advanced

Weather and Forecasting Special Collection

We have a special collection of papers for the ICP in the Weather and Forecasting (WAF) journal of the American Meteorological Society (see list below).

The collection consists of papers that apply specific methods to the WRF "real" and perturbed cases, as well as the idealized geometric test cases of the ICP (see the Test Cases section of this web site). There is also an overall literature review with general qualitative comparisons (Gilleland et al., 2009), as well as a paper describing the data sets, applying traditional verification to these cases, and describing subjective evaluations, performed at the first ICP meeting, of the "real" WRF test cases (Ahijevych et al., 2009). Below is the list of papers in the collection.

All of the references below, as well as those listed under our References section, are also available in LaTeX from here spatialvx.bib.

List of papers

Ahijevych, D., E. Gilleland, B.G. Brown, and E.E. Ebert, 2009: Application of spatial verification methods to idealized and NWP-gridded precipitation forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (6), 1485--1497, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222298.1.

Brill, K.F. and F. Mesinger, 2009: Applying a General Analytic Method for Assessing Bias Sensitivity to Bias Adjusted Threat and Equitable Threat Scores. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (6), 1748--1754, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222272.1.

Casati, B., 2010: New Developments of the Intensity-Scale Technique within the Spatial Verification Methods Inter-Comparison Project. Wea. Forecasting 25, (1), 113--143, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222257.1.

Davis, C.A., B.G. Brown, R.G. Bullock and J. Halley Gotway, 2009: The Method for Object-based Diagnostic Evaluation (MODE) Applied to Numerical Forecasts from the 2005 NSSL/SPC Spring Program. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (5), 1252--1267, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222241.1.

Ebert, E.E. and W.A. Gallus, Jr., 2009: Toward better understanding of the contiguous rain area (CRA) method for spatial forecast verification. Wea. Forecasting., 24 (5), 1401--1415, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222269.1.

Ebert, E.E., 2009: Neighborhood verification: A strategy for rewarding close forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (6), 1498--1510, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222251.1.

Gilleland, E., D. Ahijevych, B.G. Brown, B. Casati, and E.E. Ebert, 2009: Intercomparison of Spatial Forecast Verification Methods. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (5), 1416--1430, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222269.1.

Gilleland, E., J. Lindström, and F. Lindgren, 2010: Analyzing the image warp forecast verification method on precipitation fields from the ICP. Wea. Forecasting, 25 (4), 1249--1262.

Gilleland, E., D.A. Ahijevych, B.G. Brown and E.E. Ebert, 2010: Verifying Forecasts Spatially. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., October, 1365--1373.

Keil, C. and G.C. Craig, 2009: A displacement and amplitude score employing an optical flow technique. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (5), 1297--1308, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222247.1.

Lack, S., G.L. Limpert and N.I. Fox, 2010: An object-oriented multiscale verification scheme. Wea. Forecasting, 25, 79--92, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222245.1

Lakshmanan, V. and J.S. Kain, 2010: A Gaussian Mixture Model Approach to Forecast Verification. Wea. Forecasting, 25 (3), 908--920.

Marzban, C., S. Sandgathe, H. Lyons, and N. Lederer, 2009: Three Spatial Verification Techniques: Cluster Analysis, Variogram, and Optical Flow. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (6), 1457--1471, DOI:10.1175/2009WAF2222261.1.

Mittermaier, M.P. and N. Roberts, 2010: Intercomparison of Spatial Forecast Verification Methods: Identifying skillful spatial scales using the Fractions Skill Score. Wea. Forecasting 25 (1), 343--354, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222260.1.

Nachamkin, J.E., 2009: Application of the Composite Method to the Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Intercomparison Dataset. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (5), 1390--1400, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222225.1.

Wernli, H., C. Hofmann, and M. Zimmer, 2009: Spatial forecast verification methods intercomparison project: Application of the SAL technique. Wea. Forecasting, 24 (6), 1472--1484, DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222271.1.

---

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.