Open AccessComparison of the BMA and EMOS statistical methods for probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasting
Author(s) -
Javanshiri Zohreh,
Fathi Maede,
Mohammadi Seyedeh Atefeh
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
meteorological applications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.672
H-Index - 59
eISSN - 1469-8080
pISSN - 1350-4827
DOI - 10.1002/met.1974
Subject(s) - weather research and forecasting model , ensemble forecasting , probabilistic forecasting , probabilistic logic , numerical weather prediction , computer science , precipitation , north american mesoscale model , meteorology , global forecast system , environmental science , machine learning , artificial intelligence , geography
The main approach to probabilistic weather forecasting has been the use of ensemble forecasting. In ensemble forecasting, the probability information is generally derived by using several numerical model runs, with perturbation of the initial conditions, physical schemes or dynamic core of the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. However, ensemble forecasting usually tends to be under‐dispersive. Statistical post‐processing has, therefore, become an essential component of any ensemble prediction system aiming to improve the quality of numerical weather forecasts as they seek to generate calibrated and sharp predictive distributions of future weather quantities. Different versions of the ensemble model output statistics (EMOS) and the Bayesian model averaging (BMA) post‐processing methods are used in the present paper to calibrate 24, 48 and 72 hr forecasts of 24 hr accumulative precipitation. The ensemble employs the weather and research forecasting (WRF) model with eight different configurations which were run over Iran for six months (September 2015–February 2016). The results reveal that the BMA and EMOS‐censored, shifted gamma (CSG) techniques are substantially successful at improving the raw WRF ensemble forecasts; however, each approach improves different aspects of the forecast quality. The BMA method is more accurate, skilful and reliable than the EMOS‐CSG method, but has poorer discrimination. Moreover, it has better resolution in predicting the probability of high‐precipitation events than the EMOS‐CSG method.