Crucial for accurate flood forecasting is an accurate estimate of areal precipitation, its magnitude and distribution over a catchment. Such estimates can be obtained from a wide range of sources, including rain gauges, weather radars and NWP models. Each source has its own characteristics and advantages, but also error and bias levels. Often flood forecasting is based mainly on one of the sources. However, with today's widespread production and high level of access to (real-time) data from the various sources, the possibility to improve forecasting by utilising data from several sources is apparent.
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the data from each source, and assess the benefits from their combined use, their characteristics need to be compared. In the present study, areal precipitation estimates from five sources - NWP model (HIRLAM), weather radar (RADAR), rain gauges (PTHBV) and two versions of a mesoscale analysis (MA11 and MA22) - over a specific catchment during a specific time period were compared. The main observations were the following:
- The mesoscale analysis consistently generated the lowest amount of precipitation, leading to a difference of about 100 mm for total precipitation over the area in 2002. This may be due to partly that correction for observation losses is not performed, and partly an underestimation of rainfall amounts in synoptical observations.
- The seasonal cycle of precipitation in HIRLAM differed somewhat from the other sources, although the overall pattern agreed fairly well. Notable were an overestimation of spring rainfall (due to many forecasted small rainfalls never observed) and an underestimation of summer rainfall (due to forecasted but underestimated high rainfalls).
- Throughout the year and especially in autumn, the mean areal precipitation amounts generally follow the order PTHBV>MA11>MA22, which can be explained similarly to the first item above, whereas HIRLAM and RADAR are more variable.
- The areal standard deviation in the HIRLAM data was low on a daily basis but high for the 2002 totals. Areal smoothing in the model may explain the low daily areal variability, whereas the high areal variability of annual totals may originate from orographically induced small but systematic areal variations.
- In the RADAR data a distinct inhomogeneity was found, with precipitation amounts being consistently overestimated by ~8 mm/day over a region of 500-1000 km² (as estimated from the coarse, averaged grid) during October-December. The source of this problem has not been possible to identify during this study, we can only speculate that it is related to temporally improper functionality of the Ostersund radar, northwest of the study catchment.
- Areal correlation decreased nearly linearly for all sources, with the highest correlation coefficients in HIRLAM and PTHBV, and the lowest in RADAR.
Overall the data from HIRLAM and RADAR agreed reasonably well with the other, "gauge-derived" sources, but the present comparison highlighted some differences. In HIRLAM, the seasonal cycle differed somewhat. This difference is possibly of a systematic character, judging from the 2002 data, but longer series are required to verify it. The different tendencies of the areal variability in the HIRLAM fields on a short-term (daily; low variability) and a long-term (annual; high variability) basis, respectively, may deserve further investigation. The temporal and areal inhomogeneities found in the RADAR data also require further analysis to identify the source of the problem and to improve the applicability for, e.g., hydrological forecasting. The performance of the different precipitation sources for flood estimation and forecasting will be reported as the subsequent result of the project (nr. 14783).