Abstract. Flood forecasting increasingly relies on Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) forecasts to achieve longer lead times (see Cloke et al., 2009; Cloke and Pappenberger, 2009). One of the key difficulties that is emerging in constructing a decision framework for these flood forecasts is when consecutive forecasts are different, leading to different conclusions regarding the issuing of forecasts, and hence inconsistent. In this opinion paper we explore some of the issues surrounding such forecast inconsistency (also known as "jumpiness", "turning points", "continuity" or number of "swings"; Zoster et al., 2009; Mills and Pepper, 1999; Lashley et al., 2008). We begin by defining what forecast inconsistency is; why forecasts might be inconsistent; how we should analyse it; what we should do about it; how we should communicate it and whether it is a totally undesirable property. The property of consistency is increasingly emerging as a hot topic in many forecasting environments (for a limited discussion on NWP inconsistency see Persson, 2011). However, in this opinion paper we restrict the discussion to a hydro-meteorological forecasting chain in which river discharge forecasts are produced using inputs from NWP. In this area of research (in)consistency is receiving recent interest and application (see e.g., Bartholmes et al., 2008; Pappenberger et al., 2011).
ACCURACY IMPROVEMENT OF FLOOD FORECASTING USING PRE-PROCESSING OF ENSEMBLE NUMERICAL WEATHER PREDICTION RAINFALL FIELDS