IAHS2022-148
https://doi.org/10.5194/iahs2022-148
IAHS-AISH Scientific Assembly 2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Radar rainfall nowcasting for flash flood forecasting

Ruben Imhoff1,2, Claudia Brauer2, Klaas-Jan van Heeringen1, Remko Uijlenhoet3, and Albrecht Weerts1,2
Ruben Imhoff et al.
  • 1Operational Water Management & Early Warning, Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands
  • 2Hydrology and Quantitative Water Management Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • 3Department of Water Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Radar rainfall nowcasting promises to result in more accurate and timely rainfall forecasts up to several hours in advance, compared to numerical weather prediction model forecasts. As flood early warning systems can benefit from this, we assessed the potential of radar rainfall nowcasting for (flash) flood forecasting with a large sample of 659 individual rainfall events for 12 catchments in the Netherlands. In this assessment, we tested four open-source nowcasting algorithms: Rainymotion Sparse (RM-S), Rainymotion DenseRotation (RM-DR), Pysteps deterministic (PS-D) and Pysteps probabilistic (PS-P) with 20 ensemble members. Eulerian Persistence (EP) forecasts and zero precipitation input (ZP) were the benchmark. The discharge forecasts had a 12-h forecast horizon and were issued for every 5-min step in the available nowcasts for the set of events. We regarded the simulations using the observed radar rainfall as reference.

We found that rainfall and discharge forecast errors increase with both increasing rainfall intensity and spatial variability. For the discharge forecasts, this relationship also depends on the initial conditions, as the forecast error increases more quickly with rainfall intensity, when the initial conditions are wet and groundwater tables are shallow. Overall, discharge forecasts using RM-DR, PS-D and PS-P outperform the other nowcasting methods.

Furthermore, we tested the potential for forecasting threshold exceedances by setting the highest discharge, per event, as threshold. Compared to benchmark ZP, a threshold exceedance is, on average, forecast 223 (EP), 196 (RM-S), 213 (RM-DR), 119 (PS-D) and 143 min (PS-P) earlier. The relatively high time profits with EP are counterbalanced by both a high false alarm ratio (FAR) and inconsistent forecasts. Contrarily, PS-D and PS-P show both lower FAR and inconsistency index values, which can lead to more trust in the simulations.

Based on this large-sample analysis, we conclude that all nowcasting methods have shown a benefit for short-term discharge forecasting compared to issuing no rainfall forecasts at all, though all have shortcomings. As forecast rainfall volumes are a crucial factor in (flash) flood forecasting, we recommend a future focus on improving this aspect in nowcasting.

How to cite: Imhoff, R., Brauer, C., van Heeringen, K.-J., Uijlenhoet, R., and Weerts, A.: Radar rainfall nowcasting for flash flood forecasting, IAHS-AISH Scientific Assembly 2022, Montpellier, France, 29 May–3 Jun 2022, IAHS2022-148, https://doi.org/10.5194/iahs2022-148, 2022.