An evaluation of analog-based postprocessing methods across several variables and forecast models

AMS Citation:
Nagarajan, B., L. Delle Monache, J. Hacker, D. L. Rife, K. Searight, J. C. Knievel, and T. N. Nipen, 2015: An evaluation of analog-based postprocessing methods across several variables and forecast models. Weather and Forecasting, 30, 1623-1643, doi:10.1175/WAF-D-14-00081.1.
Resource Type:article
Title:An evaluation of analog-based postprocessing methods across several variables and forecast models
Abstract: Recently, two analog-based postprocessing methods were demonstrated to reduce the systematic and random errors from Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model predictions of 10-m wind speed over the central United States. To test robustness and generality, and to gain a deeper understanding of postprocessing forecasts with analogs, this paper expands upon that work by applying both analog methods to surface stations evenly distributed across the conterminous United States over a 1-yr period. The Global Forecast System (GFS), North American Mesoscale Forecast System (NAM), and Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) forecasts for screen-height wind, temperature, and humidity are postprocessed with the two analog-based methods and with two time series–based methods—a running mean bias correction and an algorithm inspired by the Kalman filter. Forecasts are evaluated according to a range of metrics, including random and systematic error components; correlation; and by conditioning the error distributions on lead time, location, error magnitude, and day-to-day error variability. Results show that the analog methods are generally more effective than time series–based methods at reducing the random error component, leading to an overall reduction in root-mean-square error. Details among the methods differ and are elucidated upon in this study. The relative levels of random and systematic error in the raw forecasts determine, to a large extent, the effectiveness of each postprocessing method in reducing forecast errors. When the errors are dominated by random errors (e.g., where thunderstorms are common), the analog-based methods far outperform the time series–based methods. When the errors are strictly systematic (i.e., a bias), the analog methods lose their advantage over the time series methods. It is shown that slowly evolving systematic errors rarely dominate, so reducing the random error component is most effective at reducing the error magnitude. The results are shown to be valid for all seasons. The analog methods show similar performance to the operational model output statistics (MOS) while showing greater reduction of random errors at certain lead times.
Peer Review:Refereed
Copyright Information:Copyright 2015 American Meteorological Society (AMS). Permission to use figures, tables, and brief excerpts from this work in scientific and educational works is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in this work that is determined to be "fair use" under Section 107 or that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law (17 USC, as revised by P.L. 94-553) does not require the Society's permission. Republication, systematic reproduction, posting in electronic form on servers, or other uses of this material, except as exempted by the above statements, requires written permission or license from the AMS. Additional details are provided in the AMS Copyright Policies, available from the AMS at 617-227-2425 or Permission to place a copy of this work on this server has been provided by the AMS. The AMS does not guarantee that the copy provided here is an accurate copy of the published work.
OpenSky citable URL: ark:/85065/d74q7wg9
Publisher's Version: 10.1175/WAF-D-14-00081.1
  • Badrinath Nagarajan - NCAR/UCAR
  • Luca Delle Monache - NCAR/UCAR
  • Joshua Hacker - NCAR/UCAR
  • Daran Rife
  • Keith Searight
  • Jason Knievel - NCAR/UCAR
  • Thomas Nipen
  • Random Profile


    Recent & Upcoming Visitors