GFS与EnsPost结合使用时,与单独使用具有重新采样气候的MEFP一起使用时,流量预测要熟练得多。但是,原始流和经过偏差校正的流预测都具有较低的偏差,更强的相关性,并且在CB-和CN-RFC中比AB-和MA-RFC更熟练。此外,预测质量随流量,预测提前期,季节和聚集期而有很大差异。流域之间气象和水文不确定性的相对重要性也有所不同,并且受到对预报质量的相同控制。例如,MEFP-GFS在CNRFC盆地中占了大多数技能。这与冬季期间北海岸山脉大风暴的更大可预测性有关。在CBRFC中,流量预测中的许多技能都来自水文模型和EnsPost,特别是在融雪期。在AB和MA-RFC中,来自MEFP和EnsPost的贡献更加可变。本文总结了验证结果,描述了HEFS在中短期流量预测中的预期性能和局限性,并为未来的研究提供了建议。 (C)2014 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号