Application of the Simple Verification Method to Estimate the Weather at Makassar Maritime Station, Indonesia

Didiharyono  DIDIHARYONO; Giarno  GIARNO

doi:10.48048/wjst.2021.9542

Authors

Didiharyono DIDIHARYONO Andi Djemma University, Palopo, South Sulawesi 91921, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8957-2336
Giarno GIARNO State College of Meteorology Climatology and Geophysics, Tangerang 15221, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3825-7592

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48048/wjst.2021.9542

Keywords:

Verification, Port, Weather verification, Makassar Maritime Station, Indonesia

Abstract

Verification is used to measure the quality of a weather prediction, improve process performance, and measure the value of weather estimation. Initially, weather verification developed after Finley published his paper on the verification of tornado events. The type of data, objectives, and scale can make a different method in using weather verification. If there are some parameters that can be predicted, a simple question is consequently often asked by the public: how accurate are weather forecasts? Nowadays, the public wants a simple answer in 1 value that is presented quantitatively. The aim of the research is to develop a simple method that can answer the accuracy of weather prediction in a value that is easily understood by the public. Practically, validation comparing between prediction and observation parameters is divided into 2, namely dichotomous and comparing the values. This research tries to combine all weather prediction variables into a dichotomous variable with a threshold. Moreover, this technique is tested on weather predictions for the port of Makassar over a year. The results show that a certain threshold can be used to change the weather variable to be dichotomous. With the application of this method, forecast accuracy and suitability between the predicted parameters can be obtained. Moreover, the weather forecast issued by the Makassar Maritime Station shows the average true value of the forecast to be 69.1 %, and then the capabilities vary by forecasters, which range from 61 to 79 %.

HIGHLIGHTS

Weather forecast verification is used to measure the quality of a weather forecast, improve process performance, and the value of weather forecasts
The character of the weather variables and their predictions is unique and influences the type of evaluation method
To facilitate the public's assessment of the accuracy of weather predictions, it is necessary to combine weather prediction evaluation methods in one value
Using the tolerance threshold whether a deviant prediction is used to combine various weather predictive variables
Average true value of the forecast is 69.1 % and the different capabilities of each forecaster, which range from 61 to 79 %

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

IT Jolliffe and DB Stephenson. Forecast verification: A practitioner’s guide in atmospheric science. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2003.

I Gustari, TW Hadi, S Hadi and F Renggono. Akurasi prediksi curah hujan harian operasional di jabodetabek: Perbandingan dengan model WRF. Jurnal Meteorologi dan Geofisika 2012; 13, 119-30.

P Nurmi. Meteorological forecast verification: Scope and method. Workshop on Space Weather Verification Universidad de Alcala, 2011.

S Mariani and M Casaioli. Forecast verification: A summary of common approaches and examples of application. Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, 2008.

SS Steven. On the theory of scale of measurement. Science 1946; 103, 677-80.

World Meteorological Organization. Guide to meteorological instruments and methods of observation. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 1983.

BMKG. Prakiraan Cuaca Pelabuhan Makassar Februari - Desember 2012. Stasiun Meteorologi Maritim Paotere Makassar, 2012.

JL Mahoney, JK Henderson, BG Brown, JE Hart, A Loughe, C Fischer and B Sigren. The Real-Time Verification System (RTVS) and its application to aviation weather forecasts. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Aviation, Range, and Aerospace Meteorology, Portland, OR. 2002; 9, 323-6.

AH Murphy. What is a good forecast? An essay on the nature of goodness in weather forecasting. Weather Forecast. 1993; 8, 281-93.

AH Murphy. The Finley affair: A signal event in the history of forecast verification. Weather Forecast. 1996; 11, 1-20.

V Mandal and UK De. Precipitation forecast verification of the Indian summer monsoon with intercomparison of three diverse regions. Weather Forecast. 2006; 22, 428-43.

ME Baldwin. Verification of the time evolution of precipitation systems in numerical weather forecasts. In: Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS/ MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia. 2009; 4177-83.

E Gilleland, TCM Lee, JH Gotway, RG Bullock and BG Brown. Computationally efficient spatial forecast verification using baddeley’s delta image metric. Monthly Weather Rev. 2008; 136, 1747-57.

M Jaroensutasinee, W Pheera, R Ninlaeard, K Jaroensutasinee and S Choldumrongkul. Weather affecting Macro-Moth diversity at Khao Nan National Park, Thailand. Walailak J. Sci. Tech. 2011; 8, 21-31.

N Chen, Z Qian, IT Nabney and X Meng. Wind power forecasts using Gaussian processes and numerical weather prediction. IEEE. Trans. Power Syst. 2013; 29, 656-65.

Y Zhang, P Wang, T Ni, P Cheng and S Lei. Wind power prediction based on LS-SVM model with error correction. Adv. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2017; 17, 3-9.

DT Myrick and JD Horel. Verification of surface temperature forecasts from the national digital forecast database over The Western United States. Weather Forecast. 2006; 21, 869-92.

M Jaroensutasinee, P Sangarun, W Pheera and K Jaroensutasinee. Tropical montane cloud forest characteristics in Southern Thailand. Walailak J. Sci. & Tech. 2011; 7, 103-13.

JP Finley. Tornado predictions. J. Am. Meteorol. 1884; 1, 85-8.

SJ Mason and AP Weigel. A generic forecast verification framework for administrative purposes. Mothly Weather Rev. 2009; 137, 331-49.

H Zhang and T Casey. Verification of categorical probability forecasts. Weather Forecast. 2002; 15, 891-97.

K Kadarsah. Aplikasi ROC untuk uji kehandalan model hybmg. Jurnal Meteorologi dan Geofisika 2010; 11, 32-42.

Fatkhuroyan, T Wati, A Sukmana and R Kurniawan. Validation of satellite daily rainfall estimates over Indonesia. Forum Geografi 2018; 32, 170-80.

Q Ran, W Fu, Y Liu, T Li, K Shi and B Sivakumar. Evaluation of quantitative precipitation predictions by ECMWF, CMA, and UKMO for flood forecasting: Application to two basins in China. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2018; 19, 05018003.

G Wang, D Wang, J Yang and L Liu. Evaluation and correction of quantitative precipitation forecast by storm-scale NWP model in Jiangsu, China. Adv. Meteorol. 2016; 3, 1-13.

Giarno, MP Hadi, S Suprayogi and SH Murti. Distribution of accuracy of TRMM daily rainfall in Makassar Strait. Forum Geografi 2018; 32, 38-52.

Kiki and F Alam. Verifikasi parameter Presipitasi Akumulasi 24 jam pada model Cuaca Numerik Tahun 2017. Buletin BBMKG Wilayah II 2019; 9, 1-5.

Giarno, Didiharyono, AA Fisu, and A Mattingaragau. Influence rainy and dry season to daily rainfall interpolation in complex terrain of Sulawesi. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2020: 469, 012003.

Giarno, MP Hadi, S Suprayogi and SH Murti. Bias correction of radar and satellite rainfall estimates and increasing its accuracy using modified merging. Mausam 2020; 71, 376-90.

Giarno, MP Hadi, S Suprayogi and SH Murti. daily quantitative precipitation estimates use weather radar reflectivity in South Sulawesi. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019: 256, 012042.

Giarno, MP Hadi, S Suprayogi and SH Murti. Impact of rainfall intensity, monsoon and MJO to rainfall merging in the Indonesian maritime continent. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2020; 129, 164.

JDW Kahl, KA Horowitz, CA Berg and MC Gruhl. The quest for the perfect weather forecast. Sci. Scope 2004; 27, 24-7.