Articles | Volume 16, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1083-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1083-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
10 Feb 2023
Development and technical paper |
| 10 Feb 2023
| 10 Feb 2023
Optimization of weather forecasting for cloud cover over the European domain using the meteorological component of the Ensemble for Stochastic Integration of Atmospheric Simulations version 1.0
Institute of Energy and Climate Research – Troposphere (IEK-8), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany
Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany
Garrett H. Good
Energy Meteorology Information Systems, Fraunhofer Institute for Energy Economics and Energy System Technology IEE, Kassel, Germany
Hendrik Elbern
Rhenish Institute for Environmental Research, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Related authors
Yen-Sen Lu, Lars Hoffmann, Xue Wu, Corwin J. Wright, and Neil P. Hindley
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1469, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1469, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We studied how computer models represent atmospheric waves triggered by intense tropical cyclones. We used a real typhoon as a case study to test how different mathematical descriptions of the atmospheric model affect these wave patterns. We found that small changes in model settings significantly impact the predicted waves in the upper atmosphere. This research helps scientists choose better model configurations to improve weather forecasts and our understanding of atmospheric science.
Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli
Biogeosciences, 21, 3251–3269, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We assess the representation of the plant response to surface water in a global atmospheric chemistry model. This sensitivity is crucial for the return of precipitation back into the atmosphere and thus significantly impacts the representation of weather as well as air quality. The newly implemented response function reduces this process and has a better comparison with satellite observations. This yields a higher intensity of unusual warm periods and higher production of air pollutants.
Yen-Sen Lu, Lars Hoffmann, Xue Wu, Corwin J. Wright, and Neil P. Hindley
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1469, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1469, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We studied how computer models represent atmospheric waves triggered by intense tropical cyclones. We used a real typhoon as a case study to test how different mathematical descriptions of the atmospheric model affect these wave patterns. We found that small changes in model settings significantly impact the predicted waves in the upper atmosphere. This research helps scientists choose better model configurations to improve weather forecasts and our understanding of atmospheric science.
Tamara Emmerichs, Yen-Sen Lu, and Domenico Taraborrelli
Biogeosciences, 21, 3251–3269, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3251-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We assess the representation of the plant response to surface water in a global atmospheric chemistry model. This sensitivity is crucial for the return of precipitation back into the atmosphere and thus significantly impacts the representation of weather as well as air quality. The newly implemented response function reduces this process and has a better comparison with satellite observations. This yields a higher intensity of unusual warm periods and higher production of air pollutants.
Philipp Franke, Anne Caroline Lange, and Hendrik Elbern
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1037–1060, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1037-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1037-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The paper proposes an ensemble-based analysis framework (ESIAS-chem) for time- and altitude-resolved volcanic ash emission fluxes and their uncertainty. The core of the algorithm is an ensemble Nelder–Mead optimization algorithm accompanied by a particle filter update. The performed notional experiments demonstrate the high accuracy of ESIAS-chem in analyzing the vertically resolved volcanic ash in the atmosphere. Further, the system is in general able to estimate the emission fluxes properly.
Annika Vogel and Hendrik Elbern
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5583–5605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5583-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5583-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
While atmospheric chemical forecasts rely on uncertain model parameters, their huge dimensions hamper an efficient uncertainty estimation. This study presents a novel approach to efficiently sample these uncertainties by extracting dominant dependencies and correlations. Applying the algorithm to biogenic emissions, their uncertainties can be estimated from a low number of dominant components. This states the capability of an efficient treatment of parameter uncertainties in atmospheric models.
Cited articles
Adeh, E. H., Good, S. P., Calaf, M., and Higgins, C. W.: Solar PV Power Potential is Greatest Over Croplands, Sci. Rep.-UK, 9, 11442, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47803-3, 2019. 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
Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956, 2015. a
Bauer, P., Dueben, P. D., Hoefler, T., Quintino, T., Schulthess, T. C., and Wedi, N. P.: The digital revolution of Earth-system science, Nature Computational Science, 1, 104–113, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-021-00023-0, 2021. a, b
Bellprat, O., Guemas, V., Doblas-Reyes, F., and Donat, M. G.: Towards reliable extreme weather and climate event attribution, Nat. Commun., 10, 1732, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09729-2, 2019. a
Bentley, J. L., Stanat, D. F., and Williams, E.: The complexity of finding fixed-radius near neighbors, Inform. Process. Lett., 6, 209–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(77)90070-9, 1977. a
Berner, J., Shutts, G. J., Leutbecher, M., and Palmer, T. N.: A Spectral Stochastic Kinetic Energy Backscatter Scheme and Its Impact on Flow-Dependent Predictability in the ECMWF Ensemble Prediction System, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 603–626, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jas2677.1, 2009. a
Berner, J., Ha, S.-Y., Hacker, J. P., Fournier, A., and Snyder, C.: Model Uncertainty in a Mesoscale Ensemble Prediction System: Stochastic versus Multiphysics Representations, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 1972–1995, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3595.1, 2011. a
Buizza, R., Milleer, M., and Palmer, T. N.: Stochastic representation of model uncertainties in the ECMWF ensemble prediction system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 2887–2908, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712556006, 1999. a
Dai, A., Meehl, G. A., Washington, W. M., Wigley, T. M. L., and Arblaster, J. M.: Ensemble Simulation of Twenty-First Century Climate Changes: Business-as-Usual versus CO2 Stabilization, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 2377–2388, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2377:ESOTFC>2.3.CO;2, 2001. a
Diaz, J., Cheng, C.-H., and Nnadi, F.: Predicting Downward Longwave Radiation for Various Land Use in All-Sky Condition: Northeast Florida, Adv. Meteorol., 2014, 525148, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/525148, 2014. a
Dixon, B. and Candade, N.: Multispectral landuse classification using neural networks and support vector machines: one or the other, or both?, Int. J. Remote Sens., 29, 1185–1206, https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160701294661, 2008. a
Dupuy, F., Lu, Y.-S., Good, G., and Zamo, M.: Calibration of solar radiation ensemble forecasts using convolutional neural network, in: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, online, 19–30 April 2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-7359, EGU21–7359, 2021. a
ECMWF: ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts [data set], https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/dataset/ecmwf-reanalysis-v5, last access: 9 February 2023.
Ehrendorfer, M.: Predicting the uncertainty of numerical weather forecasts: A review, Meteorol. Z., 6, 147–183, 1997. a
EUMETSAT: Cloud Mask Product: Product Guide, 2015, DocNo, EUM/TSS/MAN/15/801027, Issue: v1A,
https://archive.eumetsat.int/, last access: 21 August 2015.
Fleiss, J. L. and Cohen, J.: The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability, Educ. Psychol. Meas., 33, 613–619, 1973. a
Franke, P.: Quantitative estimation of unexpected emissions in the atmosphere by stochastic inversion techniques, PhD thesis, Universität zu Köln, urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-84379, 2018. a
Franke, P., Lange, A. C., and Elbern, H.: Particle-filter-based volcanic ash emission inversion applied to a hypothetical sub-Plinian Eyjafjallajökull eruption using the Ensemble for Stochastic Integration of Atmospheric Simulations (ESIAS-chem) version 1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1037–1060, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1037-2022, 2022. a, b
García-Díez, M., Fernández, J., Fita, L., and Yagüe, C.: Seasonal dependence of WRF model biases and sensitivity to PBL schemes over Europe, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 501–514, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1976, 2013. a, b
Gbode, I. E., Dudhia, J., Ogunjobi, K. O., and Ajayi, V. O.: Sensitivity of different physics schemes in the WRF model during a West African monsoon regime, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 136, 733–751, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-018-2538-x, 2019. a, b, c, d
Gneiting, T. and Raftery, A. E.: Weather Forecasting with Ensemble Methods, Science, 310, 248–249, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115255, 2005. a
Hamill, T. M., Whitaker, J. S., Fiorino, M., and Benjamin, S. G.: Global Ensemble Predictions of 2009's Tropical Cyclones Initialized with an Ensemble Kalman Filter, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 668–688, 2011. a
Hamill, T. M., Bates, G. T., Whitaker, J. S., Murray, D. R., Fiorino, M., Galarneau, T. J., Zhu, Y., and Lapenta, W.: NOAA's Second-Generation Global Medium-Range Ensemble Reforecast Dataset, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 1553–1565, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-12-00014.1, 2013 (data available at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/weather-climate-models/global-ensemble-forecast, last access: 25 September 2018). a, b, c
Hersbach, H. and Dee, D.: ERA5 reanalysis is in production [Data], ECMWF Newsletter, 147, https://www.ecmwf.int/en/newsletter/147/news/era5-reanalysis-production (last access: 22 March 2022), 2016. a
Lu, Y.-S.: hydrogencl/WRF_TOOLS: V0.9.0 (v0.9.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7603301, 2023a. a
Lu, Y.-S.: hydrogencl/SciTool_Py: v0.9.0 (v0.9.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7603323, 2023b. a
Islam, K., Rahman, M. F., and Jashimuddin, M.: Modeling land use change using Cellular Automata and Artificial Neural Network: The case of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh, Ecol. Indic., 88, 439–453, 2018. a
Jankov, I., Gallus, W. A., Segal, M., and Koch, S. E.: Influence of Initial Conditions on the WRF?ARW Model QPF Response to Physical Parameterization Changes, Weather Forecast., 22, 501–519, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF998.1, 2007. a, b
Jankov, I., Grasso, L. D., Sengupta, M., Neiman, P. J., Zupanski, D., Zupanski, M., Lindsey, D., Hillger, D. W., Birkenheuer, D. L., Brummer, R., and Yuan, H.: An Evaluation of Five ARW-WRF Microphysics Schemes Using Synthetic GOES Imagery for an Atmospheric River Event Affecting the California Coast, J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 618–633, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JHM1282.1, 2011. a, b
Jankov, I., Berner, J., Beck, J., Jiang, H., Olson, J. B., Grell, G., Smirnova, T. G., Benjamin, S. G., and Brown, J. M.: A Performance Comparison between Multiphysics and Stochastic Approaches within a North American RAP Ensemble, Mon. Weather Rev., 145, 1161–1179, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0160.1, 2017. a, b, c
Jin, J., Miller, N. L., and Schlegel, N.: Sensitivity Study of Four Land Surface Schemes in the WRF Model Advances in Meteorology, Hindawi Publishing, Corporation, 2010, 167436, https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/167436, 2010. a, b, c
Jülich Supercomputing Centre: JUWELS: Modular Tier-0/1 Supercomputer at the Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Journal of Large-Scale Research Facilities, 5, urn:nbn:de:0001-jlsrf-5-171-5, https://doi.org/10.17815/jlsrf-5-171, 2019. a
Kitoh, A. and Endo, H.: Changes in precipitation extremes projected by a 20 km mesh global atmospheric model, Weather and Climate Extremes, 11, 41–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.09.001, 2016. a
Kleczek, M. A., Steeneveld, G.-J., and Holtslag, A. A. M.: Evaluation of the Weather Research and Forecasting Mesoscale Model for GABLS3: Impact of Boundary-Layer Schemes, Boundary Conditions and Spin-Up, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 152, 213–243, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-014-9925-3, 2014. a, b
Knist, S., Goergen, K., Buonomo, E., Christensen, O. B., Colette, A., Cardoso, R. M., Fealy, R., Fernández, J., García-Díez, M., Jacob, D., Kartsios, S., Katragkou, E., Keuler, K., Mayer, S., Meijgaard, E., Nikulin, G., Soares, P. M. M., Sobolowski, S., Szepszo, G., Teichmann, C., Vautard, R., Warrach-Sagi, K., Wulfmeyer, V., and Simmer, C.: Land-atmosphere coupling in EURO-CORDEX evaluation experiments, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 79–103, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025476, 2017. a, b
Knist, S., Goergen, K., and Simmer, C.: Evaluation and projected changes of precipitation statistics in convection-permitting WRF climate simulations over Central Europe, Clim. Dynam., 55, 325–341, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4147-x, 2018. a
Leutbecher, M. and Palmer, T. N.: Ensemble forecasting, J. Computat. Phys., 227, 3515–3539, 2008. a
Li, C.-H., Berner, J., Hong, J.-S., Fong, C.-T., and Kuo, Y.-H.: The Taiwan WRF Ensemble Prediction System: Scientific Description, Model-Error Representation and Performance Results, Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-019-00127-8, 2019. a, b, c, d
Liu, X., He, J., Yao, Y., Zhang, J., Liang, H., Wang, H., and Hong, Y.: Classifying urban land use by integrating remote sensing and social media data, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 31, 1675–1696, https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2017.1324976, 2017. a
Lu, Y.-S. and Elbern, H.: Meteorological component of the Ensemble for Stochastic Integration of Atmospheric Simulations version 1.0 (Version 1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6637315, 2022. a
Lu, Z., Zhang, Q., Miller, P. A., Zhang, Q., Berntell, E., and Smith, B.: Impacts of Large-Scale Sahara Solar Farms on Global Climate and Vegetation Cover, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090789, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090789, 2021. a
Mooney, P. A., Mulligan, F. J., and Fealy, R.: Evaluation of the Sensitivity of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model to Parameterization Schemes for Regional Climates of Europe over the Period 1990–95, J. Climate, 26, 1002–1017, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00676.1, 2013. a
Neumann, P., Düben, P., Adamidis, P., Bauer, P., Brück, M., Kornblueh, L., Klocke, D., Stevens, B., Wedi, N., and Biercamp, J.: Assessing the scales in numerical weather and climate predictions: will exascale be the rescue?, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 377, 20180148, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0148, 2019. a
Otkin, J. A. and Greenwald, T. J.: Comparison of WRF Model-Simulated and MODIS-Derived Cloud Data, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 1957–1970, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2293.1, 2008. a
Palmer, T. N.: Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate, Rep. Prog. Phys., 63, 71–116, https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/63/2/201, 2000. a
Palmer, T. N.: Towards the probabilistic Earth-system simulator: a vision for the future of climate and weather prediction, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 138, 841–861, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1923, 2012. a
Palmer, T. N. and Hardaker, P. J.: Handling uncertainty in science, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 369, 4681–4684, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0280, 2011. a
Pieri, A. B., von Hardenberg, J., Parodi, A., and Provenzale, A.: Sensitivity of Precipitation Statistics to Resolution, Microphysics, and Convective Parameterization: A Case Study with the High-Resolution WRF Climate Model over Europe, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 1857–1872, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0221.1, 2015. a, b, c, d, e
Pontius, R.: Quantification error versus location error in comparison of categorical maps (vol. 66, pg. 1011, 2000), Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 66, 1011–1016, 2000. a
Rögnvaldsson, Ó., Bao, J.-W., Ágústsson, H., and Ólafsson, H.: Downslope windstorm in Iceland – WRF/MM5 model comparison, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 103–120, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-103-2011, 2011. a
Rohrig, K., Berkhout, V., Callies, D., Durstewitz, M., Faulstich, S., Hahn, B., Jung, M., Pauscher, L., Seibel, A., Shan, M., Siefert, M., Steffen, J., Collmann, M., Czichon, S., Dörenkämper, M., Gottschall, J., Lange, B., Ruhle, A., Sayer, F., Stoevesandt, B., and Wenske, J.: Powering the 21st century by wind energy – Options, facts, figures, Appl. Phys. Rev., 6, 031303, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089877, 2019. a
Samaniego, L., Thober, S., Kumar, R., Wanders, N., Rakovec, O., Pan, M., Zink, M., Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F., and Marx, A.: Anthropogenic warming exacerbates European soil moisture droughts, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 421–426, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0138-5, 2018. a
Santos-Alamillos, F. J., Pozo-Vázquez, D., Ruiz-Arias, J. A., Lara-Fanego, V., and Tovar-Pescador, J.: Analysis of WRF Model Wind Estimate Sensitivity to Physics Parameterization Choice and Terrain Representation in Andalusia (Southern Spain), J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 52, 1592–1609, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0204.1, 2013. a, b
Schneider, L. C. and Gil Pontius, R.: Modeling land-use change in the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 85, 83–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00189-X, 2001. a
Sillmann, J., Thorarinsdottir, T., Keenlyside, N., Schaller, N., Alexander, L. V., Hegerl, G., Seneviratne, S. I., Vautard, R., Zhang, X., and Zwiers, F. W.: Understanding, modeling and predicting weather and climate extremes: Challenges and opportunities, Weather and Climate Extremes, 18, 65–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.10.003, 2017. a, b, c
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D., Duda, M. G., Huang, X.-Y., Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3, Tech. Rep. NCAR/TN-475+STR, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, https://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH, 2008. a, b
Stengel, M., Kniffka, A., Meirink, J. F., Lockhoff, M., Tan, J., and Hollmann, R.: CLAAS: the CM SAF cloud property data set using SEVIRI, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 4297–4311, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4297-2014, 2014. a
Stöckli, R., Duguay-Tetzlaff, A., Bojanowski, J., Hollmann, R., Fuchs, P., and Werscheck, M.: CM SAF ClOud Fractional Cover dataset from METeosat First and Second Generation – Edition 1 (COMET Ed. 1) [data set], https://doi.org/10.5676/EUM_SAF_CM/CFC_METEOSAT/V001, 2017. a, b, c
Stöckli, R., Bojanowski, J. S., John, V. O., Duguay-Tetzlaff, A., Bourgeois, Q., Schulz, J., and Hollmann, R.: Cloud Detection with Historical Geostationary Satellite Sensors for Climate Applications, Remote Sens.-Basel, 11, 1052, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11091052, 2019. a
Tabari, H.: Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability, Sci. Rep.-UK, 10, 13768, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70816-2, 2020. a
Tomaszewski, J. M. and Lundquist, J. K.: Simulated wind farm wake sensitivity to configuration choices in the Weather Research and Forecasting model version 3.8.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2645–2662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2645-2020, 2020.
a
van Leeuwen, P. J.: Particle Filtering in Geophysical Systems, Mon. Weather Rev., 137, 4089–4114, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2835.1, 2009. a
Varga, A. J. and Breuer, H.: Sensitivity of simulated temperature, precipitation, and global radiation to different WRF configurations over the Carpathian Basin for regional climate applications, Clim. Dynam., 55, 2849–2866, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05416-x, 2020. a
Varga, G.: Changing nature of Saharan dust deposition in the Carpathian Basin (Central Europe): 40 years of identified North African dust events (1979–2018), Environ. Int., 139, 105712, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105712, 2020. a
Warrach-Sagi, K., Schwitalla, T., Wulfmeyer, V., and Bauer, H.-S.: Evaluation of a climate simulation in Europe based on the WRF-NOAH model system: precipitation in Germany, Clim. Dynam., 41, 755–774, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1727-7, 2013. a, b, c
Yan, L., Eugenia, K., Safa, M., Jorge, R., Fred, K., Daniel, K.-D., Eviatar, B., and Ning, Z.: Climate model shows large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara increase rain and vegetation, Science, 361, 1019–1022, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar5629, 2018. a
Yuan, F., Sawaya, K. E., Loeffelholz, B. C., and Bauer, M. E.: Land cover classification and change analysis of the Twin Cities (Minnesota) Metropolitan Area by multitemporal Landsat remote sensing, Remote Sens. Environ., 98, 317–328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.08.006, 2005. a
Short summary
The Weather Forecasting and Research (WRF) model consists of many parameters and options that can be adapted to different conditions. This expansive sensitivity study uses a large-scale simulation system to determine the most suitable options for predicting cloud cover in Europe for deterministic and probabilistic weather predictions for day-ahead forecasting simulations.
The Weather Forecasting and Research (WRF) model consists of many parameters and options that...
