Upload
arnaud
View
39
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Verification of a downscaling approach for large area flood prediction over the Ohio River Basin. N. Voisin, J.C. Schaake and D.P. Lettenmaier University of Washington, Seattle, WA AMS Annual Meeting, Phoenix AZ 11-15 Jan 2009. Objective. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Verification of a Verification of a downscaling approach for downscaling approach for large area flood large area flood prediction over the Ohio prediction over the Ohio River BasinRiver Basin
N. Voisin, J.C. Schaake and D.P. LettenmaierUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA
AMS Annual Meeting, Phoenix AZ 11-15 Jan 2009
ObjectiveObjective
Predict streamflow and associated hydrologic variables, soil moisture, runoff, evaporation and snow water equivalent :◦ Applicable to large river basins, eventually
globally: spatial consistency, ungauged basins
◦ Using a fully distributed hydrology model◦ Using ensemble weather forecasts◦ Lead time up to 2 weeks
ObjectiveObjective
Forecast schematic
Hydrologic fcst (stream flow, soil moist., SWE, runoff )
Initial State
ECMWF EPS 50 ensemble members
2002-2008
BCSD with forecast calibration, 0.25 degree
Daily ERA-40 surrogate for near real time analysis
fields1979-2002
Atmospheric inputs VIC Hydrology
Model
Several years back Medium range forecasts (2 weeks)
Daily ECMWF
Analysis 2002-2008
BCSD to 0.25 degree
Hydrologic model spinup 0.25 degree
BCSD = Bias correction and statistical downscaling
Flow fcst calibration
ObjectiveObjective
Compare different downscaling techniques◦ Applicable at a global scale◦ For precipitation forecast◦ Improve or conserve the skill
OutlineOutline
1. Existing downscaling methods2. Analog technique and various
variations of it3. Forecast Verification at different
spatial and temporal scales:◦ Mean errors◦ Predictability, reliability◦ Spatial rank structure
1. Downscaling techniques
MOS (Glahn and Lowry 1972, Clark and Hay 2004)
Bias correction followed by spatial and temporal resampling for seasonal forecast (Wood et al. 2002 and 2004)
National Weather Service (NWS) Ensemble Precipitation Processor (EPP) ( Schaake et al. 2007)
Analog techniques ( Hamill and Whitaker 2006)
2. Analog technique
FCST day n1 degree
Retrosp. FCST dataset, +/- 45 days around day n1 degree resolution
OBS D DAYOBS D DAY
OBS D DAYOBS D DAY
OBS D DAYOBS D DAY
OBS D DAYOBS D DAY
OBS D DAYOBS D DAY
OBS D DAYOBS D DAY
OBSn
+/- 45 daysYear-1
FCST D DAYFCST D DAY
FCST D DAYFCST D DAY
FCST D DAYFCST D DAY
FCST D DAYFCST D DAY
FCST D DAYFCST D DAY
FCST D DAYFCST D DAY
FCST n
+/- 45 daysYear-1
Corresp. Observation (TRMM)0.25 degree resolution
DownscaledFCSTday n
0.25 degree
3 methods for choosing the analog:-Closest in terms of RMSD, for each ensemble-15 closest in terms of RMSD, to the ensemble mean fcst-Closest in terms of rank, for each ensemble
( adapted from Hamill and Whitaker 2006)
5 degree
5 de
gree
2. Analog technique
Spatial domain for the analogChoose an analog for the entire domain (Maurer
et al. 2008): entire US, or the globe◦ Ensure spatial rank structure◦ Need a long dataset of retrofcst-
observation.
Moving spatial window (Hamill and Whitaker 2006):
◦ 5x5 degree window (25 grid points)
◦ Choose analog based on ΣRMSD, or Σ(Δrank)◦ Date of analog is assigned to the center grid
point
Ens. Mean Fcst, 20050713
4 closest analogs in the retrospective forecast dataset
Corresponding 0.25 degree TRMM for the analogs, Downscaled ensemble forecast members
Downscaled ens. mean forecast
TRMM (obs)
( adapted from Hamill and Whitaker 2006)
Fcst 200507132. Analog technique
3. Forecast VerificationEvaluate the different analog techniques,
simple interpolation, and basic resampling downscaling
Verification conditioned on the forecast:◦ Mean errors◦ Reliability ◦ Predictability
Verification conditioned on the observation◦ Discrimination (ROC)
For lead times 1,5 and 10 daysat 0.25 and 1 degree spatial resolution, Daily and 5 day accumulation
Mean ErrorsMean Errors
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
Reliability of ens. spreadReliability of ens. spread
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Improved reliability
PredictabilityPredictability
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
DiscriminationDiscrimination
ROC diagram0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
False alarm rateP
rob.
of
dete
ctio
nO
r hit
rate
Spatial structureSpatial structure2005, Jul 13th
75th Percentilebasin daily acc., 2002-2006 TRMM
ConclusionsConclusionsThe analog technique with a moving spatial
window improves:
◦ reliability (considerably), mean errors (slightly)Status quo on:
◦ discrimination,predictabilityResults consistent at different spatial and
temporal scales ( not shown, 1 degree and 5 day acc.)
More realistic precipitation patterns.Spatial rank structure?
◦ An analog technique with no moving spatial window would ensure it. Issue with short observed dataset.
◦ Try the NWS EPP.
Climatologies of forecastsClimatologies of forecasts
Ohio Basin2002-2006
Mean ErrorsMean Errors
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
Mean ErrorsMean Errors
1 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
Mean ErrorsMean Errors
0.25 degree5 day acc.Ohio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Upper tercile: improved bias
ReliabilityReliability
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
- Improved reliability- poor reliability for medium tercile- poor reliability lead time 10
ReliabilityReliability
1 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
- Improved reliability- No reliability for medium tercile- No reliability lead time 10
ReliabilityReliability
0.25 degree5 day accOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
- Improved reliability-No reliability for medium tercile- Some reliability day 6-10
SharpnessSharpness
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Improved sharpnessfor lower tercile
SharpnessSharpness
1 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Improved sharpnessfor lower tercile
SharpnessSharpness
0.25 degree5 day accOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
No improvement
PredictabilityPredictability
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
PredictabilityPredictability
1 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
PredictabilityPredictability
0.25 degree5 day accOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Status quo or no improvement
Reliability of ens. spreadReliability of ens. spread
0.25 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Reliability of ens. spreadReliability of ens. spread
1 degreeOhio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs
Reliability of ens. spreadReliability of ens. spread
0.25 degree5 day acc.Ohio Basin2002-2006TRMM as obs