Statistical postprocessing of dual‐resolution ensemble precipitation forecasts across Europe

This article verifies 1‐ to 10‐day probabilistic precipitation forecasts in June, July, and August 2016 from an experimental dual‐resolution version of the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ensemble prediction system. Five different ensemble combinations were tested. These comprised subsets of the 51‐member operational ECMWF configuration (18‐km grid) and an experimental 201‐member lower‐resolution configuration (29‐km grid). The motivation of the dual‐resolution ensemble forecast is to trade some higher‐resolution members against a larger number of lower‐resolution members to increase the overall ensemble size at constant overall computational cost. Forecasts were verified against precipitation analyses over Europe. Given substantial systematic errors of precipitation forecasts, both raw and post‐processed dual‐resolution ensemble predictions were evaluated. Postprocessing consisted of quantile mapping, tested with and without an objective weighting of sorted ensemble members using closest‐member histogram statistics. Reforecasts and retrospective precipitation analyses were used as training data. However, the reforecast ensemble size and the dual‐resolution ensemble sizes differed, which motivated the development of a novel approach for developing closest‐member histogram statistics for the larger real‐time ensemble from the smaller reforecast ensemble. Results show that the most skilful combination was generally 40 ensemble members from the operational configuration and 40 from the lower‐resolution ensemble, evaluated by continuous ranked probability scores, Brier Scores at various thresholds, and reliability diagrams. This conclusion was generally valid with and without postprocessing. Reliability was improved by postprocessing, though the improvement of the resolution component is not so clear. The advantages of many members at higher resolution was diminished at longer lead times; predictability of smaller scale features was lost, and there is more benefit in increasing the ensemble size to reduce sampling uncertainty. This article evaluates only one aspect in deciding on any future ensemble configuration, and other skill‐related considerations need to be taken into account.

[1]  G. Brier.  VERIFICATION OF FORECASTS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY , 1950 .

[2]  D. Shepard.  A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data , 1968, ACM National Conference.

[3]  A. H. Murphy.  A New Vector Partition of the Probability Score , 1973 .

[4]  R. L. Winkler,et al.  Scoring Rules for Continuous Probability Distributions , 1976 .

[5]  William D. Philpot,et al.  Small-Scale Climate Maps: A Sensitivity Analysis of Some Common Assumptions Associated with Grid-Point Interpolation and Contouring , 1985 .

[6]  F. Diebold,et al.  Comparing Predictive Accuracy , 1994, Business Cycles.

[7]  Joseph P. Romano,et al.  The stationary bootstrap , 1994 .

[8]  T. Hamill,et al.  Evaluation of Eta-RSM Ensemble Probabilistic Precipitation Forecasts , 1998 .

[9]  Roberto Buizza,et al.  Impact of Ensemble Size on Ensemble Prediction , 1998 .

[10]  David S. Richardson,et al.  Measures of skill and value of ensemble prediction systems, their interrelationship and the effect of ensemble size , 2001 .

[11]  Leonard A. Smith,et al.  Combining dynamical and statistical ensembles , 2003 .

[12]  David J. Stensrud,et al.  Short-Range Ensemble Predictions of 2-m Temperature and Dewpoint Temperature over New England , 2003 .

[13]  Thomas M. Hamill,et al.  Ensemble Reforecasting: Improving Medium-Range Forecast Skill Using Retrospective Forecasts , 2004 .

[14]  J. Whitaker,et al.  REFORECASTS An Important Dataset for Improving Weather Predictions , 2006 .

[15]  V. Fortin,et al.  Probabilistic forecasting from ensemble prediction systems: Improving upon the best‐member method by using a different weight and dressing kernel for each member , 2006 .

[16]  A. Raftery,et al.  Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness , 2007 .

[17]  Thomas M. Hamill,et al.  Comparison of Ensemble-MOS Methods Using GFS Reforecasts , 2007 .

[18]  David J. Stensrud,et al.  Bias-Corrected Short-Range Ensemble Forecasts of Near-Surface Variables during the 2005/06 Cool Season , 2007 .

[19]  Thomas M. Hamill,et al.  Ensemble Calibration of 500-hPa Geopotential Height and 850-hPa and 2-m Temperatures Using Reforecasts , 2007 .

[20]  Renate Hagedorn,et al.  Probabilistic Forecast Calibration Using ECMWF and GFS Ensemble Reforecasts. Part II: Precipitation , 2008 .

[21]  Renate Hagedorn,et al.  Probabilistic Forecast Calibration Using ECMWF and GFS Ensemble Reforecasts. Part I: Two-Meter Temperatures , 2008 .

[22]  Peter J. Webster,et al.  A 1–10-Day Ensemble Forecasting Scheme for the Major River Basins of Bangladesh: Forecasting Severe Floods of 2003–07* , 2010 .

[23]  Roberto Buizza,et al.  Horizontal resolution impact on short‐ and long‐range forecast error , 2010 .

[24]  Thomas M. Hamill,et al.  Verification of TIGGE Multimodel and ECMWF Reforecast-Calibrated Probabilistic Precipitation Forecasts over the Contiguous United States* , 2012 .

[25]  Panxing Wang,et al.  An effective configuration of ensemble size and horizontal resolution for the NCEP GEFS , 2012, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.

[26]  J. Whitaker,et al.  NOAA's Second-Generation Global Medium-Range Ensemble Reforecast Dataset , 2013 .

[27]  Z. B. Bouallègue.  Calibrated Short-Range Ensemble Precipitation Forecasts Using Extended Logistic Regression with Interaction Terms , 2013 .

[28]  Thielen Del Pozo Jutta,et al.  EFAS-Meteo: A European daily high-resolution gridded meteorological data set for 1990 - 2011 , 2013 .

[29]  R. Buizza,et al.  The forecast skill horizon , 2015 .

[30]  S'andor Baran,et al.  Censored and shifted gamma distribution based EMOS model for probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasting , 2015, 1512.04068.

[31]  B. Hurk,et al.  Improving predictions and management of hydrological extremes through climate services , 2016 .

[32]  Matthew R. Peroutka,et al.  The U.S. National Blend of Models for Statistical Postprocessing of Probability of Precipitation and Deterministic Precipitation Amount , 2017 .

[33]  Lili Lei,et al.  Evaluating the trade‐offs between ensemble size and ensemble resolution in an ensemble‐variational data assimilation system , 2017 .

[34]  S. Baran,et al.  Similarity‐based semilocal estimation of post‐processing models , 2015, 1509.03521.

[35]  R. Hagedorn.  Using the ECMWF reforecast dataset to calibrate EPS forecasts , 2017 .

[36]  M. Leutbecher.  Ensemble size: How suboptimal is less than infinity? , 2018, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

[37]  Thomas M. Hamill,et al.  Probabilistic Precipitation Forecast Postprocessing Using Quantile Mapping and Rank-Weighted Best-Member Dressing , 2018, Monthly Weather Review.

[38]  Roberto Buizza,et al.  Ensemble Forecasting and the Need for Calibration , 2018 .

[39]  Thomas M. Hamill.  Practical Aspects of Statistical Postprocessing , 2018 .

[40]  Martin Leutbecher,et al.  Statistical post‐processing of dual‐resolution ensemble forecasts , 2018, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

[41]  T. Tietenberg,et al.  Evaluating Trade-Offs , 2019, Natural Resource Economics: The Essentials.

[42]  Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences , 2019 .