We made a comparison between man-made 24-h thunderstorm forecasts (subjective forecasts) and 24-h pure index thunderstorm forecasts (objective forecasts). The forecasts concern the plane of Friuli–Venezia Giulia region (NE Italy) during summer. Subjective forecasts are based on forecaster interpretation of numerical models outputs and forecaster's experience, while objective forecasts use models outputs and the thunderstorm climatology of our region to issue two independent indexes. Both these indexes are calculated by a linear combination of meteorological variables extracted from the European Centre for Medium Range Forecast (ECMWF) model. In one case, the coefficients of the combination were obtained by a linear multiregression over 8 years of data, while in the other, the biserial correlation coefficient was maximized on a subset of 2 years. To estimate the quality of forecasts, we used the data collected during the summer of 1998 and 1999; thunderstorm days are defined by lightning data and ground stations observations. The joint probability density functions of forecasts and observations have been used to study the forecast quality. We also studied the reliability diagrams of subjective forecasts. We found that subjective forecast skill and objective forecast skill are comparable although there were some differences as well. Subjective forecasts have a low false alarm rate (FAR) and they showed good facility in forecasting days without thunderstorms, but they score low in probability of detection (POD). Objective forecasts, in contrast, showed lower FAR and facility in forecasting stormy days but detected thunderstorms better than subjective forecasts. There are significant fluctuations in forecasts' performance from 1998 to 1999 summer seasons. This is likely due to variation in thunderstorm climatology and thunderstorm type frequencies. Furthermore, feedback of past performances could have played an important role in subjective forecasts.
Read full abstract