美国国家气象局洪水预报修正过程的评估技术

IF 3.1 Q2 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Zhipeng Zhu , Asphota Wasti , Trent Schade , Patrick A. Ray
{"title":"美国国家气象局洪水预报修正过程的评估技术","authors":"Zhipeng Zhu ,&nbsp;Asphota Wasti ,&nbsp;Trent Schade ,&nbsp;Patrick A. Ray","doi":"10.1016/j.hydroa.2020.100073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The operational hydrologists of the United States’ National Weather Service (NWS) develop river forecasts as guidance for those at risk of flood damage and update those flood forecasts in real-time as more information becomes available. To do so they rely on experience and intuition to adjust the inputs, state variables, and parameters of hydrologic models. NWS hydrologists use the term “modifiers” to refer collectively to these adjustments. This paper demonstrates the development and application of tools (statistical and graphical) to aid operational hydrologists in the achievement of accurate flood forecasts. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) identifies the relative contribution to forecast uncertainty of each modifier. Heat map visualizations illustrate for operational hydrologists the basin, lead-time, and season-specific effects of their modifiers choices. The tools provide operational hydrologists with insight into which of three commonly applied modifiers (precipitation, soil moisture, and unit hydrograph shape) are most likely to provide improvement in flood forecast accuracy. The tools are demonstrated for a case study of four watersheds within in the Ohio River Valley, using data for flood events sampled from 1990 to 2018. The findings of this research show that operational hydrologists in the Ohio River Basin would do well apply no modifiers in the winter (leaving hydrologic input variables and parameters at baseline values). And though the forecast might be improved by real-time adjustments to the unit hydrograph in summer months, recommendations for particular unit hydrograph modification levels cannot be made with confidence. These findings call into question the modifier adjustment program as a standard process. In the evaluated cases, modifiers do not systematically improve flood forecasts. Improvement may be more efficiently achieved through better calibration of hydrologic models or techniques for reduction of precipitation uncertainty.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36948,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hydrology X","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hydroa.2020.100073","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Techniques to evaluate the modifier process of National Weather Service flood forecasts\",\"authors\":\"Zhipeng Zhu ,&nbsp;Asphota Wasti ,&nbsp;Trent Schade ,&nbsp;Patrick A. Ray\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hydroa.2020.100073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The operational hydrologists of the United States’ National Weather Service (NWS) develop river forecasts as guidance for those at risk of flood damage and update those flood forecasts in real-time as more information becomes available. To do so they rely on experience and intuition to adjust the inputs, state variables, and parameters of hydrologic models. NWS hydrologists use the term “modifiers” to refer collectively to these adjustments. This paper demonstrates the development and application of tools (statistical and graphical) to aid operational hydrologists in the achievement of accurate flood forecasts. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) identifies the relative contribution to forecast uncertainty of each modifier. Heat map visualizations illustrate for operational hydrologists the basin, lead-time, and season-specific effects of their modifiers choices. The tools provide operational hydrologists with insight into which of three commonly applied modifiers (precipitation, soil moisture, and unit hydrograph shape) are most likely to provide improvement in flood forecast accuracy. The tools are demonstrated for a case study of four watersheds within in the Ohio River Valley, using data for flood events sampled from 1990 to 2018. The findings of this research show that operational hydrologists in the Ohio River Basin would do well apply no modifiers in the winter (leaving hydrologic input variables and parameters at baseline values). And though the forecast might be improved by real-time adjustments to the unit hydrograph in summer months, recommendations for particular unit hydrograph modification levels cannot be made with confidence. These findings call into question the modifier adjustment program as a standard process. In the evaluated cases, modifiers do not systematically improve flood forecasts. Improvement may be more efficiently achieved through better calibration of hydrologic models or techniques for reduction of precipitation uncertainty.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hydrology X\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hydroa.2020.100073\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hydrology X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589915520300249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hydrology X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589915520300249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

美国国家气象局(NWS)的业务水文学家开发河流预报,作为对那些有洪水破坏风险的人的指导,并随着更多信息的提供实时更新这些洪水预报。为此,他们依靠经验和直觉来调整水文模型的输入、状态变量和参数。NWS水文学家使用“修饰语”一词来统称这些调整。本文演示了工具(统计和图形)的开发和应用,以帮助业务水文学家实现准确的洪水预报。方差分析(ANOVA)确定了每个修正因子对预测不确定性的相对贡献。热图可视化为操作水文学家说明了他们选择的调节剂的流域、交付周期和季节特定影响。这些工具使水文学家能够深入了解三种常用的改良剂(降水量、土壤湿度和单位过程线形状)中哪一种最有可能提高洪水预报的准确性。这些工具是在俄亥俄河谷四个流域的案例研究中使用1990年至2018年洪水事件的数据进行演示的。这项研究的结果表明,俄亥俄河流域的水文学家在冬季最好不使用任何修改器(将水文输入变量和参数保持在基线值)。尽管在夏季对单位过程线进行实时调整可能会改善预测,但对特定单位过程线修改水平的建议不能有把握。这些发现对作为标准程序的修改程序提出了质疑。在评估的情况下,修改器并不能系统地改进洪水预报。通过更好地校准水文模型或减少降水不确定性的技术,可以更有效地实现改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Techniques to evaluate the modifier process of National Weather Service flood forecasts

The operational hydrologists of the United States’ National Weather Service (NWS) develop river forecasts as guidance for those at risk of flood damage and update those flood forecasts in real-time as more information becomes available. To do so they rely on experience and intuition to adjust the inputs, state variables, and parameters of hydrologic models. NWS hydrologists use the term “modifiers” to refer collectively to these adjustments. This paper demonstrates the development and application of tools (statistical and graphical) to aid operational hydrologists in the achievement of accurate flood forecasts. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) identifies the relative contribution to forecast uncertainty of each modifier. Heat map visualizations illustrate for operational hydrologists the basin, lead-time, and season-specific effects of their modifiers choices. The tools provide operational hydrologists with insight into which of three commonly applied modifiers (precipitation, soil moisture, and unit hydrograph shape) are most likely to provide improvement in flood forecast accuracy. The tools are demonstrated for a case study of four watersheds within in the Ohio River Valley, using data for flood events sampled from 1990 to 2018. The findings of this research show that operational hydrologists in the Ohio River Basin would do well apply no modifiers in the winter (leaving hydrologic input variables and parameters at baseline values). And though the forecast might be improved by real-time adjustments to the unit hydrograph in summer months, recommendations for particular unit hydrograph modification levels cannot be made with confidence. These findings call into question the modifier adjustment program as a standard process. In the evaluated cases, modifiers do not systematically improve flood forecasts. Improvement may be more efficiently achieved through better calibration of hydrologic models or techniques for reduction of precipitation uncertainty.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Hydrology X
Journal of Hydrology X Environmental Science-Water Science and Technology
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
20
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信