4.4 Article

Forecast Comparison Based on Random Walks

Journal

MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
Volume 144, Issue 2, Pages 615-626

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/MWR-D-15-0218.1

Keywords

Forecasting; Climate prediction; Forecast verification; skill; Hindcasts; Seasonal forecasting; Statistical forecasting

Funding

  1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Climate Test Bed program [NA10OAR4310264]
  2. National Science Foundation [ATM0332910, ATM0830062, ATM0830068]
  3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNG04GG46G, NNX09AN50G]
  4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NA04OAR4310034, NA09OAR4310058, NA05OAR4311004, NA10OAR4310210, NA10OAR4310249, NA12OAR4310091]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a procedure based on random walks for testing and visualizing differences in forecast skill. The test is formally equivalent to the sign test and has numerous attractive statistical properties, including being independent of distributional assumptions about the forecast errors and being applicable to a wide class of measures of forecast quality. While the test is best suited for independent outcomes, it provides useful information even when serial correlation exists. The procedure is applied to deterministic ENSO forecasts from the North American Multimodel Ensemble and yields several revealing results, including 1) the Canadian models are the most skillful dynamical models, even when compared to the multimodel mean; 2) a regression model is significantly more skillful than all but one dynamical model (to which it is equally skillful); and 3) in some cases, there are significant differences in skill between ensemble members from the same model, potentially reflecting differences in initialization. The method requires only a few years of data to detect significant differences in the skill of models with known errors/biases, suggesting that the procedure may be useful for model development and monitoring of real-time forecasts.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available