The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scale-Selective Verification of Rainfall Accumulations from High-Resolution Forecasts of Convective Events
Open accessAbstract
The development of NWP models with grid spacing down to ∼1 km should produce more realistic forecasts of convective storms. However, greater realism does not necessarily mean more accurate precipitation forecasts. The rapid growth of errors on small scales in conjunction with preexisting errors on larger scales may limit the usefulness of such models. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether improved model resolution alone is able to produce more skillful precipitation forecasts on useful scales, and how the skill varies with spatial scale. A verification method will be described in which skill is determined from a comparison of rainfall forecasts with radar using fractional coverage over different sized areas. The Met Office Unified Model was run with grid spacings of 12, 4, and 1 km for 10 days in which convection occurred during the summers of 2003 and 2004. All forecasts were run from 12-km initial states for a clean comparison. The results show that the 1-km model was the most skillful over all but the smallest scales (approximately <10–15 km). A measure of acceptable skill was defined; this was attained by the 1-km model at scales around 40–70 km, some 10–20 km less than that of the 12-km model. The biggest improvement occurred for heavier, more localized rain, despite it being more difficult to predict. The 4-km model did not improve much on the 12-km model because of the difficulties of representing convection at that resolution, which was accentuated by the spinup from 12-km fields.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Westra, S., Fowler, H. J., Evans, J. P., Alexander, L. V., Berg, P., Johnson, F., Kendon, E. J., Lenderink, G., & Roberts, N. M. (2014) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2014rg000464 · Cited by 1,533
Self-citationSkilful precipitation nowcasting using deep generative models of radar
Ravuri, S., Lenc, K., Willson, M., Kangin, D., Lam, R., Mirowski, P., Fitzsimons, M., Athanassiadou, M., Kashem, S., Madge, S., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03854-z · Cited by 1,024
Dreary state of precipitation in global models
Stephens, G. L., L'Ecuyer, T., Forbes, R., Gettelmen, A., Golaz, J., Bodas‐Salcedo, A., Suzuki, K., Gabriel, P., & Haynes, J. (2010) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2010jd014532 · Cited by 809
Forecast verification: Current status and future directions
Casati, B., Wilson, L. J., Stephenson, D. B., Nurmi, P., Ghelli, A., Pocernich, M., Damrath, U., Ebert, E. E., Brown, B. G., & Mason, S. (2008) · Meteorological Applications · doi:10.1002/met.52 · Cited by 306
Luo, Y., Xia, R., & Chan, J. C. L. (2020) · Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. II · doi:10.2151/jmsj.2020-002 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Roberts, N. M., & Lean, H. W.
- Venue
- Monthly Weather Review
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2008-01-01
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 78-97
- ISSN
- 0027-0644 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0493
- OpenAlex
- W2048046425
- Cited by
- 1,361
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scale-Selective Verification of Rainfall Accumulations from High-Resolution Forecasts of Convective Events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/2007mwr2123.1
- The paper
- Roberts, N. M., & Lean, H. W. (2008). Scale-Selective Verification of Rainfall Accumulations from High-Resolution Forecasts of Convective Events. Monthly Weather Review. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007mwr2123.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.