% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Saadi:1009014,
      author       = {Saadi, Mohamed and Furusho-Percot, Carina and Belleflamme,
                      Alexandre and Trömel, Silke and Kollet, Stefan and
                      Reinoso-Rondinel, Ricardo},
      title        = {{C}omparison of {T}hree {R}adar-{B}ased {P}recipitation
                      {N}owcasts for the {E}xtreme {J}uly 2021 {F}looding {E}vent
                      in {G}ermany},
      journal      = {Journal of hydrometeorology},
      volume       = {24},
      number       = {7},
      issn         = {1525-755X},
      address      = {Boston, Mass.},
      publisher    = {AMS},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-02574},
      pages        = {1241 - 1261},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {Quantitative precipitation nowcasts (QPN) can improve the
                      accuracy of flood forecasts, especially for lead times up to
                      12 h, but their evaluation depends on a variety of factors,
                      namely, the choice of the hydrological model and the
                      benchmark. We tested three precipitation nowcasting
                      techniques based on radar observations for the disastrous
                      mid-July 2021 event in seven German catchments (140–1670
                      km2). Two deterministic [advection-based and spectral
                      prognosis (S-PROG)] and one probabilistic [Short-Term
                      Ensemble Prediction System (STEPS)] QPN with a maximum lead
                      time of 3 h were used as input to two hydrological models: a
                      physically based, 3D-distributed model (ParFlowCLM) and a
                      conceptual, lumped model (GR4H). We quantified the
                      hydrological added value of QPN compared with hydrological
                      persistence and zero-precipitation nowcasts as benchmarks.
                      For the 14 July 2021 event, we obtained the following key
                      results. 1) According to the quality of the forecasted
                      hydrographs, exploiting QPN improved the lead times by up to
                      4 h (8 h) compared with adopting zero-precipitation nowcasts
                      (hydrological persistence) as a benchmark. Using a
                      skill-based approach, obtained improvements were up to
                      7–12 h depending on the benchmark. 2) The three QPN
                      techniques obtained similar performances regardless of the
                      applied hydrological model. 3) Using zero-precipitation
                      nowcasts instead of hydrological persistence as benchmark
                      reduced the added value of QPN. These results highlight the
                      need for combining a skill-based approach with an analysis
                      of the quality of forecasted hydrographs to rigorously
                      estimate the added value of QPN.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
                      (POF4-217)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001024143100001},
      doi          = {10.1175/JHM-D-22-0121.1},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1009014},
}