Bias Correction and Multiensemble in the NAEFS Context or How to Get a “Free Calibration” through a Multiensemble ApproachSource: Monthly Weather Review:;2010:;volume( 138 ):;issue: 011::page 4268DOI: 10.1175/2010MWR3349.1Publisher: American Meteorological Society
Abstract: Previous studies have shown that the raw combination (i.e., the combination of the direct output model without any postprocessing procedure) of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) ensemble prediction systems (EPS) improves the probabilistic forecast both in terms of reliability and resolution. This combination palliates the lack of reliability of the NCEP EPS because of the too small dispersion of the predicted ensemble and the lack of probabilistic resolution of the MSC EPS. Such a multiensemble, called the North American Ensemble Forecast System (NAEFS), especially shows bias reductions and dispersion improvements that could only come from the combination of different forecast errors. It is then legitimate to wonder whether these improvements in terms of biases and dispersions, and by extension the skill improvements, are only due to the balancing between opposite model errors. In the NAEFS framework, bias corrections ?on the fly,? where the bias is updated over time, are applied to the operational EPSs. Each model of the EPS components (NCEP/MSC) is individually bias corrected against its own analysis with the same process. The bias correction improves the reliability of each EPS component. It also slightly improves the accuracy of the predicted ensembles and thus the probabilistic resolution of the forecasts. Once the EPSs are combined, the improvements due to the bias correction are not so obvious, tending to show that the success of the multiensemble method does not only come from the cancellation of different biases. This study also shows that the combination of the raw EPS components (NAEFS) is generally better than either the bias corrected NCEP or MSC ensembles.
|
Collections
Show full item record
contributor author | Candille, Guillem | |
contributor author | Beauregard, Stéphane | |
contributor author | Gagnon, Normand | |
date accessioned | 2017-06-09T16:38:04Z | |
date available | 2017-06-09T16:38:04Z | |
date copyright | 2010/11/01 | |
date issued | 2010 | |
identifier issn | 0027-0644 | |
identifier other | ams-71312.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4213191 | |
description abstract | Previous studies have shown that the raw combination (i.e., the combination of the direct output model without any postprocessing procedure) of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) ensemble prediction systems (EPS) improves the probabilistic forecast both in terms of reliability and resolution. This combination palliates the lack of reliability of the NCEP EPS because of the too small dispersion of the predicted ensemble and the lack of probabilistic resolution of the MSC EPS. Such a multiensemble, called the North American Ensemble Forecast System (NAEFS), especially shows bias reductions and dispersion improvements that could only come from the combination of different forecast errors. It is then legitimate to wonder whether these improvements in terms of biases and dispersions, and by extension the skill improvements, are only due to the balancing between opposite model errors. In the NAEFS framework, bias corrections ?on the fly,? where the bias is updated over time, are applied to the operational EPSs. Each model of the EPS components (NCEP/MSC) is individually bias corrected against its own analysis with the same process. The bias correction improves the reliability of each EPS component. It also slightly improves the accuracy of the predicted ensembles and thus the probabilistic resolution of the forecasts. Once the EPSs are combined, the improvements due to the bias correction are not so obvious, tending to show that the success of the multiensemble method does not only come from the cancellation of different biases. This study also shows that the combination of the raw EPS components (NAEFS) is generally better than either the bias corrected NCEP or MSC ensembles. | |
publisher | American Meteorological Society | |
title | Bias Correction and Multiensemble in the NAEFS Context or How to Get a “Free Calibration” through a Multiensemble Approach | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 138 | |
journal issue | 11 | |
journal title | Monthly Weather Review | |
identifier doi | 10.1175/2010MWR3349.1 | |
journal fristpage | 4268 | |
journal lastpage | 4281 | |
tree | Monthly Weather Review:;2010:;volume( 138 ):;issue: 011 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |