4.5 Article

Forecasting Reference Evapotranspiration Using Retrospective Forecast Analogs in the Southeastern United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 1874-1892

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JHM-D-12-037.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA's Climate Program Office SARP-Water program Project [NA10OAR4310171]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) is needed for determining agricultural water demand and reservoir losses and driving hydrologic simulation models. This study was conducted to explore the application of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction's (NCEP's) Global Forecast System (GFS) retrospective forecast (reforecast) dataset combined with the NCEP-U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Reanalysis 2 dataset (R2) to forecast ET0 in the southeastern United States using a forecast analog approach. Seven approaches of estimating ET0 using the Penman-Monteith (PM) and Thornthwaite equations were evaluated by substitution of climatological mean values of variables or by bias correcting variables including solar radiation, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature using the R2 dataset. The skill of both terciles and extremes (10th and 90th percentiles) were evaluated. Overall, for the ET0 forecast approaches that combined R2 solar radiation with temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed from GFS, the reforecasts produced higher skill than methods that estimated parameters using GFS the reforecasts data only. The primary increase in skill was due to the use of relative humidity from the GFS reforecasts and long-term climatological mean values of solar radiation from the R-2 dataset, indicating its importance in forecasting ET0 in the region. While the five categorical forecasts were skillful, the skill of upper and lower tercile forecasts was greater than that of lower and upper extreme forecasts and middle tercile forecasts. Most of the forecasts were skillful in the first 5 lead days.

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

4.5
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