Better Forecast Accuracy Through Reproducibility
There are several underlying principles which help in achieving the high accuracy of MWA hydroclimate forecast models. In our experience, the more reproducible the performance report, the more rapidly the calculations evolve to higher accuracy.
The featured images are included as an example. The images compare our (training) forecast performance (blue) for annual flows of the Gila River near Gila, NM (in the United States) to a surrogate conventional method in green (Auto Correlation, AC) and to a global circulation model (GCM) based method in red. Note that for comparison, each sim output is limited to the period from 1987 to 2016. GCM values are adapted from an ensemble of VIC model runs covering a period from 1950 to 2100. For every performance metric considered, the MWA method consistently outperforms all others.
Several critical features can relate to better forecast performance, including:
A. Cost.
B. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE).
C. Goodness of Fit.
The metrics that MWA routinely utilizes to give Customers and Constituents a candid accounting for our performance are included in this post as self explanatory charts.
We encourage those who pay for services such as water (for irrigation, electricity generation, municipal etc.) to inquire from their providers if underlying water availability forecast methods are as accurate or as reproducible as those of MWA. If answers are not satisfactory, please consider requesting that the service provider reach out to us. As the final tables show, we may be able to improve performance and save many ratepayers a great deal of money.
| annual average | |||||
| Gila near Gila, NM, avg 1 yta flow is 179 CFS | RMSE | difference cfs | difference acre ft | value at $700/af/year | value at $1,000/af/year |
| MWA Approach | 99.36 | ||||
| AC Approach | 103.89 | ||||
| GCM Approach | 119.66 | ||||
| MWA vs AC | 4.53 | 3282 | $ 2,297,272 | $ 3,281,817 | |
| MWA vs GCM | 20.30 | 14707 | $ 10,294,617 | $ 14,706,595 | |
| AC vs GCM | 15.8 | 11425 | $ 7,997,345 | $ 11,424,779 |
| 5 year average | |||||
| Gila near Gila, NM, avg 5 yta flow is 183 CFS | RMSE | difference cfs | difference acre ft | value at $700/af/year for 5 yrs | value at $1,000/af/year for 5 yrs |
| MWA Approach | 33.14 | ||||
| AC Approach | 40.94 | ||||
| GCM Approach | 71.67 | ||||
| MWA vs AC | 7.80 | 5651 | $ 19,777,835 | $ 28,254,050 | |
| MWA vs GCM | 38.53 | 27914 | $ 97,697,432 | $139,567,760 | |
| AC vs GCM | 30.7 | 22263 | $ 77,919,598 | $111,313,711 |
Copyright 2016, 2017, Michael Wallace, www.abeqas.com
Disclaimer: This is a draft and preliminary post. Original Source for GCM product: Gutzler, D.S. 2013, “Streamflow Projections for the upper Gila River” UNM Contract No. 37675. Submitted to the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission for Deliverables 2 and 3.
11247total visits,3visits today
You May Also Like
