Articles | Volume 12, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2855-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2855-2019
Model evaluation paper
 | 
11 Jul 2019
Model evaluation paper |  | 11 Jul 2019

A spatial evaluation of high-resolution wind fields from empirical and dynamical modeling in hilly and mountainous terrain

Christoph Schlager, Gottfried Kirchengast, Juergen Fuchsberger, Alexander Kann, and Heimo Truhetz

Related authors

Empirical high-resolution wind field and gust model in mountainous and hilly terrain based on the dense WegenerNet station networks
Christoph Schlager, Gottfried Kirchengast, and Juergen Fuchsberger
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 5607–5627, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-5607-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-5607-2018, 2018
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
The sensitivity of aerosol data assimilation to vertical profiles: case study of dust storm assimilation with LOTOS-EUROS v2.2
Mijie Pang, Jianbing Jin, Ting Yang, Xi Chen, Arjo Segers, Batjargal Buyantogtokh, Yixuan Gu, Jiandong Li, Hai Xiang Lin, Hong Liao, and Wei Han
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3781–3798, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025, 2025
Short summary
Knowledge-inspired fusion strategies for the inference of PM2.5 values with a neural network
Matthieu Dabrowski, José Mennesson, Jérôme Riedi, Chaabane Djeraba, and Pierre Nabat
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3707–3733, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3707-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3707-2025, 2025
Short summary
Tuning the ICON-A 2.6.4 climate model with machine-learning-based emulators and history matching
Pauline Bonnet, Lorenzo Pastori, Mierk Schwabe, Marco Giorgetta, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3681–3706, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, 2025
Short summary
A novel method for quantifying the contribution of regional transport to PM2.5 in Beijing (2013–2020): combining machine learning with concentration-weighted trajectory analysis
Kang Hu, Hong Liao, Dantong Liu, Jianbing Jin, Lei Chen, Siyuan Li, Yangzhou Wu, Changhao Wu, Shitong Zhao, Xiaotong Jiang, Ping Tian, Kai Bi, Ye Wang, and Delong Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3623–3634, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3623-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3623-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantification of CO2 hotspot emissions from OCO-3 SAM CO2 satellite images using deep learning methods
Joffrey Dumont Le Brazidec, Pierre Vanderbecken, Alban Farchi, Grégoire Broquet, Gerrit Kuhlmann, and Marc Bocquet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3607–3622, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3607-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3607-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Abdel-Aal, R., Elhadidy, M., and Shaahid, S.: Modeling and forecasting the mean hourly wind speed time series using GMDH-based abductive networks, Renew. Ener., 34, 1686–1699, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.01.001, 2009. a
Awan, N. K., Truhetz, H., and Gobiet, A.: Parameterization-induced error characteristics of MM5 and WRF operated in climate mode over the alpine region: An ensemble-based analysis, J. Climate, 24, 3107–3123, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3674.1, 2011. a
Bartalev, S., Belward, A., Ershov, D., and S. Isaev, A.: A new SPOT4-VEGETATION derived land cover map of Northern Eurasia, Int. J. Remote Sens., 24, 1977–1982, https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000066297, 2003. a
Bechtold, P., Köhler, M., Jung, T., Doblas-Reyes, F., Leutbecher, M., Rodwell, M. J., Vitart, F., and Balsamo, G.: Advances in simulating atmospheric variability with the ECMWF model: From synoptic to decadal time-scales, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 134, 1337–1351, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.289, 2008. a
Bellasio, R., Maffeis, G., Scire, J. S., Longoni, M. G., Bianconi, R., and Quaranta, N.: Algorithms to Account for Topographic Shading Effects and Surface Temperature Dependence on Terrain Elevation in Diagnostic Meteorological Models, Bound.-Lay. Meteor., 114, 595–614, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-004-1670-6, 2005. a, b
Download
Short summary
Empirical high-resolution surface wind fields from two study areas, automatically generated by a weather diagnostic application, were intercompared with wind fields of different modeling approaches. The focus is on evaluating spatial differences and displacements between the different datasets. In general, the spatial verification indicates a better statistical agreement for the first study area (hilly WegenerNet Feldbach Region), than for the second one (mountainous WegenerNet Johnsbachtal).
Share