This article describes the extreme value analysis (EVA) R package extRemes version 2.0, which is completely redesigned from previous versions. The functions primarily provide utilities for implementing univariate EVA, with a focus on weather and climate applications, including the incorporation of covariates, as well as some functionality for assessing bivariate tail dependence.

No abstract

Advancements in weather forecast models and their enhanced resolution have led to substantially improved and more realistic-appearing forecasts for some variables. However, traditional verification scores often indicate poor performance because of the increased small-scale variability so that the true quality of the forecasts is not always characterized well. As a result, numerous new methods for verifying these forecasts have been proposed. These new methods can mostly be classified into two overall categories: filtering methods and displacement methods. The filtering methods can be further delineated into neighborhood and scale separation, and the displacement methods can be divided into features based and field deformation. Each method gives considerably more information than the traditional scores, but it is not clear which method(s) should be used for which purpose.A verification methods intercomparison project has been established in order to glean a better understanding of the proposed methods in terms of their various characteristics and to determine what verification questions each method addresses. The study is ongoing, and preliminary qualitative results for the different approaches applied to different situations are described here. In particular, the various methods and their basic characteristics, similarities, and differences are described. In addition, several questions are addressed regarding the application of the methods and the information that they provide. These questions include (i) how the method(s) inform performance at different scales; (ii) how the methods provide information on location errors; (iii) whether the methods provide information on intensity errors and distributions; (iv) whether the methods provide information on structure errors; (v) whether the approaches have the ability to provide information about hits, misses, and false alarms; (vi) whether the methods do anything that is counterintuitive; (vii) whether the methods have selectable parameters and how sensitive the results are to parameter selection; (viii) whether the results can be easily aggregated across multiple cases; (ix) whether the methods can identify timing errors; and (x) whether confidence intervals and hypothesis tests can be readily computed.

Average behavior is often studied, with well‐developed techniques from the field of statistics allowing for inferences to be readily made. However, in many atmospheric, hydrologic, and other geophysical problems, extremes are of the greatest interest. The usual statistical methods for averages do not correctly inform scientists about extremes, but a more specialized area of statistical research focused on extremes can be applied instead. Where the normal distribution has theoretical support for use with averages, other forms of distribution have similar theoretical support for the extremes: the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution for analyzing extreme statistics like annual maxima or minima, and the generalized Pareto (GP) distribution for excesses over a high threshold (or deficits below a low threshold) [e.g., Coles, 2001]. For more background on the statistics of geophysical extremes, especially those for weather and climate, seehttp://www.isse.ucar.edu/extremevalues/extreme.html.

Several spatial forecast verification methods have been developed that are suited for high-resolution precipitation forecasts. They can account for the spatial coherence of precipitation and give credit to a forecast that does not necessarily match the observation at any particular grid point. The methods were grouped into four broad categories (neighborhood, scale separation, features based, and field deformation) for the Spatial Forecast Verification Methods Intercomparison Project (ICP). Participants were asked to apply their new methods to a set of artificial geometric and perturbed forecasts with prescribed errors, and a set of real forecasts of convective precipitation on a 4-km grid. This paper describes the intercomparison test cases, summarizes results from the geometric cases, and presents subjective scores and traditional scores from the real cases.All the new methods could detect bias error, and the features-based and field deformation methods were also able to diagnose displacement errors of precipitation features. The best approach for capturing errors in aspect ratio was field deformation. When comparing model forecasts with real cases, the traditional verification scores did not agree with the subjective assessment of the forecasts.

We develop a statistical model using extreme value theory to estimate the 2000–2050 changes in ozone episodes across the United States. We model the relationships between daily maximum temperature (Tmax) and maximum daily 8 h average (MDA8) ozone in May–September over 2003–2012 using a Point Process (PP) model. At ~20% of the sites, a marked decrease in the ozone‐temperature slope occurs at high temperatures, defined as ozone suppression. The PP model sometimes fails to capture ozone‐Tmax relationships, so we refit the ozone‐Tmax slope using logistic regression and a generalized Pareto distribution model. We then apply the resulting hybrid‐extreme value theory model to projections of Tmax from an ensemble of downscaled climate models. Assuming constant anthropogenic emissions at the present level, we find an average increase of 2.3 d a−1 in ozone episodes (>75 ppbv) across the United States by the 2050s, with a change of +3–9 d a−1 at many sites.

[1] Although information about climate change and its implications is becoming increasingly available to water utility managers, additional tools are needed to translate this information into secondary products useful for local assessments. The anticipated intensification of the hydrologic cycle makes quantifying changes to hydrologic extremes, as well as associated water quality effects, of particular concern. To this end, this paper focuses on using extreme value statistics to describe maximum monthly flow distributions at a given site, where the nonstationarity is derived from concurrent climate information. From these statistics, flow quantiles are reconstructed over the historic record and then projected to 2100. This paper extends this analysis to an associated source water quality impact, whereby the corresponding risk of exceeding a water quality threshold is examined. The approach is applied to a drinking water source in the Pacific Northwest United States that has experienced elevated turbidity values correlated with high streamflow. Results demonstrate that based on climate change information from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report, the variability and magnitude of extreme streamflows substantially increase over the 21st century. Consequently, the likelihood of a turbidity exceedance increases, as do the associated relative costs. The framework is general and could be applied to estimate extreme streamflow under climate change at other locations, with straightforward extensions to other water quality variables that depend on extreme hydroclimate.

Floods often affect large regions and cause adverse societal impacts. Regional flood hazard and risk assessments therefore require a realistic representation of spatial flood dependencies to avoid the overestimation or underestimation of risk. However, it is not yet well understood how spatial flood dependence, that is, the degree of co‐occurrence of floods at different locations, varies in space and time and which processes influence the strength of this dependence. We identify regions in the United States with seasonally similar flood behavior and analyze processes governing spatial dependence. We find that spatial flood dependence varies regionally and seasonally and is generally strongest in winter and spring and weakest in summer and fall. Moreover, we find that land‐surface processes are crucial in shaping the spatiotemporal characteristics of flood events. We conclude that the regional and seasonal variations in spatial flood dependencies must be considered when conducting current and future flood risk assessments.