Comparison of methods for spatially estimating station temperatures in a quality control system

被引:38
|
作者
You, Jinsheng [1 ]
Hubbard, Kenneth G. [1 ]
Goddard, Steve [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska, High Plains Reg Climate Ctr, Lincoln, NE 68588 USA
[2] Univ Nebraska, Dept Comp Sci & Engn, Lincoln, NE 68588 USA
关键词
temperature estimates; spatial interpolation; quality control; quality assurance; lapse rate;
D O I
10.1002/joc.1571
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
The inverse distance weighting (IDW) and spatial regression test (SRT) methods provide data estimates for a station of interest based on the measurements at neighbouring stations. This paper evaluates the performance of the two approaches across the USA in estimating maximum and minimum daily temperature where the estimates are compared to actual measured data. The performance of these approaches was assessed using the coefficient of efficiency, explained variance, root mean square error, systematic and non-systematic errors. The t-test and variance test were also used to compare the performances of the two methods. In addition, two other versions of the IDW were tested. The first IDW modification was intended to determine the importance of adding a lapse rate correction to the surrounding stations. The second IDW modification used the intermediate estimates from the SRT method and therefore, by comparison to SRT, showed the relative importance of using SRT weights. The spatial regression approach was found to be superior to all versions of the IDW method especially in the coastal and mountainous regions. The spatial regression approach successfully resolves the systematic differences caused by temperature lapse rate with elevation, which is not accounted for in the inverse distance weighting method. Both the SRT and the IDW methods are found to perform relatively poorly when the weather station density is low. Copyright (c) 2007 Royal Meteorological Society.
引用
收藏
页码:777 / 787
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Air Quality Model-Based Methods for Estimating Human Exposures: A Review and Comparison
    Yu, Haofei
    Russell, Armistead G.
    Mulholland, James A.
    Ivey, Cesunica E.
    Bates, Josephine T.
    Friberg, Mariel D.
    Huang, Ran
    Moutinho, Jennifer L.
    Holmes, Heather A.
    AIR POLLUTION MODELING AND ITS APPLICATION XXV, 2018, : 495 - 501
  • [32] A comparison of cost and quality of three methods for estimating density for wild pig (Sus scrofa)
    Amy J. Davis
    David A. Keiter
    Elizabeth M. Kierepka
    Chris Slootmaker
    Antoinette J. Piaggio
    James C. Beasley
    Kim M. Pepin
    Scientific Reports, 10
  • [33] Testing and comparison of different control methods on a gimbal system
    Mandaci, Muharrem
    Yildiz, Solen Kumbay
    JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE OF GAZI UNIVERSITY, 2024, 40 (01): : 219 - 236
  • [34] A comparison of selected parametric and imputation methods for estimating snag density and snag quality attributes
    Eskelson, B. N. I.
    Temesgen, H.
    Hagar, J. C.
    FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2012, 272 : 26 - 34
  • [35] A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Extremal Index
    Miguel A. Ancona-Navarrete
    Jonathan A. Tawn
    Extremes, 2000, 3 (1) : 5 - 38
  • [36] A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence
    Petersen, Martin R.
    Deddens, James A.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2008, 8 (1)
  • [37] ESTIMATING ASBESTOS EXPOSURE - A COMPARISON OF METHODS
    JARVHOLM, B
    SANDEN, A
    JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, 1987, 29 (04) : 361 - 363
  • [38] COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING RODENT NUMBERS
    BRONNER, G
    MEESTER, J
    SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH, 1987, 17 (02): : 59 - 63
  • [39] A comparison of methods for estimating the lactate threshold
    McGehee, JC
    Tanner, CJ
    Houmard, JA
    JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 2005, 19 (03) : 553 - 558
  • [40] A comparison of methods for estimating the geoelectric field
    Weigel, R. S.
    SPACE WEATHER-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS, 2017, 15 (02): : 430 - 440