| description abstract | AbstractThe use of quantitative precipitation forecast (QPF) in hydrologic forecasting is commonplace, but QPF is subject to considerable error. When QPF is included as a model forcing in the hydrological forecast process, significant error propagates through the hydrologic predictions. Two questions arise: 1) are the resulting observed hydrologic forecast errors sufficiently large to suggest the use of zero QPF in the forecast process, and 2) if the use of nonzero QPF is indicated, how many periods (hours) of QPF (1, 6, 12, ?, 72 h) should be used? Also, do forecast conditions exist under which the use of QPF should be different? This study presents results from two real-time hydrologic forecast experiments, focused on the NOAA/NWS Ohio River Forecast Center (OHRFC). The experiments rely on forecasts from subbasins at 39 forecast point locations, ranging in drainage area, geographic location within the Ohio River Valley, and watershed response time. Results from an experiment, spanning all flow ranges, for the 10 August 2007?31 August 2009 period, show that nonzero QPF produces smaller hydrologic forecast error than zero QPF. A second experiment, 23 January 2009?15 September 2010, suggests that QPF should be limited to 6?12-h duration for flood forecasts. Beyond 12 h, hydrologic forecast error increases substantially across all forecast ranges, but errors are much larger for flood forecasts. Increased durations of QPF produce smaller forecast error than shorter QPF durations only for nonflood forecasts. Experimental results are shown to be consistent with NWS April 2001?October 2016 forecast verification statistics for the OHRFC. | |
