TY - JOUR

T1 - Calibration of medium-range metocean forecasts for the North Sea

AU - Murphy, Conor

AU - Towe, Ross

AU - Jonathan, Philip

PY - 2025/4/2

Y1 - 2025/4/2

N2 - We assess the value of calibrating forecast models for significant wave height H S , wind speed W and mean spectral wave period T m for forecast horizons between zero and 168 h from a commercial forecast provider, to improve forecast performance for a location in the central North Sea. We consider two straightforward calibration models, linear regression (LR) and non-homogeneous Gaussian regression (NHGR), incorporating deterministic, control and ensemble mean forecast covariates. We show that relatively simple calibration models (with at most three covariates) provide good calibration and that addition of further covariates cannot be justified. Optimal calibration models (for the forecast mean of a physical quantity) always make use of the deterministic forecast and ensemble mean forecast for the same quantity, together with a covariate associated with a different physical quantity. The selection of optimal covariates is performed independently per forecast horizon, and the set of optimal covariates shows a large degree of consistency across forecast horizons. As a result, it is possible to specify a consistent model to calibrate a given physical quantity, incorporating a common set of three covariates for all horizons. For NHGR models of a given physical quantity, the ensemble forecast standard deviation for that quantity is skilful in predicting forecast error standard deviation, strikingly so for H S . We show that the consistent LR and NHGR calibration models facilitate reduction in forecast bias to near zero for all of H S , W and T m , and that there is little difference between LR and NHGR calibration for the mean. Both LR and NHGR models facilitate reduction in forecast error standard deviation relative to naive adoption of the (uncalibrated) deterministic forecast, with NHGR providing somewhat better performance. Distributions of standardised residuals from NHGR are generally more similar to a standard Gaussian than those from LR.

AB - We assess the value of calibrating forecast models for significant wave height H S , wind speed W and mean spectral wave period T m for forecast horizons between zero and 168 h from a commercial forecast provider, to improve forecast performance for a location in the central North Sea. We consider two straightforward calibration models, linear regression (LR) and non-homogeneous Gaussian regression (NHGR), incorporating deterministic, control and ensemble mean forecast covariates. We show that relatively simple calibration models (with at most three covariates) provide good calibration and that addition of further covariates cannot be justified. Optimal calibration models (for the forecast mean of a physical quantity) always make use of the deterministic forecast and ensemble mean forecast for the same quantity, together with a covariate associated with a different physical quantity. The selection of optimal covariates is performed independently per forecast horizon, and the set of optimal covariates shows a large degree of consistency across forecast horizons. As a result, it is possible to specify a consistent model to calibrate a given physical quantity, incorporating a common set of three covariates for all horizons. For NHGR models of a given physical quantity, the ensemble forecast standard deviation for that quantity is skilful in predicting forecast error standard deviation, strikingly so for H S . We show that the consistent LR and NHGR calibration models facilitate reduction in forecast bias to near zero for all of H S , W and T m , and that there is little difference between LR and NHGR calibration for the mean. Both LR and NHGR models facilitate reduction in forecast error standard deviation relative to naive adoption of the (uncalibrated) deterministic forecast, with NHGR providing somewhat better performance. Distributions of standardised residuals from NHGR are generally more similar to a standard Gaussian than those from LR.

U2 - 10.1016/j.apor.2025.104538

DO - 10.1016/j.apor.2025.104538

M3 - Journal article

VL - 158

JO - Applied Ocean Research

JF - Applied Ocean Research

SN - 0141-1187

M1 - 104538

ER -