Accurate and timely rainfall prediction enhances productivity and can aid proper planning in sectors such as agriculture, health, transport and water resources. However quantitative rainfall prediction is normally a challenge and for this reason, this study was conducted with an aim of improving rainfall prediction using ensemble methods. It first assessed the performance of six convective schemes (Kain–Fritsch (KF); Betts–Miller–Janjić (BMJ); Grell–Fretas (GF); Grell 3D ensemble (G3); New–Tiedke (NT) and Grell–Devenyi (GD)) using the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean error (ME) focusing on the March–May 2013 rainfall period over Uganda. 18 ensemble members were then generated from the three best performing convective schemes (i.e., KF, GF and G3). The daily rainfall predicted by the three ensemble methods (i.e., ensemble mean (ENS); ensemble mean analogue (EMA) and multi–member analogue ensemble (MAEM)) was then compared with the observed daily rainfall and the RMSE and ME computed. The results shows that the ENS presented a smaller RMSE compared to individual schemes (ENS: 10.02; KF: 23.96; BMJ: 26.04; GF: 25.85; G3: 24.07; NT: 29.13 and GD: 26.27) and a better bias (ENS: −1.28; KF: −1.62; BMJ: −4.04; GF: −3.90; G3: −3.62; NT: −5.41 and GD: −4.07). The EMA and MAEM presented 13 out of 21 stations and 17 out of 21 stations respectively with smaller RMSE compared to ENS thus demonstrating additional improvement in predictive performance. This study proposed and described MAEM and found it producing comparatively better quantitative rainfall prediction performance compared to the other ensemble methods used. The MAEM method should be valid regardless the nature of the rainfall season.

Climate change has become a serious global challenge. Developing countries are the worst affected due to poor response mechanism to associated disasters. This study examined the application of the indigenous knowledge (IK) methods to predict the changes in seasonal rainfall. The study used data collected through individual interviews using a structured questionnaire. The study found vegetation changes (i.e. shading off leaves, excessive branching); changes in animal behavior (i.e. eating soil, restlessness), and other atmospheric indicators (i.e. changes in wind, color of stars and moon, earthquake, migrating of birds, swarming of bees, cold windy mornings and warm nights) being used to observe and monitor the changes in rainfall over the season. The study recommends a more detailed study to validate the IK and integrate it with the scientific knowledge so as to reduce local farmers' vulnerability, increase resilience and strengthen their adaptive capacity to cope with climate change effects.

Numerical models are presently applied in many fields for simulation and prediction, operation, or research. The output from these models normally has both systematic and random errors. The study compared January 2015 temperature data for Uganda as simulated using the Weather Research and Forecast model with actual observed station temperature data to analyze the bias using parametric (the root mean square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), mean error (ME), skewness, and the bias easy estimate (BES)) and nonparametric (the sign test, STM) methods. The RMSE normally overestimates the error compared to MAE. The RMSE and MAE are not sensitive to direction of bias. The ME gives both direction and magnitude of bias but can be distorted by extreme values while the BES is insensitive to extreme values. The STM is robust for giving the direction of bias; it is not sensitive to extreme values but it does not give the magnitude of bias. The graphical tools (such as time series and cumulative curves) show the performance of the model with time. It is recommended to integrate parametric and nonparametric methods along with graphical methods for a comprehensive analysis of bias of a numerical model.

; Tel.: +256-701-349477 ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract:Accurate and timely rainfall prediction enhances productivity and can aid proper planning in sectors such as agriculture, health, transport and water resources. This study is aimed at improving rainfall prediction using ensemble methods. It first assesses the performance of six convective schemes (Kain-Fritsch (KF); Betts-Miller-Janjić (BMJ); Grell-Fretas (GF); Grell 3D ensemble (G3); New-Tiedke (NT) and Grell-Devenyi (GD)) using the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean error (ME) focusing on the March-May 2013 rainfall period over Uganda. 18 ensemble members are generated from the three best performing convective schemes (i.e. KF, GF & G3). The performance of three ensemble methods (i.e. ensemble mean (EM); ensemble mean analogue (EMA) and multi-member analogue ensemble (MAEM)) is also analyzed using the RMSE and ME. The EM presented a smaller RMSE compared to individual schemes

Rainfall is crucial for many applications e.g. agriculture, health, water resources, energy among many others. However, quantitative rainfall estimation is normally a challenge especially in areas with sparse rain gauge network. This has introduced uncertainties in rainfall projections by climate models. This study evaluates the performance of three representative concentration pathways, RCP i.e. 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 over Uganda using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. It evaluates the model output using observed daily rain gauge data over the period 2006-2018 using Pearson correlation; relative root mean square error; relative mean error and skill scores (accuracy). It also evaluates the potential improvement in the performance of the WRF model with respective RCPs by applying bias correction. The bias correction is carried out using the quantile mapping method. A poor correlation with observed rainfall is generally found (−0.4 to +0.4); error magnitudes in the ranges of 1 to 3.5 times the long-term mean are observed. The RCPs presented different performances over different areas suggesting that no one RCP is universally valid. Application of bias correction did not produce realistic improvement in performance. Largely, the RCPs underestimated rainfall over the study area suggesting that the projected rainfall cases under these RCPs could be seriously underestimated. However, the study found RCP8.5 with slightly better performance and is thus recommended. Due to the general weak performance of the RCPs, the study recommends re-evaluating the assumptions under the RCPs for different regions or attempt to improve them using data assimilation.