Articles | Volume 26, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2939-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2939-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
15 Jun 2022
Research article |
| 15 Jun 2022
| 15 Jun 2022
Evaluating the impact of post-processing medium-range ensemble streamflow forecasts from the European Flood Awareness System
Gwyneth Matthews
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
Christopher Barnard
Forecast Department, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom
Hannah Cloke
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
Forecast Department, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom
Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Science, CNDS, Uppsala, Sweden
Sarah L. Dance
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom
Toni Jurlina
Forecast Department, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom
Cinzia Mazzetti
Forecast Department, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom
Christel Prudhomme
Forecast Department, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom
Department of Geography, University of Loughborough, Loughborough, United Kingdom
UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom
Related authors
Gwyneth Matthews, Hannah L. Cloke, Sarah L. Dance, and Christel Prudhomme
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-3989, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-3989, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts provide information crucial for managing floods and for water resource planning, but they often have errors. “Post-processing” reduces these errors but is usually only applied at river gauges, leaving areas without gauges uncorrected. We developed a new method that uses spatial information contained within the forecast to spread information about the errors from gauged locations to ungauged areas. Our results show that the method successfully makes river forecasts more accurate.
Kieran M. R. Hunt, Gwyneth R. Matthews, Florian Pappenberger, and Christel Prudhomme
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5449–5472, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5449-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5449-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we use three models to forecast river streamflow operationally for 13 months (September 2020 to October 2021) at 10 gauges in the western US. The first model is a state-of-the-art physics-based streamflow model (GloFAS). The second applies a bias-correction technique to GloFAS. The third is a type of neural network (an LSTM). We find that all three are capable of producing skilful forecasts but that the LSTM performs the best, with skilful 5 d forecasts at nine stations.
Joy Ommer, Milan Kalas, Jessica Neumann, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2929–2938, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2929-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2929-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
What do we regret about our disaster preparedness? This paper explores the regrets of 438 citizens who were affected by flooding in Germany in 2021. It shows that regret can primarily be associated with inaction (instead of actions), which contrasts with psychological studies from fields other than disaster science. The findings of this study suggest that the no-regret approach could be a suitable framework for moving towards longer-term disaster preparedness to reduce future regrets.
Katherine Egan, Calum Baugh, Rebecca Emerton, Christel Prudhomme, Daniele Castellana, and Sebongile Hlubi
Abstr. Int. Cartogr. Assoc., 9, 8, https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-abs-9-8-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-abs-9-8-2025, 2025
Aloïs Tilloy, Dominik Paprotny, Stefania Grimaldi, Goncalo Gomes, Alessandra Bianchi, Stefan Lange, Hylke Beck, Cinzia Mazzetti, and Luc Feyen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 293–316, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-293-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-293-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This article presents a reanalysis of Europe's river streamflow for the period 1951–2020. Streamflow is estimated through a state-of-the-art hydrological simulation framework benefitting from detailed information about the landscape, climate, and human activities. The resulting Hydrological European ReAnalysis (HERA) can be a valuable tool for studying hydrological dynamics, including the impacts of climate change and human activities on European water resources and flood and drought risks.
Gwyneth Matthews, Hannah L. Cloke, Sarah L. Dance, and Christel Prudhomme
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-3989, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-3989, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts provide information crucial for managing floods and for water resource planning, but they often have errors. “Post-processing” reduces these errors but is usually only applied at river gauges, leaving areas without gauges uncorrected. We developed a new method that uses spatial information contained within the forecast to spread information about the errors from gauged locations to ungauged areas. Our results show that the method successfully makes river forecasts more accurate.
Ramesh Visweshwaran, Elizabeth Cooper, and Sarah L. Dance
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3980, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3980, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new approach to improve soil moisture predictions, which are vital for managing floods, and droughts. Traditional methods focus on either adjusting the initial soil moisture condition or model parameters. Instead, we optimized both simultaneously using field-scale data from 16 UK sites. This combined approach improved prediction accuracy by 143 %, showing great potential for enhancing soil moisture forecasts to support agriculture, disaster response, and water management.
Joy Ommer, Jessica Neumann, Milan Kalas, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2633–2646, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2633-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2633-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
What’s the worst that could happen? Recent floods are often claimed to be beyond our imagination. Imagination is the picturing of a situation in our mind and the emotions that we connect with this situation. But why is this important for disasters? This survey found that when we cannot imagine a devastating flood, we are not preparing in advance. Severe-weather forecasts and warnings need to advance in order to trigger our imagination of what might happen and enable us to start preparing.
Helen Hooker, Sarah Dance, David Mason, John Bevington, and Kay Shelton
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-178, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-178, 2024
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
This study introduces a method that uses satellite data to enhance flood map selection for forecast-based financing applications. Tested on the 2022 Pakistan floods, it successfully triggered flood maps in four out of five regions, including those with urban areas. The approach ensures timely humanitarian aid by updating flood maps, even when initial triggers are missed, aiding in better disaster preparedness and risk management.
Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Julian Leyland, Simon J. Dadson, Sagy Cohen, Louise Slater, Michel Wortmann, Philip J. Ashworth, Georgina L. Bennett, Richard Boothroyd, Hannah Cloke, Pauline Delorme, Helen Griffith, Richard Hardy, Laurence Hawker, Stuart McLelland, Jeffrey Neal, Andrew Nicholas, Andrew J. Tatem, Ellie Vahidi, Yinxue Liu, Justin Sheffield, Daniel R. Parsons, and Stephen E. Darby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3099–3118, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated six high-resolution global precipitation datasets for hydrological modelling. MSWEP and ERA5 showed better performance, but spatial variability was high. The findings highlight the importance of careful dataset selection for river discharge modelling due to the lack of a universally superior dataset. Further improvements in global precipitation data products are needed.
Margarita Choulga, Francesca Moschini, Cinzia Mazzetti, Stefania Grimaldi, Juliana Disperati, Hylke Beck, Peter Salamon, and Christel Prudhomme
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2991–3036, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2991-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2991-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
CEMS_SurfaceFields_2022 dataset is a new set of high-resolution maps for land type (e.g. lake, forest), soil properties and population water needs at approximately 2 and 6 km at the Equator, covering Europe and the globe (excluding Antarctica). We describe what and how new high-resolution information can be used to create the dataset. The paper suggests that the dataset can be used as input for river, weather or other models, as well as for statistical descriptions of the region of interest.
Clare Lewis, Tim Smyth, Jess Neumann, and Hannah Cloke
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 121–131, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-121-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-121-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Meteotsunami are the result of atmospheric disturbances and can impact coastlines causing injury, loss of life, and damage to assets. This paper introduces a novel intensity index to allow for the quantification of these events at the shoreline. This has the potential to assist in the field of natural hazard assessment. It was trialled in the UK but designed for global applicability and to become a widely accepted standard in coastal planning, meteotsunami forecasting, and early warning systems.
Helen Hooker, Sarah L. Dance, David C. Mason, John Bevington, and Kay Shelton
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2769–2785, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2769-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2769-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ensemble forecasts of flood inundation produce maps indicating the probability of flooding. A new approach is presented to evaluate the spatial performance of an ensemble flood map forecast by comparison against remotely observed flooding extents. This is important for understanding forecast uncertainties and improving flood forecasting systems.
Clare Lewis, Tim Smyth, David Williams, Jess Neumann, and Hannah Cloke
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2531–2546, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2531-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2531-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Meteotsunami are globally occurring water waves initiated by atmospheric disturbances. Previous research has suggested that in the UK, meteotsunami are a rare phenomenon and tend to occur in the summer months. This article presents a revised and updated catalogue of 98 meteotsunami that occurred between 1750 and 2022. Results also demonstrate a larger percentage of winter events and a geographical pattern highlighting the
hotspotregions that experience these events.
Shaun Harrigan, Ervin Zsoter, Hannah Cloke, Peter Salamon, and Christel Prudhomme
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Real-time river discharge forecasts and reforecasts from the Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS) have been made publicly available, together with an evaluation of forecast skill at the global scale. Results show that GloFAS is skillful in over 93 % of catchments in the short (1–3 d) and medium range (5–15 d) and skillful in over 80 % of catchments in the extended lead time (16–30 d). Skill is summarised in a new layer on the GloFAS Web Map Viewer to aid decision-making.
Kieran M. R. Hunt, Gwyneth R. Matthews, Florian Pappenberger, and Christel Prudhomme
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5449–5472, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5449-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5449-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we use three models to forecast river streamflow operationally for 13 months (September 2020 to October 2021) at 10 gauges in the western US. The first model is a state-of-the-art physics-based streamflow model (GloFAS). The second applies a bias-correction technique to GloFAS. The third is a type of neural network (an LSTM). We find that all three are capable of producing skilful forecasts but that the LSTM performs the best, with skilful 5 d forecasts at nine stations.
Chloe Brimicombe, Claudia Di Napoli, Rosalind Cornforth, Florian Pappenberger, Celia Petty, and Hannah L. Cloke
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-242, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-242, 2021
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Heatwaves are an increasing risk to African communities. This hazard can have a negative impact on peoples lives and in some cases results in their death. This study shows new information about heatwave characteristics through a list of heatwave events that have been reported for the African continent from 1980 until 2020. Case studies are useful helps to inform the development of early warning systems and forecasting, which is an urgent priority and needs significant improvement.
Remy Vandaele, Sarah L. Dance, and Varun Ojha
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4435–4453, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4435-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4435-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The acquisition of river-level data is a critical task for the understanding of flood events but is often complicated by the difficulty to install and maintain gauges able to provide such information. This study proposes applying deep learning techniques on river-camera images in order to automatically extract the corresponding water levels. This approach could allow for a new flexible way to observe flood events, especially at ungauged locations.
Seán Donegan, Conor Murphy, Shaun Harrigan, Ciaran Broderick, Dáire Foran Quinn, Saeed Golian, Jeff Knight, Tom Matthews, Christel Prudhomme, Adam A. Scaife, Nicky Stringer, and Robert L. Wilby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4159–4183, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We benchmarked the skill of ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) for a diverse sample of 46 Irish catchments. We found that ESP is skilful in the majority of catchments up to several months ahead. However, the level of skill was strongly dependent on lead time, initialisation month, and individual catchment location and storage properties. We also conditioned ESP with the winter North Atlantic Oscillation and show that improvements in forecast skill, reliability, and discrimination are possible.
Jamie Towner, Andrea Ficchí, Hannah L. Cloke, Juan Bazo, Erin Coughlan de Perez, and Elisabeth M. Stephens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3875–3895, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3875-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3875-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We examine whether several climate indices alter the magnitude, timing and duration of floods in the Amazon. We find significant changes in both flood magnitude and duration, particularly in the north-eastern Amazon for negative SST years in the central Pacific Ocean. This response is not repeated when the negative anomaly is positioned further east. These results have important implications for both social and physical sectors working towards the improvement of flood early warning systems.
Sazzad Hossain, Hannah L. Cloke, Andrea Ficchì, Andrew G. Turner, and Elisabeth M. Stephens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-97, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-97, 2021
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrometeorological drivers are investigated to study three different flood types: long duration, rapid rise and high water level of the Brahmaputra river basin in Bangladesh. Our results reveal that long duration floods have been driven by basin-wide rainfall whereas rapid rate of rise due to more localized rainfall. We find that recent record high water levels are not coincident with extreme river flows. Understanding these drivers is key for flood forecasting and early warning.
Shaun Harrigan, Ervin Zsoter, Lorenzo Alfieri, Christel Prudhomme, Peter Salamon, Fredrik Wetterhall, Christopher Barnard, Hannah Cloke, and Florian Pappenberger
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2043–2060, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2043-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2043-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
A new river discharge reanalysis dataset is produced operationally by coupling ECMWF's latest global atmospheric reanalysis, ERA5, with the hydrological modelling component of the Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS). The GloFAS-ERA5 reanalysis is a global gridded dataset with a horizontal resolution of 0.1° at a daily time step and is freely available from 1979 until near real time. The evaluation against observations shows that the GloFAS-ERA5 reanalysis was skilful in 86 % of catchments.
Cited articles
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A.: Handbook of mathematical functions with
formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, ISBN 9780486612720, 1972. a
Alizadeh, B., Limon, R. A., Seo, D.-J., Lee, H., and Brown, J.: Multiscale
postprocessor for ensemble streamflow prediction for short to long ranges,
J. Hydrometeorol., 21, 265–285, 2020. a
Arroyo, M. and Montoya-Manzano, G.: Real Time Quality Checks,
https://efascom.smhi.se/confluence/display/EHDCC/5.2 (last access: 30 April 2021), 2019. a
Barnard, C., Krzeminski, B., Mazzetti, C., Decremer, D., Carton de Wiart, C.,
Harrigan, S., Blick, M., Ferrario, I., Wetterhall, F., Thiemig, V., Salamon, P., Prudhomme, C.: Reforecasts of river discharge and related data by the European Flood Awareness System
version 4.0, ECMWF [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.c83f560f, 2020. a, b
Berghuijs, W. R., Harrigan, S., Molnar, P., Slater, L. J., and Kirchner, J. W.:
The relative importance of different flood-generating mechanisms across
Europe, Water Resour. Res., 55, 4582–4593, 2019. a
Bogner, K. and Kalas, M.: Error-correction methods and evaluation of an
ensemble based hydrological forecasting system for the Upper Danube
catchment, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 9, 95–102, 2008. a
Bogner, K., Pappenberger, F., and Cloke, H. L.: Technical Note: The normal quantile transformation and its application in a flood forecasting system, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1085–1094, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1085-2012, 2012. a, b
Boucher, M.-A., Perreault, L., Anctil, F., and Favre, A.-C.: Exploratory
analysis of statistical post-processing methods for hydrological ensemble
forecasts, Hydrol. Process., 29, 1141–1155, 2015. a
Brown, J., Ramos, M.-H., and Voisin, N.: Intercomparison of streamflow
postprocessing techniques: first results of a HEPEX community experiment, in:
EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, EGU2013–8221 pp., https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2013/EGU2013-8221.pdf (last access: 21 September 2021), 2013. a
Brown, J. D. and Seo, D.-J.: A nonparametric postprocessor for bias correction
of hydrometeorological and hydrologic ensemble forecasts, J. Hydrometeorol., 11, 642–665, 2010. a
Cloke, H. and Pappenberger, F.: Ensemble flood forecasting: A review, J. Hydrol., 375, 613–626, 2009. a
Coccia, G.: Analysis and developments of uncertainty processors for real time
flood forecasting, PhD thesis, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 41–44, https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsdottorato/3423, 2011. a, b, c, d
Coccia, G. and Todini, E.: Recent developments in predictive uncertainty assessment based on the model conditional processor approach, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3253–3274, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3253-2011, 2011. a
Crochemore, L., Ramos, M.-H., and Pappenberger, F.: Bias correcting precipitation forecasts to improve the skill of seasonal streamflow forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3601–3618, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3601-2016, 2016. a
Dance, S., Ballard, S., Bannister, R., Clark, P., Cloke, H., Darlington, T., Flack, D., Gray, S., Hawkness-Smith, L., Husnoo, N., Illingworth, A., Kelly, G., Lean, H., Li, D., Nichols, N., Nicol, J., Oxley, A., Plant, R., Roberts, N., Roulstone, I., Simonin, D., Thompson, R., and Waller, J.: Improvements in Forecasting Intense Rainfall: Results from the FRANC (Forecasting Rainfall
Exploiting New Data Assimilation Techniques and Novel Observations of
Convection) Project, 10, 125, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10030125, 2019. a
De Roo, A., Wesseling, C., and Van Deursen, W.: Physically based river basin
modelling within a GIS: the LISFLOOD model, Hydrol. Process., 14,
1981–1992, 2000. a
de Zea Bermudez, P. and Kotz, S.: Parameter estimation of the generalized
Pareto distribution—Part I, J. Stat. Plan. Infer.,
140, 1353–1373, 2010. a
Dey, D. and Rao, C.: Handbook of Statistics, in: Volume 25: Bayesian Thinking, Modeling and Computation, Elsevier, Burlington, 2006. a
Ferro, C. A., Richardson, D. S., and Weigel, A. P.: On the effect of ensemble
size on the discrete and continuous ranked probability scores, Meteorol. Appl., 15, 19–24, 2008. a
Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., and Dahe, Q.: Managing the risks of
extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781107607804, 2012. a
Flack, D., Skinner, C., Hawkness-Smith, L., O'Donnell, G., Thompson, R., Waller, J., Chen, A., Moloney, J., Largeron, C., Xia, X., Blenkinsop, S., Champion, A., Perks, M., Quinn, N., and Speight, L.: Recommendations for Improving Integration in National End-to-End Flood Forecasting Systems: An Overview of the FFIR (Flooding From Intense Rainfall) Programme, Water, 11, 725, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040725, 2019. a
Georgakakos, K. P., Seo, D.-J., Gupta, H., Schaake, J., and Butts, M. B.:
Towards the characterization of streamflow simulation uncertainty through
multimodel ensembles, J. Hydrol., 298, 222–241, 2004. a
Gneiting, T.: Making and evaluating point forecasts, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 106, 746–762, 2011. a
Gneiting, T.: Calibration of medium-range weather forecasts, ECMWF Technical Memoranda, 719, 1–28, 2014. a
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of
the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for
improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91, 2009. a
Haiden, T., Magnusson, L., Tsonevsky, I., Wetterhall, F., Alfieri, L., Pappenberger, F., de Rosnay, P., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Balsamo, G., Albergel, C., Forbes, R., Hewson, T., Malardel, S., and Richardson, D.: Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom, 34, 2014, in: Central Europe, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, MA, 1–32,
https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2014/9731-ecmwf-forecast-performance-during-june-2013-flood (last access: 21 September 2021), 2014. a
Haiden, T., Janousek, M., Vitart, F., Ben Bouallegue, Z., Ferranti, L., Prates, F., and Richardson, D.: Evaluation of ECMWF forecasts, including the 2020 upgrade, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, https://www.ecmwf.int/en/elibrary/19879-evaluation-ecmwf-forecasts-including-2020-upgrade, last access: 21 September 2021. a, b
Hamill, T. M., Whitaker, J. S., and Mullen, S. L.: Reforecasts: An important
dataset for improving weather predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87, 33–46, 2006. a
Harrigan, S., Zoster, E., Cloke, H., Salamon, P., and Prudhomme, C.: Daily ensemble river discharge reforecasts and real-time forecasts from the operational Global Flood Awareness System, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-532, in review, 2020. a
Hemri, S.: Applications of postprocessing for hydrological forecasts,
Statistical Postprocessing of Ensemble Forecasts, 1, 219–240, https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-03244-8, 2018. a
Hemri, S., Lisniak, D., and Klein, B.: Multivariate postprocessing techniques
for probabilistic hydrological forecasting, Water Resour. Res., 51,
7436–7451, 2015a. a
Hemri, S., Lisniak, D., and Klein, B.: Multivariate postprocessing techniques
for probabilistic hydrological forecasting, Water Resour. Res., 51,
7436–7451, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016473, 2015b. a
Hersbach, H.: Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for
ensemble prediction systems, Weather Forecast., 15, 559–570, 2000. a
Hofmann, H., Wickham, H., and Kafadar, K.: Value plots: Boxplots for large
data, J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 26, 469–477, 2017. a
Jordan, A., Krüger, F., and Lerch, S.: Evaluating Probabilistic Forecasts
with scoringRules, J. Stat. Softw., 90, 1–37, 2019. a
Kalman, R. E.: A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems,
J. Basic Eng.-T. ASME, 82, 35–45, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3662552, 1960. a
Kan, G., He, X., Li, J., Ding, L., Hong, Y., Zhang, H., Liang, K., and Zhang,
M.: Computer aided numerical methods for hydrological model calibration: An
overview and recent development, Arch. Comput. Methods E., 26, 35–59, 2019. a
Kleiber, C. and Kotz, S.: Statistical size distributions in economics and
actuarial sciences, vol. 470, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-471-15064-0, 2003. a
Klein, B., Pechlivanidis, I., Arnal, L., Crochemore, L., Meissner, D., and
Frielingsdorf, B.: Does the application of multiple hydrological models
improve seasonal streamflow forecasting skill?, in: EGU General Assembly
Conference Abstracts, 20187, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-20187, 2020. a
Kling, H., Fuchs, M., and Paulin, M.: Runoff conditions in the upper Danube
basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios, J. Hydrol.,
424, 264–277, 2012. a
Krzysztofowicz, R. and Herr, H. D.: Hydrologic uncertainty processor for
probabilistic river stage forecasting: precipitation-dependent model, J. Hydrol., 249, 46–68, 2001. a
Krzysztofowicz, R. and Kelly, K. S.: Hydrologic uncertainty processor for
probabilistic river stage forecasting, Water Resour. Res., 36,
3265–3277, 2000. a
Krzysztofowicz, R. and Maranzano, C. J.: Hydrologic uncertainty processor for
probabilistic stage transition forecasting, J. Hydrol., 293,
57–73, 2004. a
Lavers, D. A., Harrigan, S., and Prudhomme, C.: Precipitation biases in the
ECMWF integrated forecasting system, J. Hydrometeorol., 22,
1187–1198, 2021. a
Li, W., Duan, Q., Miao, C., Ye, A., Gong, W., and Di, Z.: A review on
statistical postprocessing methods for hydrometeorological ensemble
forecasting, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4, e1246, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1246, 2017. a
Liu, Y., Weerts, A. H., Clark, M., Hendricks Franssen, H.-J., Kumar, S., Moradkhani, H., Seo, D.-J., Schwanenberg, D., Smith, P., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., van Velzen, N., He, M., Lee, H., Noh, S. J., Rakovec, O., and Restrepo, P.: Advancing data assimilation in operational hydrologic forecasting: progresses, challenges, and emerging opportunities, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3863–3887, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3863-2012, 2012. a
Mason, D., Garcia Pintado, J., Cloke, H. L., Dance, S., and Munoz-Sabater, J.: Assimilating high resolution remotely sensed soil moisture into a distributed hydrologic model to improve runoff prediction, ECMWF Technical Memorandum, https://doi.org/10.21957/5isuz4a91, 2020. a
Mason, S. J. and Graham, N. E.: Conditional probabilities, relative operating
characteristics, and relative operating levels, Weather Forecast., 14,
713–725, 1999. a
Matthews, G. and Barnard, C.: Post-processed reforecasts of the European Flood Awareness System and related evaluation data, University of Reading [data set], https://doi.org/10.17864/1947.333, 2022. a
Mazzetti, C. and Harrigan, S.: What's new in EFAS 4.0? Model improvements,
6-hourly calibration, new evaluation layers & reporting points, presented at
EFAS Annual Meeting [Online],
https://www.efas.eu/sites/default/files/AM/AM2020/EFAS_AM_2020_2_What%20is%20new%20in%20EFAS4.pdf (last access: 1 October 2021), 2020. a
Mazzetti, C., Decremer, D., Barnard, C., Blick, M., Carton de Wiart, C., Wetterhall, F., Schweim, C., Ziese, M., Garcia, R., Garcia Padilla, M., Gomes, G., Thiemig, V., Salamon, P., Prudhomme, C.: River discharge and related historical data from the
European Flood Awareness System v4.0, ECMWF [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.e3458969, 2020. a, b
Mazzetti, C., Decremer, D., and Prudhomme, C.: Challenges of the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) hydrological calibration, presented at Joint Virtual Workshop on “Connecting global to local hydrological modelling and
forecasting: scientific advances and challenges” [Online], https://events.ecmwf.int/event/222/contributions/2268/attachments/1256/2322/Hydrological-WS-Mazzetti.pdf (last access: 21 September 2021), 2021a. a
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., and Freer, J.: Benchmarking observational
uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality,
Hydrol. Process., 26, 4078–4111, 2012. a
Pappenberger, F. and Beven, K. J.: Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis, Water Resour. Res., 42, W05302, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004820, 2006. a
Pappenberger, F., Cloke, H. L., Parker, D. J., Wetterhall, F., Richardson,
D. S., and Thielen, J.: The monetary benefit of early flood warnings in
Europe, Environ. Sci. Policy, 51, 278–291,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.016, 2015a. a
Pappenberger, F., Ramos, M.-H., Cloke, H. L., Wetterhall, F., Alfieri, L.,
Bogner, K., Mueller, A., and Salamon, P.: How do I know if my forecasts are
better? Using benchmarks in hydrological ensemble prediction, J. Hydrol., 522, 697–713, 2015b. a
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/ (last access: 20 May 2021), 2019. a
Reggiani, P., Renner, M., Weerts, A., and Van Gelder, P.: Uncertainty
assessment via Bayesian revision of ensemble streamflow predictions in the
operational river Rhine forecasting system, Water Resour. Res., 45, W02428, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006758, 2009. a
Roundy, J., Duan, Q., and Schaake, J.: Hydrological predictability, scales, and uncertainty issues, Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting, 1, 3–31, 2019. a
Schaake, J. C., Hamill, T. M., Buizza, R., and Clark, M.: HEPEX: the
hydrological ensemble prediction experiment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1541–1548, 2007. a
Schaeybroeck, B. V. and Vannitsem, S.: Post-processing through linear
regression, Nonlinear Proc. Geoph., 18, 147–160, 2011. a
Seo, D.-J., Herr, H. D., and Schaake, J. C.: A statistical post-processor for accounting of hydrologic uncertainty in short-range ensemble streamflow prediction, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 3, 1987–2035, https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-3-1987-2006, 2006. a
Shrestha, D. L., Pagano, T., Wang, Q., and Robertson, D.: Application of
Ensemble Dressing for Hydrological Applications, in: Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol. 13, EGU2011-5397, https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-5397.pdf (last access: 30 September 2021), 2011. a
Silverman, B. W.: Spline Smoothing: The Equivalent Variable Kernel Method, Ann. Statist., 12, 898–916, https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176346710, 1984. a
Siqueira, V. A., Weerts, A., Klein, B., Fan, F. M., de Paiva, R. C. D., and
Collischonn, W.: Postprocessing continental-scale, medium-range ensemble
streamflow forecasts in South America using Ensemble Model Output Statistics
and Ensemble Copula Coupling, J. Hydrol., 600, 126520, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126520, 2021. a
Škute, A., Gruberts, D., Soms, J., and Paidere, J.: Ecological and
hydrological functions of the biggest natural floodplain in Latvia,
Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 8, 291–306,
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-009-0023-y, 2008. a
Smith, P., Pappenberger, F., Wetterhall, F., Thielen del Pozo, J.,
Krzeminski, B., Salamon, P., Muraro, D., Kalas, M., and Baugh, C.: Chapter 11 – On the Operational Implementation of the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS), in: Flood Forecasting, edited by: Adams, T. E. and Pagano, T. C., Academic Press, Boston, 313–348,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801884-2.00011-6, 2016. a, b, c, d
Tabeart, J. M., Dance, S. L., Lawless, A. S., Nichols, N. K., and Waller,
J. A.: Improving the condition number of estimated covariance matrices,
Tellus A, 72, 1–19, 2020. a
Thiboult, A., Anctil, F., and Ramos, M.: How does the quantification of
uncertainties affect the quality and value of flood early warning systems?,
J. Hydrol., 551, 365–373,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.014, 2017. a
Thielen, J., Bartholmes, J., Ramos, M.-H., and de Roo, A.: The European Flood Alert System – Part 1: Concept and development, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 125–140, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-125-2009, 2009. a
Todini, E.: From HUP to MCP: Analogies and extended performances, J. Hydrol., 477, 33–42, 2013. a
Todini, E., Coccia, G., and Ortiz, E.: On the proper use of ensembles for
predictive uncertainty assessment, in: EGU General Assembly Conference
Abstracts, 10365 pp., https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/EGU2015-10365.pdf (last access: 13 September 2021) 2015. a
van Andel, S. J., Weerts, A., Schaake, J., and Bogner, K.: Post-processing
hydrological ensemble predictions intercomparison experiment, Hydrol. Process., 27, 158–161, 2013. a
Van Der Knijff, J., Younis, J., and De Roo, A.: LISFLOOD: a GIS-based
distributed model for river basin scale water balance and flood simulation,
Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 24, 189–212,
2010. a
Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D.: Modern Applied Statistics with S, Springer, New York, fourth edn., http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4 (last access: 20 September 2021), 2002.
a
Verkade, J., Brown, J., Reggiani, P., and Weerts, A.: Post-processing ECMWF
precipitation and temperature ensemble reforecasts for operational hydrologic
forecasting at various spatial scales, J. Hydrol., 501, 73–91,
2013. a
Verkade, J., Brown, J., Davids, F., Reggiani, P., and Weerts, A.: Estimating
predictive hydrological uncertainty by dressing deterministic and ensemble
forecasts; a comparison, with application to Meuse and Rhine, J. Hydrol., 555, 257–277, 2017. a
Weerts, A. H., Winsemius, H. C., and Verkade, J. S.: Estimation of predictive hydrological uncertainty using quantile regression: examples from the National Flood Forecasting System (England and Wales), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 255–265, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-255-2011, 2011. a
Węglarczyk, S.: Kernel density estimation and its application, in: ITM
Web of Conferences, vol. 23, EDP Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20182300037, 2018. a
Wu, W., Emerton, R., Duan, Q., Wood, A. W., Wetterhall, F., and Robertson,
D. E.: Ensemble flood forecasting: Current status and future opportunities,
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7, e1432, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1432, 2020. a
Ye, A., Duan, Q., Yuan, X., Wood, E. F., and Schaake, J.: Hydrologic
post-processing of MOPEX streamflow simulations, J. Hydrol., 508,
147–156, 2014. a
Zamo, M. and Naveau, P.: Estimation of the continuous ranked probability score
with limited information and applications to ensemble weather forecasts,
Math. Geosci., 50, 209–234, 2018. a
Zhao, L., Duan, Q., Schaake, J., Ye, A., and Xia, J.: A hydrologic
post-processor for ensemble streamflow predictions, Advances in Geosciences, 29, 51–59, 2011. a
Zhong, Y., Guo, S., Xiong, F., Liu, D., Ba, H., and Wu, X.: Probabilistic
forecasting based on ensemble forecasts and EMOS method for TGR inflow,
Front. Earth Sci.-PRC., 14, 188–200, 2020. a
Short summary
The European Flood Awareness System creates flood forecasts for up to 15 d in the future for the whole of Europe which are made available to local authorities. These forecasts can be erroneous because the weather forecasts include errors or because the hydrological model used does not represent the flow in the rivers correctly. We found that, by using recent observations and a model trained with past observations and forecasts, the real-time forecast can be corrected, thus becoming more useful.
The European Flood Awareness System creates flood forecasts for up to 15 d in the future for the...
