4.2 Article

Systematic Error Analysis and Calibration of 2-m Temperature for the NCEP GEFS Reforecast of the Subseasonal Experiment (SubX) Project

Journal

WEATHER AND FORECASTING
Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 361-376

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/WAF-D-18-0100.1

Keywords

Ensembles; Forecast verification; skill; Hindcasts

Funding

  1. NWS OSTI
  2. NOAA's Climate Program Office (CPO) Modeling, Analysis, Predictions, and Projections (MAPP) program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The National Centers for Environmental Prediction have generated an 18-yr (1999-2016) subseasonal (weeks 3 and 4) reforecast to support the Climate Prediction Center's operational mission. To create this reforecast, the subseasonal experiment version of the GEFS was run every Wednesday, initialized at 0000 UTC with 11 members. The Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) and Global Data Assimilation System (GDAS) served as the initial analyses for 1999-2010 and 2011-16, respectively. The analysis of 2-m temperature error demonstrates that the model has a strong warm bias over the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and North America (NA) during the warm season. During the boreal winter, the 2-m temperature errors over NA exhibit large interannual and intraseasonal variability. For NA and the NH, weeks 3 and 4 errors are mostly saturated, with initial conditions having a negligible impact. Week 2 errors (day 11) are similar to 88.6% and 86.6% of their saturated levels, respectively. The 1999-2015 reforecast biases were used to calibrate the 2-m temperature forecasts in 2016, which reduces (increases) the systematic error (forecast skill) for NA, the NH, the Southern Hemisphere, and the tropics, with a maximum benefit for NA during the warm season. Overall, analysis adjustment for the CFSR period makes bias characteristics more consistent with the GDAS period over the NH and tropics and substantially improves the corresponding forecast skill levels. The calibration of the forecast using week 2 bias provides similar skill to using weeks 3 and 4 bias, promising the feasibility of using week 2 bias to calibrate the weeks 3 and 4 forecast. Our results also demonstrate that 10-yr reforecasts are an optimal training period. This is particularly beneficial considering limited computing resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available