| Literature DB >> 31771275 |
Jaroslav Frnda1, Marek Durica1, Jan Nedoma2, Stanislav Zabka2, Radek Martinek3, Michal Kostelansky2.
Abstract
This paper presents a neural network approach for weather forecast improvement. Predicted parameters, such as air temperature or precipitation, play a crucial role not only in the transportation sector but they also influence people's everyday activities. Numerical weather models require real measured data for the correct forecast run. This data is obtained from automatic weather stations by intelligent sensors. Sensor data collection and its processing is a necessity for finding the optimal weather conditions estimation. The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model serves as the main base for medium-range predictions among the European countries. This model is capable of providing forecast up to 10 days with horizontal resolution of 9 km. Although ECMWF is currently the global weather system with the highest horizontal resolution, this resolution is still two times worse than the one offered by limited area (regional) numeric models (e.g., ALADIN that is used in many European and north African countries). They use global forecasting model and sensor-based weather monitoring network as the input parameters (global atmospheric situation at regional model geographic boundaries, description of atmospheric condition in numerical form), and because the analysed area is much smaller (typically one country), computing power allows them to use even higher resolution for key meteorological parameters prediction. However, the forecast data obtained from regional models are available only for a specific country, and end-users cannot find them all in one place. Furthermore, not all members provide open access to these data. Since the ECMWF model is commercial, several web services offer it free of charge. Additionally, because this model delivers forecast prediction for the whole of Europe (and for the whole world, too), this attitude is more user-friendly and attractive for potential customers. Therefore, the proposed novel hybrid method based on machine learning is capable of increasing ECMWF forecast outputs accuracy to the same level as limited area models provide, and it can deliver a more accurate forecast in real-time.Entities:
Keywords: ALADIN; ECMWF; neural networks; weather forecast models
Year: 2019 PMID: 31771275 PMCID: PMC6928600 DOI: 10.3390/s19235144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Comparison of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) (left) and ALADIN (right) precipitation forecast. Dark colours represent a large amount of daily precipitation.
Figure 2Forecast run scheme of local numeric model.
Figure 3Location of selected cities.
Basic information about the selected cities [23,24].
| City/Weather Station | Population (Thousands) | Area (Square km) | Altitude (Metres above Sea Level) | ALADIN Model Altitude | ECMWF Model Altitude |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prague/Prague-Karlov | 1309 | 496 | 260 | 190 | 262 |
| Bratislava/Brat. Mlynská Dolina | 433 | 367 | 182 | 160 | 161 |
| Žilina/Žilina mesto | 81 | 80 | 365 | 386 | 509 |
|
| 89 | 70 | 307 | 291 | 386 |
Green infrastructure and air quality index for selected cities [25,26].
| City | Percentage of Green Urban Areas | Percentage of Urban Water Areas | Air Quality Index—30 Days Summary (Example: August 31) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prague | 18.77 | 1.5 | 60%—Good, 39%—Moderate, 1%—Unhealthy, |
| Bratislava | 11.05 | 4.5 | 57%—Good, 43%—Moderate |
| Žilina | 33.25 | 4.2 | 57%—Good, 43%—Moderate |
|
| 37.51 | 0.4 | 43%—Good, 57%—Moderate |
Figure 4Green infrastructure of selected cities.
List of dataset parameters.
| Type of Parameter | Description |
|---|---|
| Forecast meteorological variables: | Air temperature (3 h step), precipitation (24 h summary) |
| Green infrastructure | Vegetation and water areas ratio |
Figure 5Neural network diagram.
Models forecast comparison for air temperature.
| Numerical Model | Relative Accuracy of the Forecast |
|---|---|
| ALADIN (SK+ CZ) | 0.9921 |
Models forecast comparison for daily precipitation.
| Numerical Model | Relative Accuracy of the Forecast |
|---|---|
| ALADIN (SK+ CZ) | 0.7292 |
Accuracy of extreme weather forecast. The best results are bolded.
| Model | ALADIN | ECMWF | YR.NO | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | T/°C | mm/24 h | T/°C | mm/24 h | T/°C | mm/24 h |
| Number of Occurrences | ||||||
| a |
|
| 92 | 2 | 98 | 2 |
| b |
|
| 51 | 15 | 36 | 15 |
| c | 27 | 9 |
|
| 25 | 4 |
| d | 1013 | 568 |
|
| 1029 | 573 |
| POD |
|
| 0.643 | 0.118 | 0.731 | 0.118 |
| FAR | 0.184 | 0.6 |
|
| 0.203 | 0.667 |
Figure 6Correlation diagram (a) and error histogram (b) of NN (neural network) testing phase for air temperature.
Figure 7Correlation diagram (a) and Error histogram (b) of NN testing phase for daily summary of precipitation.
Cross-validation results for air temperature forecast.
| Numerical Model | Relative Accuracy of Forecast |
|---|---|
| ALADIN (SK+CZ) | 0.9637 |
| ECMWF | 0.953 |
| Yr.no | 0.9876 |
|
|
|
Cross-validation results for daily precipitation forecast.
| Numerical Model | Relative Accuracy of Forecast |
|---|---|
| ALADIN (SK+CZ) | 0.783 |
| ECMWF | 0.6916 |
| Yr.no | 0.8152 |
|
|
|