4.2 Article

Evaluation of Tools Used for Monitoring and Forecasting Flash Floods in the United States

期刊

WEATHER AND FORECASTING
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 158-173

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/WAF-D-10-05043.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA/Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research under NOAA-University of Oklahoma [NA17RJ1227]
  2. U.S. Department of Commerce
  3. National Severe Storms Laboratory's Director's Discretionary Research Funds
  4. National Weather Service's Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper evaluates, for the first time, flash-flood guidance (FFG) values and recently developed gridded FFG (GFFG) used by the National Weather Service (NWS) to monitor and predict imminent flash flooding, which is the leading storm-related cause of death in the United States. It is envisioned that results from this study will be used 1) to establish benchmark performance of existing operational flash-flood prediction tools and 2) to provide information to NWS forecasters that reveals how the existing tools can be readily optimized. Sources used to evaluate the products include official reports of flash floods from the NWS Storm Data database, discharge measurements on small basins available from the U.S. Geological Survey, and witness reports of flash flooding collected during the Severe Hazards Analysis and Verification Experiment. Results indicated that the operational guidance values, with no calibration, were marginally skillful, with the highest critical success index of 0.20 occurring with 3-h GFFG. The false-alarm rates fell and the skill improved to 0.34 when the rainfall was first spatially averaged within basins and then reached 50% of FFG for 1-h accumulation and exceeded 3-h FFG. Although the skill of the GFFG values was generally lower than that of their FFG counterparts, GFFG was capable of detecting the spatial variability of reported flash flooding better than FFG was for a case study in an urban setting.

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

4.2
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