ESTIMATION OF RAINFALL PROBABILITY, THROUGH THE USE OF NON PARAMETRIC STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES, APPLIED TO NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF WRF. A CASE OF STUDY
Keywords:KDE. Probabilistic forecast. Heavy rainfall.
In this paper was used the kernel density estimation (KDE), a nonparametric method to estimate the probability density function of a random variable, to obtain a probabilistic precipitation forecast, from an ensemble prediction with the WRF model. The nine members of the prediction were obtained by varying the convective parameterization of the model, for a heavy precipitation event in southern Brazil. Evaluating the results, the estimated probabilities obtained for periods of 3 and 24 hours, and various thresholds of precipitation, were compared with the estimated precipitation of the TRMM, without showing a clear morphological correspondence between them. For accumulated in 24 hours, it was possible to compare the specific values of the observations of INMET, finding better coherence between the observations and the predicted probabilities. Skill scores were calculated from contingency tables, for different ranks of probabilities, and the forecast of heavy rain had higher proportion correct in all ranks of probabilities, and forecasted precipitation with probability of 75%, for any threshold, did not produce false alarms. Furthermore, the precipitation of lower intensity with marginal probability was over-forecasted, showing also higher index of false alarms.
Anabor, V., D. J. Stensrud, and O. L. L. De Moraes. Serial upstream-propagating mesoscale convective system events over southeastern South America. Mon. Wea. Rev., 2008, 136, 3087–3105.
Andrade, K. M. Climatology and behavior of frontal systems in South America (in Portuguese). M.S. thesis, Pos-Graduacão em Meteorologia, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 2007, 185 pp. [Available from Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, Av. Astronautas 1758, Sao Jose dos Campos, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Brooks, H. E., C. A. Doswell, and M. P. Kay. Climatological estimates of local daily tornado probability for the United States. Wea. Forecasting, 2003, 18, 626–640.
Duong, T. ks: Kernel density estimation and kernel discriminant analysis for multivariate data in R, J. Stat. Software, 2007, 21 (7), pp. 1–16.
Fensterseifer C. A. Qualidade das estimativas de precipitações derivadas de satélites na bacia de Alto jacuí-RS. M.S. thesis, Pos-Graduacão em Engenheria Civil e Ambiental, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria., 2013, 26 pp.
Fritsch JM, Houze Jr RA, Adler R, Bluestein H, Bosart L, Brown J, Carr F, Davis C, Johnson RH, Junker N, Kuo Y-H, Rutledge S, Smith J, Toth Z, Wilson JW, Zipser E, Zrnic D. Quantitative precipitation forecasting: Report of the eighth prospectus development team , US Weather Research Program. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 1998, 9: 285 – 299.
Peel, S., and L. J. Wilson. Modeling the distribution of precipitation forecasts from the Canadian ensemble prediction system using kernel density estimation. Wea. Forecasting, 2008, 23, 575–595.
Ochoa, A., Pineda, L., Crespo, P., Willems, P. Evaluation of TRMM 3B42 precipitation estimates and WRF retrospective precipitation simulation over the Pacific–Andean region of Ecuador and Peru. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 2014, 18, pp. 3179–3193 .
Teixeira, M. S., and P. Satyamurty. Dynamical and synoptic characteristics of heavy rainfall episodes in southern Brazil. Mon. Wea. Rev. , 2007, 135, 598–617.
Velasco, I., and J. M. Fritsch. Mesoscale convective com- plexes in the Americas. J. Geophys. Res., 1987, 92, 9591–9613.
Wilks, D. Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, 3rd ed0. International geophysics serie, 2011, v.100, 308–311.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.