2004
DOI: 10.1017/s1350482704001318
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A statistical method for forecasting extreme daily temperatures using ECMWF 2‐m temperatures and ground station measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
13
0
8

Year Published

2004
2004
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
2
13
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…• C. This is similar to results found by other authors using non-linear methods (Marzban, 2003, Casaioli et al, 2003, Boi, 2004. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that Atmos.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…• C. This is similar to results found by other authors using non-linear methods (Marzban, 2003, Casaioli et al, 2003, Boi, 2004. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that Atmos.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…All the methods tested here clearly improve the raw NWP predictions. The best MOS approach (a nine-point RF) yields a mean average error (MAE) of 1.2 • C. This is similar to results found by other authors using non-linear methods (Marzban, 2003;Casaioli et al, 2003;Boi, 2004). Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the rather high correlation (r=0.95) between the DMO and measured values is itself a good starting point for designing a MOS procedure.…”
supporting
confidence: 83%
“…At noon, RAMS forecasts L v E ∼100 Wm −2 higher than WRF and also higher than the observations. Despite many models still suffer from a soil that reacts too slowly on the surface forcing [e.g., Zhang and Zheng , 2004; Boi , 2004; Rantamäki et al , 2005; Edwards et al , 2011], the current WRF simulation provides a satisfactory G , except at night when G is underestimated ∼20 Wm −2 (not shown). Note however, that a small error in G at night, might result in substantial errors in the estimated near surface temperature.…”
Section: Model Results For the Windy Period (Case I)mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…A detailed description of this procedure and the one year of forecast verifications at 58 locations are presented in Boi (2004); a comparison with other post-processing methods, such as the Kalman filter, MOS or Perfect Prog, confirms that this method performs well.…”
Section: Bias Correctionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…This bias correction procedure has been applied successfully to forecast maximum and minimum temperatures at 58 stations on Sardinia (deterministic forecasts), by post-processing the TL511 ECMWF model. A detailed description of this procedure and the one year of forecast verifications at 58 locations are presented in Boi (2004); a comparison with other post-processing methods, such as the Kalman filter, MOS or Perfect Prog, confirms that this method performs well.…”
Section: Bias Correctionmentioning
confidence: 81%