Open Access“Jumpiness” of the ECMWF and Met Office EPS Control and Ensemble-Mean Forecasts
Author(s) -
Ervin Zsótér,
Roberto Buizza,
David Richardson
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
monthly weather review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.862
H-Index - 179
eISSN - 1520-0493
pISSN - 0027-0644
DOI - 10.1175/2009mwr2960.1
Subject(s) - ensemble forecasting , consistency (knowledge bases) , forecast error , ensemble average , forecast verification , consensus forecast , econometrics , index (typography) , statistics , measure (data warehouse) , mathematics , computer science , meteorology , climatology , data mining , geography , artificial intelligence , world wide web , geology
This work investigates the inconsistency between forecasts issued at different times but valid for the same time, and shows that ensemble-mean forecasts are less inconsistent than corresponding control forecasts. The “jumpiness” index, the concepts of different forecast jumps—the “flip,” “flip-flop,” and “flip-flop-flip”—and the inconsistency correlation between time series of inconsistency indices are introduced to measure the consistency/inconsistency of consecutive forecasts. These new measures are used to compare the behavior of the ECMWF and the Met Office control and ensemble-mean forecasts for an 18-month period over Europe. Results indicate that for both the ECMWF and the Met Office ensembles, the ensemble-mean forecast is less inconsistent than the control forecast. However, they also indicate that the ensemble mean follows its corresponding control forecast more closely than the controls (or the ensemble means) of the two ensemble systems following each other, thus suggesting weaknesses in both ensemble systems in the simulation of forecast uncertainty due to model or analysis error. Results also show that there is only a weak link between forecast jumpiness and forecast error (i.e., forecasts with lower inconsistency do not necessarily have, on average, lower error).