AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (866.3 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Article | Publishing Language: Chinese

Comparison of multiple ensemble forecast post-processing methods based on EMOS

Ziqiang HUO1Pu LIU2Guo DENG3Yutao ZHANG3Yong WANG3,4( )Yixiang SHI5
HuaFeng Research Lab for Weather Science and Applications/Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology,Nanjing 210044,China
Nanjing Meteorological Bureau,Nanjing 210019,China
State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather Meteorological Science and Technology,China Meteorological Administration Earth System Modeling and Prediction Centre,Beijing 100081,China
School of Atmospheric Sciences,Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology,Nanjing 210044,China
HuaFeng Mete orological Media Group,Beijing 100081,China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Systematic biases in numerical weather prediction commonly require post-processing correction. Ensemble Model Output Statistics (EMOS) is a post-processing method for ensemble forecasts. In recent years, two other variations of EMOS (gEMOS and SAMOS) have been proposed to improve EMOS. This paper aims to evaluate their performance. A comparative study has been conducted for 2 m temperature, relative humidity, 10 m wind speed, and 3 h cumulative precipitation in North China using five numerical models, i.e., the Global Ensemble Prediction System (GEPS), the Global Forecast System (GFS), the Regional Ensemble Prediction System (REPS), and two mesoscale weather numerical forecasts (MESO-10 km, MESO-3 km) with different spatial resolutions from the China Meteorological Administration (CMA). Results show that all the three post-processing methods can reduce forecast errors of the CMA models across these variables. Specifically, (1) the EMOS method, which independently calculates parameters for each station, retains the unique characteristics of individual stations, resulting in optimal performance; (2) gEMOS underperforms EMOS due to its neglect of inter-station independence; (3) for variables such as temperature, humidity, and wind speed, which accurately simulate climatological distribution, SAMOS performance is comparable to that of EMOS. For precipitation, SAMOS's performance is constrained by climatological precipitation distribution simulation; the forecast error of SAMOS is larger than that of EMOS, yet it is still smaller than that of gEMOS.

CLC number: P456 Document code: A

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Acta Meteorologica Sinica
Pages 262-275

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
HUO Z, LIU P, DENG G, et al. Comparison of multiple ensemble forecast post-processing methods based on EMOS. Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 2026, 84(2): 262-275. https://doi.org/10.11676/qxxb2026.20250053

717

Views

8

Downloads

0

Crossref

0

CSCD

Received: 18 March 2025
Revised: 10 September 2025
Published: 30 April 2026
Copyright © 2026 Acta Meteorologica Sinica. All rights reserved.