Validation Schemes for Tropical Cyclone Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts: Evaluation of Operational Models for U.S. Landfalling Cases

Abstract

A scheme for validating quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs) for landfalling tropical cyclones is developed and presented here. This scheme takes advantage of the unique characteristics of tropical cyclone rainfall by evaluating the skill of rainfall forecasts in three attributes: the ability to match observed rainfall patterns, the ability to match the mean value and volume of observed rainfall, and the ability to produce the extreme amounts often observed in tropical cyclones. For some of these characteristics, track-relative analyses are employed that help to reduce the impact of model track forecast error on QPF skill. These characteristics are evaluated for storm-total rainfall forecasts of all U.S. landfalling tropical cyclones from 1998 to 2004 by the NCEP operational models, that is, the Global Forecast System (GFS), the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) hurricane model, and the North American Mesoscale (NAM) model, as well as the benchmark Rainfall Climatology and Persistence (R-CLIPER) model. Compared to R-CLIPER, all of the numerical models showed comparable or greater skill for all of the attributes. The GFS performed the best of all of the models for each of the categories. The GFDL had a bias of predicting too much heavy rain, especially in the core of the tropical cyclones, while the NAM predicted too little of the heavy rain. The R-CLIPER performed well near the track of the core, but it predicted much too little rain at large distances from the track. Whereas a primary determinant of tropical cyclone QPF errors is track forecast error, possible physical causes of track-relative differences lie with the physical parameterizations and initialization schemes for each of the models. This validation scheme can be used to identify model limitations and biases and guide future efforts toward model development and improvement.