比较校准模拟和动态集合太阳预报

Dazhi Yang , Yu Kong , Bai Liu , Jingnan Wang , Di Sun , Guoming Yang , Wenting Wang
{"title":"比较校准模拟和动态集合太阳预报","authors":"Dazhi Yang ,&nbsp;Yu Kong ,&nbsp;Bai Liu ,&nbsp;Jingnan Wang ,&nbsp;Di Sun ,&nbsp;Guoming Yang ,&nbsp;Wenting Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.seja.2023.100048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Ensemble modeling is a chief strategy for probabilistic forecasting. In weather forecasting, analog ensemble, which operates under the principle that weather patterns often repeat, and dynamical ensemble, which generates equally likely trajectories of future weather by perturbing the initial and boundary conditions, constitute the two most common approaches to making ensembles. That said, in the field of solar forecasting, nor is there any head-to-head comparison made thus far in regard to understanding the relative performance of these two competing approaches; this work seeks to fill the gap. Four years (2017–2020) of operational forecasts, at seven locations, from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) are used, and both the raw and post-processed versions of the ensemble irradiance forecasts are verified in a fair and thorough fashion. Three classical post-processing methods, namely, Bayesian model averaging, nonhomogeneous Gaussian regression, and quantile regression, are applied to both the analog ensemble forecasts derived from ECMWF’s high-resolution control forecasts and dynamical ensemble forecasts from ECMWF’s Ensemble Prediction System. It is found that analog ensemble before post-processing possesses some advantage in terms of calibration over dynamical ensemble; their average reliability values are 0.6 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span> and 8.2 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span>, respectively. However, dynamical ensemble after post-processing becomes generally more attractive, obtaining an average continuous ranked probability score of 49.0 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span>, against 51.7 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span> for AnEn.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101174,"journal":{"name":"Solar Energy Advances","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100048"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667113123000165/pdfft?md5=4d76f0d88d08df2bebbdfe0801415b99&pid=1-s2.0-S2667113123000165-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing calibrated analog and dynamical ensemble solar forecasts\",\"authors\":\"Dazhi Yang ,&nbsp;Yu Kong ,&nbsp;Bai Liu ,&nbsp;Jingnan Wang ,&nbsp;Di Sun ,&nbsp;Guoming Yang ,&nbsp;Wenting Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.seja.2023.100048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Ensemble modeling is a chief strategy for probabilistic forecasting. In weather forecasting, analog ensemble, which operates under the principle that weather patterns often repeat, and dynamical ensemble, which generates equally likely trajectories of future weather by perturbing the initial and boundary conditions, constitute the two most common approaches to making ensembles. That said, in the field of solar forecasting, nor is there any head-to-head comparison made thus far in regard to understanding the relative performance of these two competing approaches; this work seeks to fill the gap. Four years (2017–2020) of operational forecasts, at seven locations, from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) are used, and both the raw and post-processed versions of the ensemble irradiance forecasts are verified in a fair and thorough fashion. Three classical post-processing methods, namely, Bayesian model averaging, nonhomogeneous Gaussian regression, and quantile regression, are applied to both the analog ensemble forecasts derived from ECMWF’s high-resolution control forecasts and dynamical ensemble forecasts from ECMWF’s Ensemble Prediction System. It is found that analog ensemble before post-processing possesses some advantage in terms of calibration over dynamical ensemble; their average reliability values are 0.6 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span> and 8.2 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span>, respectively. However, dynamical ensemble after post-processing becomes generally more attractive, obtaining an average continuous ranked probability score of 49.0 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span>, against 51.7 W/m<span><math><msup><mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></span> for AnEn.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Solar Energy Advances\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100048\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667113123000165/pdfft?md5=4d76f0d88d08df2bebbdfe0801415b99&pid=1-s2.0-S2667113123000165-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Solar Energy Advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667113123000165\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Solar Energy Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667113123000165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

集合建模是概率预报的主要策略。在天气预报中,模拟集合(根据天气模式经常重复的原理运行)和动态集合(通过扰动初始条件和边界条件产生同样可能的未来天气轨迹)是两种最常见的集合方法。尽管如此,在太阳预报领域,迄今为止还没有任何正面比较来了解这两种相互竞争的方法的相对性能;这项工作旨在填补这一空白。本研究使用了欧洲中期天气预报中心(ECMWF)四年(2017-2020 年)在七个地点的业务预报,并对原始版本和后处理版本的集合辐照度预报进行了公平、全面的验证。三种经典的后处理方法,即贝叶斯模型平均法、非均相高斯回归法和量子回归法,均适用于从 ECMWF 高分辨率控制预报中得出的模拟集合预报和从 ECMWF 集合预报系统中得出的动态集合预报。结果发现,后处理前的模拟集合在校准方面比动态集合有一定优势;它们的平均可靠性值分别为 0.6 W/m2 和 8.2 W/m2。然而,经过后处理的动态集合总体上更具吸引力,获得的平均连续排序概率分数为 49.0 W/m2,而 AnEn 为 51.7 W/m2。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing calibrated analog and dynamical ensemble solar forecasts

Ensemble modeling is a chief strategy for probabilistic forecasting. In weather forecasting, analog ensemble, which operates under the principle that weather patterns often repeat, and dynamical ensemble, which generates equally likely trajectories of future weather by perturbing the initial and boundary conditions, constitute the two most common approaches to making ensembles. That said, in the field of solar forecasting, nor is there any head-to-head comparison made thus far in regard to understanding the relative performance of these two competing approaches; this work seeks to fill the gap. Four years (2017–2020) of operational forecasts, at seven locations, from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) are used, and both the raw and post-processed versions of the ensemble irradiance forecasts are verified in a fair and thorough fashion. Three classical post-processing methods, namely, Bayesian model averaging, nonhomogeneous Gaussian regression, and quantile regression, are applied to both the analog ensemble forecasts derived from ECMWF’s high-resolution control forecasts and dynamical ensemble forecasts from ECMWF’s Ensemble Prediction System. It is found that analog ensemble before post-processing possesses some advantage in terms of calibration over dynamical ensemble; their average reliability values are 0.6 W/m2 and 8.2 W/m2, respectively. However, dynamical ensemble after post-processing becomes generally more attractive, obtaining an average continuous ranked probability score of 49.0 W/m2, against 51.7 W/m2 for AnEn.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信