The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of the ECMWF, MSC, and NCEP Global Ensemble Prediction Systems
Open accessAbstract
The present paper summarizes the methodologies used at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC), and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) to simulate the effect of initial and model uncertainties in ensemble forecasting. The characteristics of the three systems are compared for a 3-month period between May and July 2002. The main conclusions of the study are the following:the performance of ensemble prediction systems strongly depends on the quality of the data assimilation system used to create the unperturbed (best) initial condition and the numerical model used to generate the forecasts;a successful ensemble prediction system should simulate the effect of both initial and model-related uncertainties on forecast errors; andfor all three global systems, the spread of ensemble forecasts is insufficient to systematically capture reality, suggesting that none of them is able to simulate all sources of forecast uncertainty.The relative strengths and weaknesses of the three systems identified in this study can offer guidelines for the future development of ensemble forecasting techniques.
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
Evensen, G. (1994) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans · doi:10.1029/94jc00572 · Cited by 5,371
Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability
BRIER, G. W. (1950) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3c0001:vofeit%3e2.0.co;2 · cited 2×
“…ensemble and probabilistic forecast verification methods, including the pattern anomaly correlation (PAC), root-mean-square (rms) error, the Brier (1950) skill score, the outlier statistics (a measure of reliability), and the area under the relative operating characteristics (ROCs; a…”
Method
Cited by
Using Bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles.
Raftery, A. E., Gneiting, T., Balabdaoui, F., & Polakowski, M. (2005) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/mwr2906.1 · Cited by 1,915
Weather Forecasting with Ensemble Methods
Gneiting, T., & Raftery, A. E. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1115255 · Cited by 636
Pest Risk Maps for Invasive Alien Species: A Roadmap for Improvement
Venette, R. C., Kriticos, D. J., Magarey, R. D., Koch, F. H., Baker, R. H. A., Worner, S. P., Gómez Raboteaux, N. N., McKenney, D. W., Dobesberger, E. J., Yemshanov, D., et al. (2010) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.5.5 · Cited by 334
Operational early warning systems for water-related hazards in Europe
Alfieri, L., Salamon, P., Pappenberger, F., Wetterhall, F., & Thielen, J. (2012) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.008 · Cited by 323
Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review
Wang, X., Hyndman, R. J., Li, F., & Kang, Y. (2023) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2022.11.005 · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Buizza, R., Houtekamer, P. L., Pellerin, G., Toth, Z., Zhu, Y., & Wei, M.
- Venue
- Monthly Weather Review
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2005-05-01
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1076-1097
- ISSN
- 0027-0644 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0493
- OpenAlex
- W2133144322
- Cited by
- 630
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of the ECMWF, MSC, and NCEP Global Ensemble Prediction Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/mwr2905.1
- The paper
- Buizza, R., Houtekamer, P. L., Pellerin, G., Toth, Z., Zhu, Y., & Wei, M. (2005). A Comparison of the ECMWF, MSC, and NCEP Global Ensemble Prediction Systems. Monthly Weather Review. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr2905.1
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.