Articles | Volume 22, issue 2
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 539–557, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-539-2022
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 539–557, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-539-2022

Research article 21 Feb 2022

Research article | 21 Feb 2022

Methodological and conceptual challenges in rare and severe event forecast verification

Philip A. Ebert and Peter Milne

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-215', Krister Kristensen, 14 Sep 2021
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip A. Ebert, 09 Dec 2021
  • CC1: 'Review of "Methodological and conceptual challenges in rare and severe event forecast-verification" by Ebert and Milne', Karl W. Birkeland, 12 Nov 2021
    • AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Philip A. Ebert, 09 Dec 2021
  • RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-215', R. S. Purves, 13 Nov 2021
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Philip A. Ebert, 09 Dec 2021

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (12 Dec 2021) by Pascal Haegeli
AR by Philip A. Ebert on behalf of the Authors (26 Dec 2021)  Author's response    Author's tracked changes    Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (16 Jan 2022) by Pascal Haegeli
AR by Philip A. Ebert on behalf of the Authors (19 Jan 2022)  Author's response    Manuscript
Download
Short summary
There is no consensus about how to assess the quality of binary (yes or no) rare and severe event forecasts, i.e. forecasts involving natural hazards like tornadoes or avalanches. We offer a comprehensive overview of the challenges we face when making such an assessment and provide a critical review of existing solutions. We argue against all but one existing solution to assess the quality of such forecasts and present practical consequences to improve forecasting services.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint