Bob Livezey
NOAA/Climate Prediction Center
Larry Kalkstein
University of Delaware/Center for Climatic Research
Chris Barnes
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Gib Parrish
Centers for Disease Control
A meeting of the Subcommittee was held on November 6, 1996 at the University
of Delaware to develop statistical procedures which would evaluate the effectiveness
of at least 2 heat/health watch-warning system approaches. This would be
accomplished through a comparative evaluation of heat-related mortality prediction.
Participants at the meeting, other than the Subcommittee members listed above,
were: Emilio Esteban, CDC, Jerry Libby, Philadelphia Department of Public
Health, and Steven Yoon, CDC. An agreed upon plan of action was developed,
and is reported below.
An objective evaluation is to be performed on 2 specific procedures which
have potential use in heat/health watch-warning systems. The first is an
apparent temperature-based system which has its roots in NOAA procedures for
heat warnings. The second is an air mass-based classification developed at
the University of Delaware which is presently in use by the Philadelphia Department
of Public Health, and will be used by the DC Office of Emergency Preparedness
beginning summer 1997.
For this objective evaluation, a mandatory requirement is a "level playing
field" for both procedures. This includes 3 key components. First, the identical
data sets will be used to evaluate both procedures. Second, minimum values
for apparent temperatures that must be exceeded for mortality to be impacted
will be established (such "thresholds" are already internally determined
in the air mass-based procedure). This optimizes the possibility of determining
significant linear relationships in the next step. Third, regression equations
with appropriate independent variables which evaluate mortality variability
will be constructed for both procedures for cases in which thresholds are
exceeded. The selection of the independent variables will be done parsimoniously
with a pool of no greater than 6, and with the expectation that final regression
equations will have approximately 3 terms.
We propose that a sufficient number of cities be evaluated so that all of
the climate regions of the country are represented. No less than 20 cities
will be examined, all with large populations to decrease the amount of noise
in mortality variation. Data will be standardized using procedures recommended
by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Besides an evaluation of total
deaths, several mortality subsets will be developed to exclude those causes
which are clearly not related to heat. CDC will assist in the selection procedure
of mortality causes. Finally, we will avoid use of data during post-mitigation
periods where rigorous attempts have been made to decrease heat-related mortality.
To estimate skill levels that will be realizable in practice, the 2 mortality
prediction schemes will be tested on independent data through the use of
a fill cross validation. This is a technique whereby data for individual
summers are sequentially withheld from the analytical procedures and the
resulting test models are then evaluated on the withheld data. For example,
assuming a 20-year data set, relationships will be developed on 19 years
and the 2Oth year will be withheld for evaluation. This will be repeated
20 times, reserving a different test year each time. Every step in the modeling
procedure is redone in this cross validation, each time excluding the evaluated
year. Thus, no step in the procedure (threshold determination, regression
fitting, etc.) will have knowledge of what occurs within the evaluated year.
Forecasts will be made in both categorical and continuous quantitative forms
and will be thoroughly evaluated with modern verification techniques.
It is the committee's hope that the results of this test will be used to
alter present procedures to evaluate heat/health problems. Further, we believe
that this evaluation will provide a demonstration of the necessity for regionally
varying criteria for heat-related health alerts. The Working Group on Current
Heat Wave Forecasts and Warning Practices at the NOAA Heat Wave Workshop
recommended that local National Weather Service offices have the flexibility
to apply these regionally-varying criteria, which few currently do. Another
demonstration of this evaluation will be the power of regression techniques
(or other empirical models) to quantity the level of danger. Finally, this
study should provide guidance on which weather-related factors to focus.