| description abstract | he role of the human forecaster in improving upon the accuracy of numerical weather prediction is explored using multiyear verification of human-generated short-range precipitation forecasts and medium-range maximum temperature forecasts from the Weather Prediction Center (WPC). Results show that human-generated forecasts improve over raw deterministic model guidance. Over the past two decades, WPC human forecasters achieved a 20%?40% improvement over the North American Mesoscale (NAM) model and the Global Forecast System (GFS) for the 1 in. (25.4 mm) (24 h)?1 threshold for day 1 precipitation forecasts, with a smaller, but statistically significant, 5%?15% improvement over the deterministic ECMWF model. Medium-range maximum temperature forecasts also exhibit statistically significant improvement over GFS model output statistics (MOS), and the improvement has been increasing over the past 5 yr. The quality added by humans for forecasts of high-impact events varies by element and forecast projection, with generally large improvements when the forecaster makes changes ≥8°F (4.4°C) to MOS temperatures. Human improvement over guidance for extreme rainfall events [3 in. (76.2 mm) (24 h)?1] is largest in the short-range forecast. However, human-generated forecasts failed to outperform the most skillful downscaled, bias-corrected ensemble guidance for precipitation and maximum temperature available near the same time as the human-modified forecasts. Thus, as additional downscaled and bias-corrected sensible weather element guidance becomes operationally available, and with the support of near-real-time verification, forecaster training, and tools to guide forecaster interventions, a key test is whether forecasters can learn to make statistically significant improvements over the most skillful of this guidance. Such a test can inform to what degree, and just how quickly, the role of the forecaster changes. | |
