Cell identification and verification of QPF ensembles using shape analysis techniques

Summary This paper introduces a new verification technique designed for, but not limited to, quantitative precipitation forecasts. It is tested on, and examples are given for, an intercomparison of very short-period nowcasting schemes. One of these nowcasters is a Bayesian scheme that is used in an extensive ensemble formulation, and the verification scheme is uniquely capable of treating both the ensemble members and the mean forecast. The verification scheme uses Procrustes shape analysis methods that are well established in statistics but have not, to date, been applied to meteorological forecast assessment. The Procrustes methodology allows for a decomposition of the forecast error into any number of components such as location (displacement), shape, size, orientation and intensity. Each error component can be afforded a separate weighting such that a cost or value of the forecast can be calculated that accounts for different error types. For example, a forecaster who is concerned with the location of a storm would place greater emphasis on correct location in the forecast than other attributes. This ability to apply weights makes the system particularly suited to real-time verification applications where confidence in the performance of the forecast translates into improved dissemination to users. In addition, the decomposition of the error into parts enables diagnosis of the error sources that can lead to model adjustment and improvement.

[1]  B. Hambly Fractals, random shapes, and point fields , 1994 .

[2]  A. Seed A Dynamic and Spatial Scaling Approach to Advection Forecasting , 2001 .

[3]  Neill E. Bowler,et al.  Use of a stochastic precipitation nowcast scheme for fluvial flood forecasting and warning , 2005 .

[4]  Harold E. Brooks,et al.  Verification of Nowcasts from the WWRP Sydney 2000 Forecast Demonstration Project , 2004 .

[5]  Robert M. Rabin,et al.  Multiscale storm identification and forecast , 2003 .

[6]  Dipak K. Dey,et al.  Modeling shape distributions and inferences for assessing differences in shapes , 2005 .

[7]  D. Stephenson,et al.  A new intensity‐scale approach for the verification of spatial precipitation forecasts , 2004 .

[8]  D. Kendall MORPHOMETRIC TOOLS FOR LANDMARK DATA: GEOMETRY AND BIOLOGY , 1994 .

[9]  Athanasios C. Micheas,et al.  Complex elliptical distributions with application to shape analysis , 2006 .

[10]  J. McBride,et al.  Verification of precipitation in weather systems: determination of systematic errors , 2000 .

[11]  Arthur Witt,et al.  The Storm Cell Identification and Tracking Algorithm: An Enhanced WSR-88D Algorithm , 1998 .

[12]  Steven E. Koch,et al.  The use of a modified Ebert-McBride technique to evaluate mesoscale model QPF as a function of convective system morphology during IHOP 2002 , 2006 .

[13]  Ke Xu,et al.  A Kernel-Based Spatio-Temporal Dynamical Model for Nowcasting Weather Radar Reflectivities , 2005 .

[14]  K. Mardia,et al.  Statistical Shape Analysis , 1998 .

[15]  Neil I. Fox,et al.  A Bayesian Quantitative Precipitation Nowcast Scheme , 2005 .

[16]  B. Brown,et al.  Object-Based Verification of Precipitation Forecasts. Part I: Methodology and Application to Mesoscale Rain Areas , 2006 .