Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 657

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Further Improvements to the Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction Scheme (SHIPS)

Open access
DeMaria, Mark, Mainelli, Michelle, Shay, Lynn K., Knaff, John A., Kaplan, John·2005·Weather and Forecasting

Abstract

Modifications to the Atlantic and east Pacific versions of the operational Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction Scheme (SHIPS) for each year from 1997 to 2003 are described. Major changes include the addition of a method to account for the storm decay over land in 2000, the extension of the forecasts from 3 to 5 days in 2001, and the use of an operational global model for the evaluation of the atmospheric predictors instead of a simple dry-adiabatic model beginning in 2001. A verification of the SHIPS operational intensity forecasts is presented. Results show that the 1997–2003 SHIPS forecasts had statistically significant skill (relative to climatology and persistence) out to 72 h in the Atlantic, and at 48 and 72 h in the east Pacific. The inclusion of the land effects reduced the intensity errors by up to 15% in the Atlantic, and up to 3% in the east Pacific, primarily for the shorter-range forecasts. The inclusion of land effects did not significantly degrade the forecasts at any time period. Results also showed that the 4–5-day forecasts that began in 2001 did not have skill in the Atlantic, but had some skill in the east Pacific. An experimental version of SHIPS that included satellite observations was tested during the 2002 and 2003 seasons. New predictors included brightness temperature information from Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) channel 4 (10.7 μm) imagery, and oceanic heat content (OHC) estimates inferred from satellite altimetry observations. The OHC estimates were only available for the Atlantic basin. The GOES data significantly improved the east Pacific forecasts by up to 7% at 12–72 h. The combination of GOES and satellite altimetry improved the Atlantic forecasts by up to 3.5% through 72 h for those storms west of 50°W.

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 · 10.1175/waf862.1

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
DeMaria, M., Mainelli, M., Shay, L. K., Knaff, J. A., & Kaplan, J.
Venue
Weather and Forecasting
Published
2005-08-01
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
531-543
ISSN
  • 0882-8156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0434
OpenAlex
W2099346501
Cited by
657
References
1
FWCI
13.64
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: Further Improvements to the Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction Scheme (SHIPS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/waf862.1
The paper
DeMaria, M., Mainelli, M., Shay, L. K., Knaff, J. A., & Kaplan, J. (2005). Further Improvements to the Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction Scheme (SHIPS). Weather and Forecasting. https://doi.org/10.1175/waf862.1

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.