Journal cover Journal topic
Advances in Geosciences An open-access journal for refereed proceedings and special publications
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • CiteScore value: 1.68 CiteScore
    1.68
  • SNIP value: 0.913 SNIP 0.913
  • SJR value: 0.651 SJR 0.651
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 34 Scimago H
    index 34
  • h5-index value: 13 h5-index 13
Volume 29
Adv. Geosci., 29, 95–102, 2011
https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-29-95-2011
© Author(s) 2011. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Adv. Geosci., 29, 95–102, 2011
https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-29-95-2011
© Author(s) 2011. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

  04 Mar 2011

04 Mar 2011

Verification and comparison of probabilistic precipitation forecasts using the TIGGE data in the upriver of Huaihe Basin

L.-N. Zhao1,2, F.-Y. Tian2, H. Wu1,2, D. Qi2, J.-Y. Di1,2, and Z. Wang1,2 L.-N. Zhao et al.
  • 1Public Weather Service Centre, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing 100081, China
  • 2National Meteorological Centre, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing 100081, China

Abstract. The precipitation forecasts of three ensemble prediction systems (EPS) and two multi-model ensemble prediction systems (MM EPS) were assessed by comparing with observations from 19 rain gauge stations located in the Dapoling-Wangjiaba sub-catchment of Huaihe Basin for the period from 1 July to 6 August 2008. The sample Probabilistic Distribution Functions (PDF) of gamma distribution, the Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) diagrams, the percentile precipitation and a heavy rainfall event are analyzed to evaluate the performances of the single and multi-model ensemble prediction system (EPS).

The three EPS were from the China Meteorological Administration (CMA); the United States National Centre for Environment Predictions (NCEP); and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), all were obtained from the TIGGE-CMA archiving centre (THORPEX Interactive Grand Global Ensemble, TIGGE). The MM EPS were created using the equal weighting method for every ensemble member over the test area, the first ( MM-1) consisted of all three EPS, the second (MM-2) consisted of the ECMWF and NCEP EPS.

The results demonstrate the level of correspondence between deterioration in predictive skill and extended lead time. Compared with observations and with a lead time of one day, ECMWF performs a little better than other centre's. With over five days in advance, all the three EPS and the two MM EPS don't give reliable probabilistic precipitation forecasts. Both MM EPS can outperform CMA and NCEP for most of the forecasted days, but still perform a little worse than ECMWF. Though variation of daily percentile precipitation and ROC areas show MM-2 outperforms MM-1, gamma distribution indicates much similar performances for all 10-day forecast, and neither is superior to ECMWF.

Download
Citation