Search

The Short-Range Ensemble Forecast (SREF) system is verified and bias corrected for fire weather days (FWDs) defined as having an elevated probability of wildfire occurrence using a statistical Fire Weather Index (FWI) over a subdomain of the northeastern United States (NEUS) between 2007 and 2014. The SREF is compared to the Rapid Update Cycle and Rapid Refresh analyses for temperature, relative humidity, specific humidity, and the FWI. An additive bias correction is employed using the most recent previous 14 days [sequential bias correction (SBC)] and the most recent previous 14 FWDs [conditional bias correction (CBC)]. Synoptic weather regimes on FWDs are established using cluster analysis (CA) on North American Regional Reanalysis sea level pressure, 850-hPa temperature, 500-hPa temperature, and 500-hPa geopotential height. SREF severely underpredicts FWI (by two indices at FWI = 3) on FWDs, which is partially corrected using SBC and largely corrected with CBC. FWI underprediction is associated with a cool (ensemble mean error of -1.8 K) and wet near-surface model bias (ensemble mean error of 0.46 g kg-1) that decreases to near zero above 800 hPa. Although CBC improves reliability and Brier skill scores on FWDs, ensemble FWI values exhibit underdispersion. CAreveals three synoptic weather regimes on FWDs, with the largest cool and wet biases associated with a departing surface low pressure system. These results suggest the potential benefit of an operational analog bias correction on FWDs. Furthermore, CA may help elucidate model error during certain synoptic weather regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The performance of a multimodel ensemble over the northeast United States is evaluated before and after applying bias correction and Bayesian model averaging (BMA). The 13-member Stony Brook University (SBU) ensemble at 0000 UTC is combined with the 21-member National Centers for Environmental Pre-diction (NCEP) Short-Range Ensemble Forecast (SREF) system at 2100 UTC. The ensemble is verified using 2-m temperature and 10-m wind speed for the 2007-09 warm seasons, and for subsets of days with high ozone and high fire threat. The impacts of training period, bias-correction method, and BMA are explored for these potentially hazardous weather events using the most recent consecutive (sequential training) and most recent similar days (conditional training). BMA sensitivity to the selection of ensemble members is explored. A running mean difference between forecasts and observations using the last 14 days is better at removing temperature bias than is a cumulative distribution function (CDF) or linear regression approach. Wind speed bias is better removed by adjusting the modeled CDF to the observation. High fire threat and ozone days exhibit a larger cool bias and a greater negative wind speed bias than the warm-season average. Conditional bias correction is generally better at removing temperature and wind speed biases than sequential training. Greater probabilistic skill is found for temperature using both conditional bias correction and BMA com-pared to sequential bias correction with or without BMA. Conditional and sequential BMA results are similar for 10-m wind speed, although BMA typically improves probabilistic skill regardless of training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]