scholarly journals Ensemble Streamflow Forecasting Using an Energy Balance Snowmelt Model Coupled to a Distributed Hydrologic Model with Assimilation of Snow and Streamflow Observations

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (12) ◽  
pp. 10813-10838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tseganeh Z. Gichamo ◽  
David G. Tarboton
Keyword(s):  
Energy Balance ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Streamflow Forecasting ◽  
Distributed Hydrologic Model ◽  
Snowmelt Model

scholarly journals A Method to Account for QPF Spatial Displacement Errors in Short-Term Ensemble Streamflow Forecasting

Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3505
Author(s):  
Bradley Carlberg ◽  
Kristie Franz ◽  
William Gallus
Keyword(s):  
Heavy Precipitation ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Probability Of Detection ◽  
Streamflow Forecasting ◽  
Streamflow Prediction ◽  
Spatial Displacement ◽  
North Central ◽  
Distributed Hydrologic Model ◽  
Streamflow Forecasts ◽  
Made In

To account for spatial displacement errors common in quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs), a method using systematic shifting of QPF fields was tested to create ensemble streamflow forecasts. While previous studies addressed spatial displacement using neighborhood approaches, shifting of QPF accounts for those errors while maintaining the structure of predicted systems, a feature important in hydrologic forecasts. QPFs from the nine-member High-Resolution Rapid Refresh Ensemble were analyzed for 46 forecasts from 6 cases covering 17 basins within the National Weather Service North Central River Forecast Center forecasting region. Shifts of 55.5 and 111 km were made in the four cardinal and intermediate directions, increasing the ensemble size to 81 members. These members were input into a distributed hydrologic model to create an ensemble streamflow prediction. Overall, the ensemble using the shifted QPFs had an improved frequency of non-exceedance and probability of detection, and thus better predicted flood occurrence. However, false alarm ratio did not improve, likely because shifting multiple QPF ensembles increases the potential to place heavy precipitation in a basin where none actually occurred. A weighting scheme based on a climatology of displacements was tested, improving overall performance slightly compared to the approach using non-weighted members.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a Distributed Streamflow Forecast Model at Multiple Watershed Scales

Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1279
Author(s):  
Tyler Madsen ◽  
Kristie Franz ◽  
Terri Hogue
Keyword(s):  
Local Population ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Forecast Model ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Laboratory Research ◽  
Discharge Data ◽  
Distributed Hydrologic Model ◽  
Verification Period ◽  
Silver Spring

Demand for reliable estimates of streamflow has increased as society becomes more susceptible to climatic extremes such as droughts and flooding, especially at small scales where local population centers and infrastructure can be affected by rapidly occurring events. In the current study, the Hydrology Laboratory-Research Distributed Hydrologic Model (HL-RDHM) (NOAA/NWS, Silver Spring, MD, USA) was used to explore the accuracy of a distributed hydrologic model to simulate discharge at watershed scales ranging from 20 to 2500 km2. The model was calibrated and validated using observed discharge data at the basin outlets, and discharge at uncalibrated subbasin locations was evaluated. Two precipitation products with nominal spatial resolutions of 12.5 km and 4 km were tested to characterize the role of input resolution on the discharge simulations. In general, model performance decreased as basin size decreased. When sub-basin area was less than 250 km2 or 20–40% of the total watershed area, model performance dropped below the defined acceptable levels. Simulations forced with the lower resolution precipitation product had better model evaluation statistics; for example, the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.67 for the verification period for basin outlets, compared to scores that ranged from 0.33 to 0.52 for the higher spatial resolution forcing.

Continuous streamflow simulation with the HRCDHM distributed hydrologic model

2004 ◽  
Vol 298 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 61-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa M. Carpenter ◽  
Konstantine P. Georgakakos
Keyword(s):  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Distributed Hydrologic Model ◽  
Streamflow Simulation

scholarly journals Are General Circulation Models Ready for Operational Streamflow Forecasting for Water Management in the Ganges and Brahmaputra River Basins?

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Safat Sikder ◽  
Xiaodong Chen ◽  
Faisal Hossain ◽  
Jason B. Roberts ◽  
Franklin Robertson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
River Basins ◽  
Hydrologic Model ◽  
Streamflow Forecasting ◽  
Management Decisions ◽  
Brahmaputra River ◽  
Ganges Basin ◽  
Monthly Scale ◽  
Brahmaputra Basin ◽  
The Ganges

Abstract This study asks the question of whether GCMs are ready to be operationalized for streamflow forecasting in South Asian river basins, and if so, at what temporal scales and for which water management decisions are they likely to be relevant? The authors focused on the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna basins for which there is a gridded hydrologic model calibrated for the 2002–10 period. The North American Multimodel Ensemble (NMME) suite of eight GCM hindcasts was applied to generate precipitation forecasts for each month of the 1982–2012 (30 year) period at up to 6 months of lead time, which were then downscaled according to the bias-corrected statistical downscaling (BCSD) procedure to daily time steps. A global retrospective forcing dataset was used for this downscaling procedure. The study clearly revealed that a regionally consistent forcing for BCSD, which is currently unavailable for the region, is one of the primary conditions to realize reasonable skill in streamflow forecasting. In terms of relative RMSE (normalized by reference flow obtained from the global retrospective forcings used in downscaling), streamflow forecast uncertainty (RMSE) was found to be 38%–50% at monthly scale and 22%–35% at seasonal (3 monthly) scale. The Ganges River (regulated) experienced higher uncertainty than the Brahmaputra River (unregulated). In terms of anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC), the streamflow forecasting at seasonal (3 monthly) scale was found to have less uncertainty (>0.3) than at monthly scale (<0.25). The forecast skill in the Brahmaputra basin showed more improvement when the time horizon was aggregated from monthly to seasonal than the Ganges basin. Finally, the skill assessment for the individual seasons revealed that the flow forecasting using NMME data had less uncertainty during monsoon season (July–September) in the Brahmaputra basin and in postmonsoon season (October–December) in the Ganges basin. Overall, the study indicated that GCMs can have value for management decisions only at seasonal or annual water balance applications at best if appropriate historical forcings are used in downscaling. The take-home message of this study is that GCMs are not yet ready for prime-time operationalization for a wide variety of multiscale water management decisions for the Ganges and Brahmaputra River basins.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document