4.7 Article

Ensemble Streamflow Prediction: Climate signal weighting methods vs. Climate Forecast System Reanalysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 442, 期 -, 页码 105-116

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.003

关键词

Ensemble Streamflow Prediction; Climate signal; PCA; CFSR; Post-processing

资金

  1. NOAA-CPPA [NA07OAR4310203]
  2. NOAA-CSTAR [NA11NWS4680002]
  3. NOAAMAPP [NA11OAR 4310140]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ensemble Streamflow Prediction (ESP) provides the means for statistical post-processing of forecasts and estimating the inherent uncertainties. In addition, large scale climate variables provide valuable information for hydrologic predictions. In this study we develop methods to assign weights to ESP ensemble members according to climate signals which are selected based on the spearman's rank correlation coefficients. Analysis was performed over the snow dominated East River basin to improve the spring streamflow volumetric forecast. Principle Component Analysis (PCA) was found to increase the accuracy of the weighting scheme considerably. We compare five parametric and nonparametric weighting methods including Fuzzy C-Means clustering, Formal Likelihood, Informal Likelihood and two variants of K-Nearest Neighbors approaches. The methods are found to be simple and efficient while the results seem promising. The predictions, based on simple average or the median of the ensemble members, combined with the weighted ensemble forecasts provide improved estimates of probable streamflow ranges and the uncertainty bounds. Improvement in the weighting approach was obtained by selecting the climate signals, choosing the right number of principle components and considering several weighting approaches. As an alternative approach to ESP, an additional climate dataset, the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) provided via the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) in its most recent reanalysis project was tested. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据