A Single-Station Approach to Model Output Statistics Temperature Forecast Error Assessment

Abstract

Abstract Error characteristics of model output statistics (MOS) temperature forecasts are calculated for over 200 locations around the continental United States. The forecasts are verified on a station-by-station basis for the year 2001. Error measures used include mean algebraic error (bias), mean absolute error (MAE), relative frequency of occurrence of bias and MAE values, and the daily forecast errors themselves. A case study examining the spatial and temporal evolution of MOS errors is also presented. The error characteristics presented here, together with the case study, provide a more detailed evaluation of MOS performance than may be obtained from regionally averaged error statistics. Knowledge concerning locations where MOS forecasts have large errors or biases and why those errors or biases exist is of great value to operational forecasters. Not only does such knowledge help improve their forecasts, but forecaster performance is often compared to MOS predictions. Examples of biases in MOS forecast errors are illustrated by examining two stations in detail. Significant warm and cold biases are found in maximum temperature forecasts for Los Angeles, California (LAX), and minimum temperature forecasts for Las Vegas, Nevada (LAS), respectively. MAE values for MOS temperature predictions calculated in this study suggest that coastal stations tend to have lower MAE values and lower variability in their errors, while forecasts with high MAE and error variability are more frequent in the interior of the United States. Therefore, MAE values from samples of MOS forecasts are directly proportional to the variance in the observations. Additionally, it is found that daily maximum temperature forecast errors exhibit less variability during the summer months than they do over the rest of the year, and that forecasts for any one station rarely follow a consistent temporal pattern for more than two or three consecutive days. These inconsistent error patterns indicate that forecasting temperatures based on recent trends in MOS forecast errors at an individual station is usually not a good strategy. As shown in earlier studies by other authors and demonstrated again here, MOS temperature forecasts are often inaccurate in the vicinity of strong temperature gradients, for locations affected by shallow cold air masses, or for stations in regions of anomalously warm or cold temperatures. Finally, a case study is presented examining the spatial and temporal distributions of MOS temperature forecast errors across the United States from 13 to 15 February 2001. During this period, two surges of cold arctic air moved south into the United States. In contrast to error trends at individual stations, nationwide spatial and temporal patterns of MOS forecast errors could prove to be a powerful forecasting tool. Nationwide plots of errors in MOS forecasts would be useful if made available in real time to operational forecasters.