The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of six methods for the interpolation of daily, European climate data
Open accessAbstract
We compare versions of six interpolation methods for the interpolation of daily precipitation, mean, minimum and maximum temperature, and sea level pressure from station data over Europe from 1961 to 1990. The interpolation methods evaluated are global and local kriging, two versions of angular distance weighting, natural neighbor interpolation, regression, 2D and 3D thin plate splines, and conditional interpolation. We first evaluated, using station cross‐validation and several skill scores, relative skill of each method at estimating point values, looking at spatial and temporal patterns and the frequency distribution of the variables. We then compared, for precipitation, gridded area averages from the candidate interpolation methods against existing high‐resolution gridded data sets for the UK and the Alps, which are derived from a much denser network of stations. In both point and area‐average cases, differences in skill between interpolation methods at any one point are smaller than the range in skill for a single method either across the domain, or in different seasons. The main control on spatial patterns of interpolation skill is density of the station network, with topographic complexity a compounding factor. The relative skill of different methods remains relatively constant through time, despite a varying station network. Skill in interpolating extreme events is lower than for average days, but relative skill of different methods remains the same. We select global kriging as the best performing method overall, for use in the development of a daily, high‐resolution, long‐term, European data set of climate variables as part of the EU funded ENSEMBLES project.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters
Marquardt, D. W. (1963) · Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1137/0111030 · Cited by 30,728
Cited by
Data Quality in Internet of Things: A state-of-the-art survey
Karkouch, A., Mousannif, H., Al Moatassime, H., & Noel, T. (2016) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2016.08.002 · Cited by 378
Quality control and bias adjustment of crowdsourced wind speed observations
Chen, J., Saunders, K., & Whan, K. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.4146 · Cited by 31
Inference of missing data in photovoltaic monitoring datasets
Koubli, E., Palmer, D., Rowley, P., & Gottschalg, R. (2016) · IET Renewable Power Generation · doi:10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0355 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Hofstra, N., Haylock, M., New, M., Jones, P., & Frei, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2008-11-11
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- D21
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2102717583
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.