Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Downscaling temperature and precipitation: a comparison of regression‐based methods and artificial neural networks

Schoof, J.T., Pryor, S.C.·2001·International Journal of Climatology
DOI 10.1002/joc.655
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A comparison of two statistical downscaling methods for daily maximum and minimum surface air temperature, total daily precipitation and total monthly precipitation at Indianapolis, IN, USA, is presented. The analysis is conducted for two seasons, the growing season and the non‐growing season, defined based on variability of surface air temperature. The predictors used in the downscaling are indices of the synoptic scale circulation derived from rotated principal components analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis of variables extracted from an 18‐year record from seven rawinsonde stations in the Midwest region of the United States. PCA yielded seven significant components for the growing season and five significant components for the non‐growing season. These PCs explained 86% and 83% of the original rawinsonde data for the growing and non‐growing seasons, respectively. Cluster analysis of the PC scores using the average linkage method resulted in eight growing season synoptic types and twelve non‐growing synoptic types. The downscaling of temperature and precipitation is conducted using PC scores and cluster frequencies in regression models and artificial neural networks (ANNs). Regression models and ANNs yielded similar results, but the data for each regression model violated at least one of the assumptions of regression analysis. As expected, the accuracy of the downscaling models for temperature was superior to that for precipitation. The accuracy of all temperature models was improved by adding an autoregressive term, which also changed the relative importance of the dominant anomaly patterns as manifest in the PC scores. Application of the transfer functions to model daily maximum and minimum temperature data from an independent time series resulted in correlation coefficients of 0.34–0.89. In accord with previous studies, the precipitation models exhibited lesser predictive capabilities. The correlation coefficient for predicted versus observed daily precipitation totals was less than 0.5 for both seasons, while that for monthly total precipitation was below 0.65. The downscaling techniques are discussed in terms of model performance, comparison of techniques and possible model improvements. Copyright © 2001 Royal Meteorological Society

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/joc.655

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Schoof, J. T., & Pryor, S. C.
Venue
International Journal of Climatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-06-13
Volume
21
Issue
7
Pages
773-790
ISSN
  • 0899-8418 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0088
DOI
10.1002/joc.655
OpenAlex
W2052616784
Cited by
306
References
24
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.