Abstract
The novelty of this study is to evaluate the univariate and the combined effects of including both precipitation and temperature forecasts in the preprocessing together with the postprocessing of streamflow for forecasting of floods as well as all streamflow values for a large sample of catchments. A hydrometeorological forecasting chain in an operational flood forecasting setting with 119 Norwegian catchments was used. This study evaluates the added value of pre- and postprocessing methods for ensemble forecasts in a hydrometeorological forecasting chain in an operational flood forecasting setting with 119 Norwegian catchments. Two years of ECMWF ensemble forecasts of temperature (T) and precipitation (P) with a lead-time up to 9 days were used to force the operational hydrological HBV model to establish streamflow forecasts. Two approaches to preprocess the temperature and precipitation forecasts were tested. 1) An existing approach applied to the gridded forecasts using quantile mapping for temperature and a Bernoulli-gamma distribution for precipitation. 2) Bayesian model averaging (BMA) applied to catchment average values of temperature and precipitation. BMA was also used for postprocessing catchment streamflow forecasts. Ensemble forecasts of streamflow were generated for a total of fourteen schemes based on combinations of raw, preprocessed, and postprocessed forecasts in the hydrometeorological forecasting chain. The aim of this study is to assess which pre- and postprocessing approaches should be used to improve streamflow and flood forecasts and look for regional or seasonal patterns in preferred approaches. The forecasts were evaluated for two datasets: i) all streamflows and ii) flood events with streamflow above mean annual flood. Evaluations were based on reliability, continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) and -skill score (CRPSS). For the flood dataset, the critical success index (CSI) was used. Evaluations based on all streamflow data showed that postprocessing improved the forecasts only up to a lead-time of two to three days, whereas preprocessing T and P using BMA improved the forecasts for 50 %–90 % of the catchments beyond three days lead-time. However, for flood events, the added value of pre- and postprocessing is smaller. Preprocessing of P and T gave better CRPS for marginally more catchments compared to the other schemes. Based on CSI, we found that many of the forecast schemes perform equally well. Further, we found large differences in the ability to issue warnings between spring and autumn floods. There was almost no ability to predict autumn floods beyond 3 days, whereas the spring floods had predictability up to 9 days for many events and catchments. The results indicate that the ensemble forecasts have problems in predicting correct autumn precipitation, and the uncertainty is larger for heavy autumn precipitation compared to spring events when temperature driven snow melt is important. To summarize we find that the flood forecasts benefit from most pre-and postprocessing schemes, although the best processing approaches depend on region, catchment, and season, and that the processing scheme should be tailored to each catchment, lead time, season and the purpose of the forecasting.
Highlights
Ensemble forecasts of streamflow were generated for a total of fourteen schemes based on combinations of raw, preprocessed, and postprocessed forecasts in the hydrometeorological forecasting chain
To summarize we find that the flood forecasts benefit from most pre- and postprocessing schemes, the best processing approaches depend on region, catchment, and season, and that the processing scheme should be tailored to each catchment, lead time, season, and the purpose of the forecasting
From the literature on short- to medium range streamflow forecasts we have identified two studies investigating the combined effect of preprocessing temperature and precipitation as well as postprocessing the streamflow (Benninga et al, 2017; Zalachori et al, 2012)
Summary
Floods can have severe economic, personal, and social costs. Predicting the future is adhered with uncertainty. Attaching the forecast uncertainty to a predicted flood level adds value for many end users allowing them to do risk evaluation in light of their often-unique circumstances, and take measures that are most appropriate and cost effective for them. In the hydro-meteorological forecasting chain there are multiple sources to uncertainty. There is uncertainty in observations, initial conditions, forcing data, model description, and model parameters (e.g., Buizza et al, 1999; Zappa et al, 2011). For flood forecasting an important source of uncertainty and errors are the forcing in the forecasting period, i.e. precipitation and temperature weather forecasts (e.g. Zappa et al, 2011), and this is the focus of this paper
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
