HEPEX Highlights from EGU 2018

Last week, 15,075 scientists from 106 countries attended the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly in Vienna. The week was jam-packed with more than 17,000 talks, posters and PICO presentations in 666 different sessions. The HEPEX community was represented across 5 oral/poster sessions and 1 PICO session, plus many other related sessions and events! Attendees could attend talks covering a huge range of research, from very local-scale all the way up to global scale studies, from flash flood forecasting to seasonal hydrological predictions, and on the history of hydrology and science communication. The week was a great showcase of the excellent work around the world related to ensemble hydrological forecasting.

The Austria Centre, Vienna

This year, we wanted to hear from the HEPEX community about their experience of #EGU18, so we sent out a “call for highlights”.

These were your highlights from the week in Vienna: Continue reading

Posted in activities, meetings | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Using ensemble forecasts to inform risk-based operations of a reservoir in Northern California

Contributed by:  Chris Delaney, Sonoma County Water Agency; John Mendoza, Sonoma County Water Agency; Brett Whitin, California Nevada River Forecast Center; Rob Hartman, Consultant

Lake Mendocino is a reservoir located in Mendocino County, California, about 110 miles north of the City of San Francisco. This small 144 million cubic meter reservoir (Figure 1) releases water into the Russian River and provides both flood protection and water supply to downstream communities. Lake Mendocino is cooperatively managed by 2 government offices: the federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages flood operations and the Sonoma County Water Agency manages water supply operations. The lake receives inflow from natural runoff as well from an adjacent river system, the Eel River, through a hydroelectric facility (Potter Valley Project) a short distance upstream of the lake. Recent changes in the operations of this hydroelectric facility have drastically reduced the average annual inflow of Lake Mendocino by 45%, contributing to a water supply crisis for the region. This crisis, among other reasons, made Lake Mendocino an ideal location to evaluate forecast based operations in an effort to recover lost water supply reliability, thus Lake Mendocino was selected as a pilot location for the Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) program. FIRO is led by a number of federal, state and local agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District (‘Corps’), Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) at Scripps Institute.

The primary goal of this pilot is to evaluate whether forecasts can be used to inform flood operations to improve the water supply capture of Lake Mendocino without increasing flood risk to downstream communities. So why would changing reservoir flood operations improve water supply? The primary reason relates to a currently used operational rule called the storage guide curve (Figure 2), which determines the maximum water supply storage level of the reservoir. This seasonally varying guide provides increased flood capacity in the wet months (November – February) and increased water supply capacity during the dry months (May – September).

This design works well during years with sufficient springtime (March – May) rainfall to fill the reservoir as the guide curve increases, but dry spring years can be challenging for water supply because the region typically receives very little precipitation during the summer and fall. Under FIRO, the objective is to detain wet season runoff above the guide curve level until forecasts indicate water should be evacuated to provide adequate volume for predicted flood events. Stored water released in advance of a forecasted flood event would be recovered by inflows from the flood event and held in the reservoir for water supply.

Another reason that Lake Mendocino is an ideal location for the FIRO pilot is that the NOAA California Nevada River Forecast Center (CNRFC) currently prepares hydrologic forecasts of reservoir inflows and for points downstream. A key forecast product is an ensemble forecast produced with the Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast System (HEFS), which generates a 59-member ensemble with an hourly timestep up to the 15-day forecast horizon, transitioning to a daily timestep for the 16 to 365 day forecast horizon.

A central challenge for this project is to develop new operational methodologies that incorporate forecast information to make reservoir release decisions to meet the project goals. One such methodology that is being evaluated for Lake Mendocino is called Ensemble Forecast Operations (EFO), which was developed by an engineer at the Sonoma County Water Agency, Chris Delaney (that’s me). I originally developed a simple proof-of-concept model, which I have refined with the help of my colleague and fellow engineer, John Mendoza. This methodology uses the HEFS ensemble forecast prepared by the CNRFC to evaluate the risk of reaching the maximum reservoir storage level. We want to avoid going above this maximum level because this would increase the risk of uncontrolled spillway releases and could flood downstream communities.

The way the EFO methodology works is quite straightforward. Each hydrologic ensemble member is independently modeled to forecast reservoir storage assuming no water is released. Forecasted risk is evaluated for each timestep in the forecast horizon as the percentage of ensemble member that exceed the maximum storage level (137 million cubic meters). The top panel of Figure 3 provides an example of a storage forecast with a 15-day forecast horizon and the maximum storage level shown as the black dashed line. The bottom panel of Figure 3 provides an example of the risk forecast shown as the red line. A key component of the EFO methodology is something called the risk tolerance curve, which is shown in the bottom panel as the blue dashed line. This curve defines the maximum allowable risk for each forecast timestep.

Figure 3 – (top) Storage forecast ensemble assuming zero releases; (bottom) risk of exceeding storage threshold, and operational risk tolerance level.

If forecasted risk exceeds the risk tolerance curve, as in our example, a release schedule is developed that mitigates the forecasted risk at or below the curve. For this example, the model simulated a release of 56 cubic meters per second to reduce the forecasted risk to the risk tolerance level. This is illustrated in the Figure 4 showing forecasted risk and storage levels after the release schedule has been applied. The model completes this process, updating release schedules each day as a new forecast is issued by the CNRFC.

Figure 4 – (top) Storage forecast ensemble after reservoir release schedules are calculated; (bottom) the resulting risk of exceeding the storage threshold matches the EFO risk tolerance policy.

It is important to note that a thorough analysis of the EFO methodology was made possible by a ensemble inflow hindcast dataset from the HEFS prepared by CNRFC for the Russian River Basin. The hindcast study allowed estimating what the forecast would have been for each day from 1985 to 2010, given their current forecasting skill. This allowed us to simulate reservoir operations and flows for points downstream under a variety of hydrologic conditions including the 1986 flood of record. Results show significant increases in storage levels (Figure 5) for almost the entire simulation period, with a 35% increase in median end of water year (September 30) storage levels compared to simulated existing operations.

Figure 5 – Storage levels with and without ensemble forecast operations (EFO)

Despite the generally increased storages, hindcast simulation results do not demonstrate any increased flood risk, with no instances of increased flow levels above flood stage. Figure 6 shows flows plotted as percent exceedance for the most flood prone region immediately downstream of Lake Mendocino.

Figure 6 – The distribution of downstream flows with current and EFO operations, showing that no significant increase in the risk of downstream flood-level flows with EFO.

The results of this study demonstrate that the implementation of the EFO methodology will likely achieve the goals of the FIRO Lake Mendocino pilot project – to improve water supply reliability without increasing flood risk to downstream communities. A more complete description of this study included in the Preliminary Viability Assessment Lake Mendocino Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations prepared by the FIRO Steering Committee in 2017. Following these positive outcomes, the Steering Committee is also working with the Corps to implement a revised version of the EFO methodology on an interim trial basis. For more information on FIRO and progress of the Lake Mendocino pilot project please visit the CW3E FIRO website.

We welcome comments and questions from the HEPEX community!


Additional author info: Jay Jasperse of the Sonoma County Water Agency and Marty Ralph of CW3E serve as co-chairs for the Lake Mendocino FIRO program. Rob Hartman is the former chief of the NWS California Nevada River Forecast Center, and has been a long-time contributor to HEPEX. Chris Delaney can be reached with questions and feedback at: Chris.Delaney /at/ scwa.ca.gov

Posted in case-studies, decision making, ensemble techniques, operational systems, risk management, water management | 3 Comments

EGU2018 #hepex Twitter feed – stay updated of events as they unfold

The week of April 9 sees the 2018 edition of the annual convention of the European Geosciences Union. “EGU2018” will be visited by approx 15,000 geoscientists including many working in the hydrometeorological arena. Last week, Fredrik provided us with an overview of some of the sessions and events that will be of interest to us HEPEX-ers.

Many of the convention-visiting-hydrometeorologists will carry a Twitter enabled phone which they will use to brief the world about the most salient insights gained. These 280 character gems will be displayed below.

Enjoy!

Note to Tweeps: don’t forget to include the #hepex in your Tweets!


Posted in Unclassified | Leave a comment

Hydrological forecasting at EGU 2018 – what not to miss next week!

The EGU 2018 Annual General Assembly will take place next week, from 8–13 April 2017 in Vienna as usual. The HEPEX community will be represented in many ways, and below you will find a quick guide to the most relevant sessions for hydrometeorological forecasters throughout the week. The sub-session on hydrological forecasting consists of 5 oral and poster sessions and 1 pico session. Get the EGU app now and tag the sessions!

The very first day will kick off with two very interesting sessions just after lunch, the sub-seasonal to climate, and after that the hydrometeorological forecasting session

13:30–15:00 / Room 2.15From sub-seasonal forecasting to climate projections: predicting hydrologic extremes and servicing water managers – Learn more about everything from seasonal to decadal predictions, reservoir and water resources management

15:30–17:00 / Room 2.15Ensemble hydro-meteorological forecasting and predictive uncertainty estimation – Grab a coffee and return to the same room for a very diverse session on forecasting and uncertainty estimation. Then make your way to the poster session for both sessions.

POSTER SESSION 17:30–19:00 / Hall A: Come to discuss with poster presenters for flash floods and ensemble forecasters and meet colleagues of the Hydrological forecasting sub-division.


On the second day, we dive into flash floods in the morning and the afternoon offers the very popular PICO session on operational forecasting and warning system for natural hazards:

08:30–10:00 / Room B: Flash floods and associated hydro-geomorphic processes: observation, modelling and warning – This session offers a number of highlighted talks, such as near real-time flash flood impact forecasting, validating impacts from insurance data and monitoring of ungauged catchments with photogrammetric methods

The  meeting of the Sub-Division on Hydrological Forecasting will be convened by MH Ramos, on Tue, 10 Apr, 10:30–12:00 / Room 2.83
It is open to everybody. Come and join us, notably if you want to meet colleagues or get more involved in the organization of sessions

13:30–17:00 / PICO spot A: Operational forecasting and warning systems for natural hazards: challenges and innovation – as last year, this interactive PICO session aims to bridge the gap between science and practice in operational forecasting for different water-related natural hazard

POSTER SESSION 17:30–19:00 / Hall A: The posters for the flash flood session is as always a good venue to discuss science and enjoy the hospitality


Wednesday is another packed day, with the session on droughts and water scarcity in the morning and games and statistical post-processing in the afternoon. Do not forget the HS division meeting at lunch!

08:30–12:00 / Room 2.44: Drought and water scarcity: monitoring, modelling and forecasting to improve hydro-meteorological risk management – the session includes everything from megadroughts in Chile to crop vulnerability in Kenya alongside presentations on new techniques to monitor and model droughts.

10.30-11.30 / Room L6: Towards forecasts and early warnings of natural hazards everywhere – for the Plinius Medal Lecture, Hannah Cloke will illustrate some of our recent successes, the best future opportunities and the critical challenges in forecasting and providing early warnings of natural hazards at the global scale.
The Division meeting for Hydrological Sciences (HS) will be convened by Elena Toth, on Wed, 11 Apr, 12:15–13:15 / Room B. It is the opportunity  to learn more about the way sessions related to Hydrological Sciences are organized at the EGU Assembly. You’re all welcome!

15:30–17:00 / Room 0.49: Advances in statistical post-processing for deterministic and ensemble forecasts – learn more about Bayesian post-processing techniques, post-processing of spatial extremes and proper scoring rules.

Other sessions that are of great interest:

13:30–15:00 / Room L7: Games for Geoscience – Learn how games can be a good way to promote science and practice! As you know, games has long been a part of HEPEX activities.

13:30–15:00 / Room L7: Coupled atmosphere-hydrological modeling for improved hydro-meteorological predictions – A very interesting session on coupled atmosphere-land experiments and effects of feedbacks.

POSTER SESSION  15:30 – 17:00 Hall X1  for the games and 17:30–19:00 Hall A for the droughts and Hall X4 for post-processing


Even though the hydrological forecasting sessions are already over, there are plenty of more interesting presentations to look forward to:

08:30–10:00 / Room 2.95: Advances in socio-hydrology, which attempt to better understand the dynamic interactions and feedbacks within diverse coupled human-water system

13:30–17:00 / Room C: History of hydrology – brush up on your hydrological history and learn more on hydrology in ancient Greece and India, and of course the history of HEPEX!

POSTER SESSION 17:30–19:00, will be in Hall A

Another tradition in Vienna: the HEPEX social gathering @ EGU. As in last year, it will be co-organized with partners of the IMPREX H2020 project. It will take place on Thursday evening at 8:30pm at the Restaurant Melker Stiftskeller (Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Wien). There is a limit of the number of places, so if you have not already booked, please do so via this form.


Last day of the EGU Assembly and again a full day of presentations:

08:30–17:00 / Room C: Hydrological extremes: from droughts to floods – Extreme events from floods to droughts and everything in between

13:30–17:00 / Room 0.49: Subseasonal-to-Seasonal (S2S) Prediction: meteorology and impactsa new session dedicated to understanding predictability of forecasts on the sub-seasonal to seasonal scale

POSTER SESSION 17:30–19:00, will be in Hall A for the hydrological extremes and HALL X5 for the S2S session

As you can see there is plenty to see and do in Vienna. See you there!

Posted in announcements-events, floods, forecast communication, forecast techniques, forecast users, meetings | Leave a comment

Calibrating hydrological model by river gender improves model skill

Contributed by Professor Flora Poil

Soon-to-be-published research funded by the international Hits-Sia-Ekoj research programme has shown that hydrological models can be significantly improved by using the link between river name and hydrological behaviour. Professor Poil explains:

“Anecdotally, the name of a river is often determined by its behaviour; a male river is more often turbulent, a female river more often stable. We wanted to investigate this link further.”

Genders of the main rivers in France. Source: Reddit/r/MapPorn 

All across our planet our watercourses have been assigned gender by our ancestors; from ‘Father Rhine’ to the Brahmaputra (Son of Brahma), and from La Dordogne to the Mekong (the mother of all rivers).

Following a year spent mapping river gender globally, Professor Poil’s team used river gender to determine catchment characteristics which were then used to inform setup and calibration of the HYDRO-LOOF distributed hydrological model. For a 5 year validation period they showed a 0104% improvement in skill compared to a control setup of the model.

This £142,018 ($412,018) interdisciplinary project on river gender science has strong implications for the hydrological forecasting community, as project researcher Dr Jo Key explains further:

“We believe that this research has significantly advanced the Prediction in Ungauged Basins research agenda. Using the river name as a guide, accurate models can be constructed without field visits and observations, therefore we could rapidly improve our forecasts at much reduced cost.”

Asked to comment on how this important finding relates to ensemble predictions, Professor Poil was remarkably coy:

“We all know which gender is known for being unpredictable. Let’s just say that this is something we can see in the ensemble spread. We’ve got some additional funding to look at this further, but I can’t say more at this stage”

This research will be published on the 1st of this month in the ‘Fluvial OrthOgonal Learning’ special issue of HESS.

Posted in April fools! | 2 Comments

HEPEX logo competition: reveal your inner artist!

contributed by Shaun Harrigan and Louise Arnal

We need your help! HEPEX (Hydrologic Ensemble Prediction EXperiment) needs a shiny new logo* and we think there is untapped artistic talent bursting to be free within the community, so we are running an online competition seeking the “next top logo”.

Established in 2004, the HEPEX mission is to demonstrate the added value of hydrological ensemble predictions for emergency management and water resources sectors to make decisions that have important consequences for the economy, public health and safety.

HEPEX is looking towards the next decade: better communication with the wider scientific community, practitioners and decision makers, as well as the public, has been identified as a key theme. We think this competition provides the perfect opportunity to engage the community to help us refresh the HEPEX online platform.

Competition guidelines and details

  • The logo* should reflect the essence of HEPEX
  • It will be used across all HEPEX online platforms (e.g., website, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn)
  • It should be colour-blind friendly
  • Entries can be a polished vector graphics file or an image of a hand-drawn sketch (which can be made into professional logo based on the original design)
  • The word “HEPEX” doesn’t necessarily have to be written within the logo
  • Final logo copyright must be open by creative commons licence
  • Up to 3 entries per person
  • Deadline: Thursday 31 May 2018

 

Submit sketches, images, and vector graphics files by email to: blog@hepex.org

Voting, selection, and prize!

  • A vote will take place online and HEPEX-ers far and wide will be invited to vote for their favourite design (voting will close 1 week after deadline)
  • The top 3 logos with the most votes will go through for final judging by the HEPEX Chairs
  • The winner’s prize is the knowledge that their beautiful design will be the new face of HEPEX, and they will also receive a mug with their winning HEPEX logo printed (nice!)

Technical hint

If you do not have the expensive Adobe Illustrator programme, there are free and open source alternatives, e.g. GIMP image editor with many tutorials on YouTube.

What do we mean by a logo?

*A ‘logo‘: “a small graphic design that can be worked into a website banner or a letterhead; or printed on a button, sticker, a tshirt, etc.”  It doesn’t need to have a particular shape, e.g square, rectangular, circular – whatever you like!

Posted in activities, social participation | Leave a comment

What are the challenges for HEPEX over the next decade?

The question sounds grand and may be a bit difficult to give a simple answer to, but that was the question put forward to the participants at the HEPEX workshop in Melbourne in February. HEPEX was founded as an initiative in 2004 with the goal of bringing the hydrological and meteorological communities to “demonstrate how to produce reliable …hydrological ensemble forecasts that can be used to assist the water resources sector to make decisions that have important consequences for the economy and for public health and safety“. The achievements in ensemble forecasting up until today have been discussed in workshops and blogs, and the success of implementing hydrological ensemble predictions is unquestionable — and HEPEX has clearly contributed. This success, however, prompts the question: has HEPEX fulfilled all of its goals, and if so should we disband the community and go our separate ways?

Top: Participants at the 2nd HEPEX workshop in Boulder, Colorado in 2005. Bottom: Participants at the 7th HEPEX workshop in Melbourne, Australia in 2018. The community is apparently growing.

What is the future of HEPEX?

The answer  to the posed questions is hopefully no — we still have a role to play. But the focus may need to shift from the technical implementation of operational systems towards the wider use and impact of hydrological ensembles. To help us answer this we took the opportunity to pick the brains of some of the sharpest researchers, forecasters and decision makers during the 2018 workshop . The goal was to gauge where the starting point of reformulating the role of HEPEX. The task was to discuss the question in small groups (4-5 people) and try to formulate 1-2 challenges for hydrometeorological ensemble predictions over the next decade. The groups were asked to formulate the challenges as specifically as possible so that they could be ideally be measurable. The groups were then asked to select a champion to pitch their idea in front of the rest of the workshop. Through the marvels of technology, the entire HEPEX assembly was then asked to rate each idea via their mobile phones, selecting from “A. Very interesting” to “E: Not interesting at all”. The votes were collated, and after translating the letters into numerical rankings from 1 to 5 (the higher the more interesting), we could quantify which ideas were received as extremely topical and important, and which received only lukewarm support.

Education, communication and dissemination

The most popular idea to emerge was “to produce a curriculum to help train the next generation of ensemble forecasters”, which reached an impressive average score of 4.6. Clearly there is a need to develop outreach and training material for the next generation scientists and forecasters and to make sure that ensemble techniques are embedded into graduate and post-graduate training. As a community we can help by developing training materials such as the Handbook and training material, but perhaps also aim to organize more training courses. Good examples include the short course in hydrological forecasting  organized last year at EGU, and the data assimilation workshop following the HEPEX Quebec City meeting in 2016.

The “Peak-box game” created by Massimiliano Zappa and Käthi Liechti. An example of training material downloadable from the HEPEX web site.

In places 2-6, all with a score above 4, were suggestions on improved communication to support better uptake of ensemble forecasts; a community toolbox of methods and techniques; a focus on risk-based decision making; user-friendly (event-based) verification measures; and better data in support of global hydrological modelling. Although the toolbox and better datasets are technical suggestions, the other three suggestions are focused on the users of our forecasts. Also just below (3.9) was a suggestion that HEPEX needs to better describe the value of ensemble forecasts. Collectively, these results implied that a lot more effort is needed at interface between developers and users.

But do not forget the data!

The other suggestions that were not as popular, but still had a score of >3, were dominated by recommendations revolving around data: big data, data assimilation for initial conditions, using new data sources and data-driven analysis. Other suggestions dealt with integrating and coupling forecasting systems, for example by running high-resolution inundation models forced by large-scale models, interating high resolution deterministic with ensemble predictions, or including local knowledge in the forecasts. Also there was also a suggestion for a forecast glossary (which supports the better communication theme).

Is HEPEX still needed?!

And so, returning to the question:  do we continue with the HEPEX mission? The answer is, thankfully, unequivocal:  YES … but we need to broaden our activities. We are already involved in a lot of work on communication, dissemination and education, but it is clear that these areas will have to be emphasized strongly in the next decade. The number of operational hydrological ensemble forecasting systems running today is impressive compared to a decade ago, and yet there is still an enormous opportunity for more systems and a lot of technical improvements (for example using new datasets and exploiting the ones we already have to improve our forecasts). However, the focus on our 6th topic in the science implementation plan, Communication and Decision Making needs to receive more attention.

The future users of hydrological ensemble forecasts need our guidance!

We welcome your thoughts!

This post was a short summary of the discussions held at the HEPEX 7th Workshop in Melbourne, Australia in February 2018.

Posted in meetings, opinion, science plan | 1 Comment

Bridging the gap between forecasters and operational hydrologists: an OzEWEX summer institute project

Contributed by Melanie Loveridge, Bex Dunn and Yiling Liu

How often do we assume that we understand the users’ needs, which may later be proven untrue? At the recent OzEWEX Australian Climate and Water Summer Institute – held in Canberra, Australia – we got the chance to bridge the gap between forecasters and operational hydrologists.

Fifteen of us were invited to the OzEWEX summer institute, which provides early career researchers the chance to see the current and emerging data and technologies in use within government departments. Following some initial intensive training, we were given the opportunity to use this technology in an innovative but practically useful way.

In the end, we landed a group of three to understand the forecast needs of river and storage operators. We felt that there are so many amazing datasets that it’s unnecessary to create more. Instead, we thought – how do we make existing data more useful to the people who are actually using it? What better way to do this, than going back to basics and defining our end users’ needs.

Discovery of user requirements was performed through an online survey. It was designed to gauge current usage and desirable additions or improvements, and capture associations with different demographics. To date we have received 29 responses throughout Australia – keeping in mind that there is only a small Australian population of river and storage operators. This was then supplemented by follow-up phone interviews and four focus groups.

Our operator’s responses to forecast information have given rise to some very interesting initial findings. Existing forecast information (provided primarily by the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia) is clearly valued, with 79% of users satisfied with the service. Most operators also believed that enhancements could be made to existing forecast information.

More effective communication is key!

Operators wanted to see three key areas of communication addressed. This consistently came up when speaking with operators, as they want to be better enabled to interpret hydro-meteorologic forecasts. Most critically being confidence in forecasts or prediction uncertainties.

Similarly, where multiple forecasts of the same hydro-meteorologic variable is available, they wanted to understand the differences between those estimates. This could also be addressed through an increased understanding of the skill or uncertainty of predictions.

Lastly, they wanted more information about the technique used to create the forecast. This finding was curious as information about the underlying techniques are all provided on the Bureau of Meteorology’s website. It might be more related to the level of understanding of the forecast methods, i.e. maybe it would be more appropriate to have simplified explanations with supporting media (videos, illustrations, etc.).

Additional nationally consistent forecasts.

Communication is often seen as the biggest challenge for operators, however, additional nationally consistent forecasts were sought after. Although already in existence, operators wanted improved reliability for 7-day forecasts and beyond.

One dataset that several operators were particularly passionate about getting is an irrigation demand forecast. Amongst other things, these forecasts can predict the volume of irrigated water required in a catchment, valley or irrigation district. These predictions prove crucial to driving water efficiencies where there is ferocious competition and demand for this valuable resource. Others forecasts included potential and actual evapotranspiration, soil moisture and reservoir levels.

Where to now?

Users are the experts of their own craft, so it is important to understand the goals from their perspective and not our own. These results have suggested that although some additional datasets would be useful, increased communication around existing forecasts is key to increasing user trust (for river and storage operators at least). While not always appropriate, we encourage researchers to engage with end users’ to really understand their genuine needs.

Work continues on this project. However, initial results have already been presented to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in the hope for future development. Furthermore, we intend to present further conclusions at the forthcoming Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium in Melbourne, Australia.

Posted in case-studies, forecast communication, forecast users, meetings, water management | Leave a comment

Summary of the 2018 HEPEX ‘Breaking the Barriers’ Workshop, Melbourne Australia.

Contributed by David Robertson, James Bennett, QJ Wang, Daehyok Shin, Andy Wood, Maria-Helena Ramos, Ilias Pechlivanidis and Fredrik Wetterhall.

More than 120 HEPEXers from 15 countries descended on Melbourne, Australia, for three days of sunshine, science and applications at the 2018 HEPEX ‘Breaking the Barriers’ Workshop.

The meeting kicked off with a warm welcome from the local organizing team (James Bennett, QJ Wang, David Robertson and DH Shin) and a series of short talks recognizing the importance of water predictions and science, and from an elder of the Wurundjeri people, who stressed the long history of indigenous peoples living in balance with the land and water. The Workshop was supported by CSIRO, the University of Melbourne and the Bureau of Meteorology.

CSIRO’s James Bennett does the honors in opening up the meeting (left), and Uncle Ron Jones welcomes HEPEX to Wurundjeri country (right)

The participants had the opportunity to listen and interact during the 38 oral presentations (including 3 keynote speeches and 10 invited talks), and 40 posters, whilst the open discussion sessions allowed sharing of experiences and insights. Here, we only select and summarize a few out of the numerous high quality presentations.

Hannah Cloke’s keynote talk “Fly me to the moon” set the stage by reviewing the last decade of progress in flood forecasting for the UK and challenges in taking flood forecasts to a global scale. Hannah above all highlighted the need to ‘be brave’ in trying new approaches, which stayed in the minds of participants for the rest of the workshop.

Subsequent presentations on day one reported on projects assessing the quality of global and regional forecasts of flash floods, riverine flooding, drought and seasonal streamflow generated by land system models harnessing and compiling global impact databases to support verification. Florian Pappenberger highlighted that a greater focus on integrating the land surface as part of Earth System prediction is likely to be the key to extending prediction skill.

A healthy diversity of methods were showcased, including multi-model approaches and data assimilation to improve estimates of modeling and forecast uncertainty, the coupling of coarse land surface models (LSMs) to sub-grid routing and high-resolution hydrologic/hydraulic modeling, and the use of GPU-based computing for forecasting.

The second day of the meeting opened with a description of the EDgE Copernicus proof-of-concept, which is comparing the performance LSMs for seasonal to sub-seasonal (S2S) forecasting in Europe and contrasting skill arising from ESP versus GCM-based predictions. The focus pulled back to methodological questions related to downscaling, merging and pre-processing of weather and climate forecasts, investigating predictability at S2S scales, and highlighting the advancement of dynamical national systems in countries such as New Zealand and China.

Talks also delved into using radar-based rainfall and ensemble approaches to flash flood forecasting. Verification was also discussed, with talks showing new systems for meteorological forecast verification in Australia as well as challenging HEPEX’s hydrologists to think more carefully about what we verify, and how event performance may affect user confidence in forecasts and their effectiveness in motivating action.

The keynote talk of the day was a blockbuster, with Dasarath “Jaya” Jayasuriya, the Director of Public Safety for the Bureau of Meteorology, who dispensed rare wisdom on how forecasting fits within Australia’s national services for managing resources and risk, including insights into forecast-related objectives, mindsets and constraints from the producer side to the public user side. Among other topics, his comments on how BoM navigates the path of serving different users while promoting overall acceptance of forecasts (perhaps through hands on case studies that raise awareness in the field), were illuminating.

Healthy discussions over a healthy lunch: intense days of forecast discussions were balanced by plenty of socializing. The Twitter stream #hepex and the WhatsApp ‘HEPEX in Melbourne’ played a key role in keeping participants in Melbourne and from abroad connected.

HEPEX Day 3 began with a focus on S2S forecasts, with an SMHI effort characterizing predictability (through watershed initial conditions and climate) using collections of geophysical attributes, and work in the UK to understand and enhance climate / drought predictability through the incorporation of NAO variability. The conversation turned toward forecast product development and communication, highlighting the importance of co-development of forecast services with users (see also the SWICCA Copernicus proof-of-concept).

The day’s keynote speaker, Matthew Bethune of the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) Authority, provided a bracing real-world overview of the use of hydrologic models to support decision making in the MDB, highlighting the difficult challenges of making robust release decisions to supply customers at lead times (days to weeks) during which weather, climate and river conditions are highly uncertain. Among the methodological needs raised in the talk, the need to know how climate change may impact current methods for prediction was also raised.

The final talk session of the meeting shifted to examples of real-world predictions for operations, both in flood warning and in hydropower operations for several systems. These talks provide inspiring case studies for effective implementations of ensemble techniques for energy management, underscoring the sense that HEPEX-style forecasting is becoming a reality for groups ready to ‘be brave’ and make the effort to implement ensembles. In addition, the speakers described methodological experiments aimed at finding the best strategies, suggesting that many questions are still of interest. Ensemble research is not a solved problem!

The presentations made available by the authors can be downloaded from here.

Maria-Helena Ramos from Irstea (new Division President-elect of EGU Hydrological Sciences for 2019-2021) announced that she is stepping back from co-chairing HEPEX after 4 years of outstanding leadership and irresistible camaraderie. Ilias Pechlivanidis from SMHI now steps up to fill her shoes, bringing his energy, enthusiasm, and new ideas to help lead HEPEX forward.

HEPEX closed out the meeting with breakout groups, an interactive digital survey, and a closing discussion to take stock of where HEPEX should go. Many aims of HEPEX – including the operational adoption of ensemble hydrologic prediction for the benefit of society – have evolved from being a dream in 2004 to being realized operationally in a number of countries. What then are the key challenges HEPEX should pursue in the next 10 years?

The detailed results of this discussion will be summarized in a future blog, but for now it is clear that challenges do remain (particularly in continuing to communicate the value of ensemble systems), and also many opportunities. This will be an ongoing conversation, so start thinking and contributing – where should HEPEX focus its efforts, what are the big challenges, and how can you help make it happen?

HEPEXers touring the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Operations Centre, where overview of BoM services was presented and the daily weather briefing observed, and Melbourne Water’s Sugarloaf Reservoir, pump station and Winneke water treatment plant, where the challenges of delivering water in a highly variable climate were discussed.

Posted in activities, meetings | Leave a comment

Melbourne HEPEX “Breaking the Barriers” convention – Twitter feed

This week, the HEPEX traveling circus will descend on Melbourne, home of the Bureau of Meteorology, the University of Melbourne, Monash University and the CSIRO. HEPEX-ers will be tweeting their way through the convention – and these Tweets will be assembled in below Twitter stream. Feel free to add your thoughts, ideas and observations – just make sure they’re summarized in 140 280 characters max – and don’t forget to include the #hepex tag!


Posted in Unclassified | Leave a comment