1 / 14

Skill and cost-loss analysis of a probabilistic nutrient ensemble prediction

Skill and cost-loss analysis of a probabilistic nutrient ensemble prediction. J-F Exbrayat 1 , NR Viney 2 , H-G Frede 1 and L Breuer 1 1 ILR, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany 2 CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australia EGU General assembly 2011 – 8/04/11. Algal disturbances.

kura
Download Presentation

Skill and cost-loss analysis of a probabilistic nutrient ensemble prediction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Skill and cost-loss analysis of a probabilistic nutrient ensemble prediction J-F Exbrayat1, NR Viney2, H-G Frede1 and L Breuer1 1 ILR, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany 2 CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australia EGU General assembly 2011 – 8/04/11

  2. Algal disturbances http://www.swanrivertrust.wa.gov.au

  3. Solutions • Different strategies to reduce nutrient input into the estuary (e.g. reduce fertilisers, traps...) • Other policies about oxygenation, non-nutrient contaminants... • Concentration reduction targets derived to reduce the total N input into the estuary: • Short term: 2.0 mg N/L • Long term: 1.0 mg N/L Under current conditions, how good are models to correctly predict this event?

  4. Hydro-biogeochemical models Large variety of conceptualisations [Breuer et al., 2008 HSJ] No superior one [Kronvang et al., 2009 JEM] Uncertain single predictions

  5. Probabilistic Multi-Model Ensembles • Consider the full range of predictions (no averaging techniques) • Evaluation based on the frequency of occurrence of a particular event (usually exceeded thresholds) • Useful in risk assessment / decision-making [Cloke and Pappenberger, 2009 JH]

  6. Ellen Brook River catchment Zammit et al. (2005), Ecol. Model. Swan River Trust (2009)

  7. Multi Model Members Large differences in considered processes

  8. Contingency table [Zhu et al., 2002 BAMS] • Hit Rate HR = h/(h+m) • False alarm Rate FR = w/(w+r) “Magic spell” “I consider that the event is predicted/will occur if at least xx% of the models say so”

  9. Evaluation • High-frequency TN concentrations: • Calibration over 3 years (1994-1996) • Validation over the 5 next years (1997-2001) • Potential economic value of using each model to correctly predict exceeded target of 2 mg N /L [Richardson, 2000 QJRMS] • Same with the probabilistic ensemble (4 models = 4 prob. levels: 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%) α: cost/loss ratio f: frequency of the event in historical data

  10. Relative Operating Curve 25% 50% 75% 100% [Exbrayat et al., submitted GRL]

  11. Potential economic value “Envelope of the ensemble” [Exbrayat et al., submitted GRL]

  12. Conclusions • Generally, the ensemble has more value than the single models • Consider the many case studies yet to come… [Diaz et al., 2008 Science]

  13. Expenses • Expected expense of using the model • Expected expense with historical data (observed frequency of the event) • Expected expense with a perfect forecast

  14. Potential economic value • Ratio of the expense linked to the use of the prediction to the minimum possible expense • Equivalent to [Richardson, 2000 QJRMS] • α: cost/loss ratio • f: frequency of the event in historical data

More Related