A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts

Three different potential predictors of forecast error - ensemble spread, mean errors of recent forecasts and the local gradient of the predicted field - were compared. The comparison was performed using the forecasts of 500hPa geopotential and 2-m temperature of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: M. S. Roulston
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2005-01-01
Series:Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics
Online Access:http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/12/1021/2005/npg-12-1021-2005.pdf
id doaj-220c6fd6ca9649da8d73bb91381bd7e3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-220c6fd6ca9649da8d73bb91381bd7e32020-11-24T21:06:43ZengCopernicus PublicationsNonlinear Processes in Geophysics1023-58091607-79462005-01-0112610211032A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecastsM. S. RoulstonThree different potential predictors of forecast error - ensemble spread, mean errors of recent forecasts and the local gradient of the predicted field - were compared. The comparison was performed using the forecasts of 500hPa geopotential and 2-m temperature of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system at lead times of 96, 168 and 240h, over North America for each day in 2004. Ensemble spread was found to be the best overall predictor of absolute forecast error. The mean absolute error of recent forecasts (past 30 days) was found to contain some information, however, and the local gradient of the geopotential also provided some information about the error in the prediction of this variable. <P> Ensemble spatial error covariance and the mean spatial error covariance of recent forecasts (past 30 days) were also compared as predictors of actual spatial error covariance. Both were found to provide some predictive information, although the ensemble error covariance was found to provide substantially more information for both variables tested at all three lead times. <P> The results of the study suggest that past errors and local field gradients should not be ignored as predictors of forecast error as they can be computed cheaply from single forecasts when an ensemble is not available. Alternatively, in some cases, they could be used to supplement the information about forecast error provided by an ensemble to provide a better prediction of forecast skill.http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/12/1021/2005/npg-12-1021-2005.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author M. S. Roulston
spellingShingle M. S. Roulston
A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts
Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics
author_facet M. S. Roulston
author_sort M. S. Roulston
title A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts
title_short A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts
title_full A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts
title_fullStr A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts
title_sort comparison of predictors of the error of weather forecasts
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics
issn 1023-5809
1607-7946
publishDate 2005-01-01
description Three different potential predictors of forecast error - ensemble spread, mean errors of recent forecasts and the local gradient of the predicted field - were compared. The comparison was performed using the forecasts of 500hPa geopotential and 2-m temperature of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system at lead times of 96, 168 and 240h, over North America for each day in 2004. Ensemble spread was found to be the best overall predictor of absolute forecast error. The mean absolute error of recent forecasts (past 30 days) was found to contain some information, however, and the local gradient of the geopotential also provided some information about the error in the prediction of this variable. <P> Ensemble spatial error covariance and the mean spatial error covariance of recent forecasts (past 30 days) were also compared as predictors of actual spatial error covariance. Both were found to provide some predictive information, although the ensemble error covariance was found to provide substantially more information for both variables tested at all three lead times. <P> The results of the study suggest that past errors and local field gradients should not be ignored as predictors of forecast error as they can be computed cheaply from single forecasts when an ensemble is not available. Alternatively, in some cases, they could be used to supplement the information about forecast error provided by an ensemble to provide a better prediction of forecast skill.
url http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/12/1021/2005/npg-12-1021-2005.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT msroulston acomparisonofpredictorsoftheerrorofweatherforecasts
AT msroulston comparisonofpredictorsoftheerrorofweatherforecasts
_version_ 1716764972831211520