Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Inter-Comparison Project
Subjective Evaluation
At the 20 February 2007 planning meeting, we looked at the nine initial test cases and performed a gut reaction subjective evaluation. The three versions of WRF were all shown together with the stage 2 analysis with the 24-hour forecasts randomly assigned A, B and C so that the evaluators did not know which forecast was for which model. The cases were shown for one minute each, and then we ran through the process a second time to account for burn-in. The results are given in the following two files: pdf, Excel
Traditional Verification
See Ahijevych et al. (2009) on the Wea. Forecasting special collection page.
Features-based
CellID/Procrustes (Micheas et al, 2007)
Field Deformation
FQI (submitted by Sukanta Basu and Efi Foufoula-Georgiou)
Image Warping: using thin-plate splines. Initial results for the geometric cases (submitted by Johan Lindström, Eric Gilleland and Finn Lindgren; for more results for this method see Gilleland et al 2010 on the Wea. Forecasting special collection page).
Optical Flow results from Caren Marzban, Dustin Lennon, and Scott Sandgathe. See also Marzban et al 2009 on the Wea. Forecasting special collection page.
Neighborhood (fuzzy)
See Ebert (2009) on the Wea. Forecasting special collection page.
Scale Decomposition
Results for the IS technique can be found in Casati (2009) on the Wea. Forecasting special collection page.
Other
Variograms for checking forecast performance.
*Any information collected is used solely to determine the legitimacy of subscription requests (e.g., to protect against spam). Email addresses are added to a controlled list (only subscribers may send messages). The list is intended primarily for participants in the ICP, but others wishing to keep updated on the progress of the project may also subscribe. If you have any trouble subscribing (or unsubscribing) contact the webmaster (Eric Gilleland).
The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.