Point and areal validation of forecast precipitation fields

Yates, Eddy; Anquetin, Sandrine; Ducrocq, Véronique; Creutin, Jean‐Dominique; Ricard, Didier; Chancibault, Katia

doi:10.1017/s1350482705001921

Cited by 37 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The multi-scale approach, as proposed by Yates et al (2005), scans space scales with the correlation coefficient R 2 (calculated as defined previously). The domain of study, D T , is divided according to the natural drainage network.…”

Section: Areal Validation Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method has already been fitted and used for the Cévennes-Vivarais region (e.g. Lebel et al, 1987;Yates et al, 2005). The kriging method aims first at equalling to zero the mean estimator error and second at minimizing the mean estimation error (σ 2 ).…”

Section: Presentation Of the 8 And 9 September 200flashflood Eventmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the recent work of Yates et al (2005) and due to the above conclusions on the point validation step, only the MOLOCH and MesoNH simulated rainfalls are evaluated in this section. These two simulated precipitation fields are the more accurate as regard to the continuous and threshold statistics.…”

Section: Areal Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4. The classical point validation is based on the usual statistics and scores from contingency tables established for given thresholds, whereas the areal validation is based on the work of Yates et al (2005) and proposes to scan space scales in order to identify the relevant space scale for hydrological purposes. The discussion (Sect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The 8 and 9 September 2002 flash flood event in France: a model intercomparison

Anquetin¹,

Yates²,

Ducrocq

et al. 2005

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Within the framework of the European Interreg IIIb Medocc program, the HYDROPTIMET project aims at the optimization of the hydrometeorological forecasting tools in the context of intense precipitation within complex topography. Therefore, some meteorological forecast models and hydrological models were tested on four Mediterranean flash-flood events. One of them occured in France where the South-eastern ridge of the French "Massif Central", the Gard region, experienced a devastating flood on 8 and 9 September 2002. 24 people were killed during this event and the economic damage was estimated at 1.2 billion euros.To built the next generation of the hydrometeorological forecasting chain that will be able to capture such localized and fast events and the resulting discharges, the forecasted rain fields might be improved to be relevant for hydrological purposes.In such context, this paper presents the results of the evaluation methodology proposed by Yates et al. (2005) that highlights the relevant hydrological scales of a simulated rain field. Simulated rain fields of 7 meteorological model runs concerning with the French event are therefore evaluated for different accumulation times. The dynamics of these models are either based on non-hydrostatic or hydrostatic equation systems. Moreover, these models were run under different configurations (resolution, initial conditions). The classical score analysis and the areal evaluation of the simulated rain fields are then performed in order to put forward the main simulation characteristics that improve the quantitative precipitation forecast.Correspondence to: S. Anquetin (sandrine.anquetin@hmg.inpg.fr)The conclusions draw some recommendations on the value of the quantitative precipitation forecasts and way to use it for quantitative discharge forecasts within mountainous areas.

show abstract

Section: Areal Validation Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Presentation Of the 8 And 9 September 200flashflood Eventmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Areal Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The 8 and 9 September 2002 flash flood event in France: a model intercomparison

Anquetin¹,

Yates²,

Ducrocq

et al. 2005

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The decision model is, 'A useful forecast resembles the observations when averaged to coarser scales. ' Yates et al (2006) used both continuous and categorical scores to verify upscaled forecasts, while Zepeda-Arce et al (2000) and Weygandt et al (2004) verified the predicted occurrence of rain using categorical scores. In this case, the rule for computing neighbourhood events is as follows:…”

Section: Upscalingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuzzy verification of high‐resolution gridded forecasts: a review and proposed framework

Ebert

2008

Meteorological Applications

386

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-resolution forecasts from numerical models can look quite realistic and provide the forecaster with very useful guidance. However, when verified using traditional metrics they often score quite poorly because of the difficulty of predicting an exact match to the observations at high resolution. 'Fuzzy' verification rewards closeness by relaxing the requirement for exact matches between forecasts and observations. The key to the fuzzy approach is the use of a spatial window or neighbourhood surrounding the forecast and/or observed points. The treatment of the data within the window may include averaging (upscaling), thresholding, or generation of a PDF, depending on the particular fuzzy method used and its implicit decision model concerning what makes a good forecast. The size of the neighbourhood can be varied to provide verification results at multiple scales, thus allowing the user to determine at which scales the forecast has useful skill.This article describes a framework for fuzzy verification that incorporates several fuzzy verification methods. It is demonstrated on a high-resolution precipitation forecast from the United Kingdom (UK) and the results interpreted to show the additional information that can be gleaned from this approach.

show abstract

References

2011

Forecast Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Point and areal validation of forecast precipitation fields

Cited by 37 publications

References 33 publications

The 8 and 9 September 2002 flash flood event in France: a model intercomparison

The 8 and 9 September 2002 flash flood event in France: a model intercomparison

Fuzzy verification of high‐resolution gridded forecasts: a review and proposed framework

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About