2010
DOI: 10.1007/s13143-010-0031-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved multisite stochastic weather generation with applications to historical data in South Korea

Abstract: In this paper, we propose an improved multisite weather generation with applications to the historical data in South Korea. The proposed method improve the algorithm of Wilks (1998Wilks ( , 1999 by automatically selecting an optimal model that represents precipitation amounts and by providing a procedure to obtain a symmetric positive definite estimate for the covariance matrix. The proposed method is computationally fast, and hence, it can be feasible to handle a massive data. We apply the proposed method to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Usually, the sampling process of synthetic weather data is conditioned upon a sequence of whether states sampled from a temporal occurrence model, and its variability within a region is modeled by a spatial model (Richardson, 1981;D. Wilks, 1998;Lee et al, 2010;Chen et al, 2012;Kim et al, 2012;Carey-Smith et al, 2014;Allard & Bourotte, 2015) Nonparametric weather generators are in the other extreme -they are fully datadriven -they do not employ parametric probability distributions to specify the full joint probability distribution of weather variables. Popular methodologies for this include the use of empirical distributions (Semenov et al, 1998), neural networks (Trigo & Palutikof, 1999), and kernel density estimators (Rajagopalan et al, 1997).…”
Section: Stochastic Weather Generator Typesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Usually, the sampling process of synthetic weather data is conditioned upon a sequence of whether states sampled from a temporal occurrence model, and its variability within a region is modeled by a spatial model (Richardson, 1981;D. Wilks, 1998;Lee et al, 2010;Chen et al, 2012;Kim et al, 2012;Carey-Smith et al, 2014;Allard & Bourotte, 2015) Nonparametric weather generators are in the other extreme -they are fully datadriven -they do not employ parametric probability distributions to specify the full joint probability distribution of weather variables. Popular methodologies for this include the use of empirical distributions (Semenov et al, 1998), neural networks (Trigo & Palutikof, 1999), and kernel density estimators (Rajagopalan et al, 1997).…”
Section: Stochastic Weather Generator Typesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notice our approach seems to imply a slight additive bias in the simulated probabilities, but removes the quite noticeable multiplicative bias exhibited by Wilks [1998] in an application to another precipitation data set. Other approaches have been able to further reduce this challenging criterion [ Lee et al , 2010], but often come at the cost of significant model complications. Finally, note that this additive bias is nearly negligible, only on the order of 0.01 to 0.02, which is unlikely to have a significant impact in practice.…”
Section: Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Parametric weather generators are those that rely on theoretical probability distributions to model the joint distribution of weather variables—for instance, precipitation is usually modeled by an exponential or gamma distribution (Todorovic & Woolhiser, 1975) and extreme rainfall by mixtures of gamma distributions (Kenabatho et al., 2012) or Generalized Pareto distribution (Lennartsson et al., 2008). Usually, the sampling process of synthetic weather data is conditioned upon a sequence of weather states sampled from a temporal occurrence model, and its variability within a region is modeled by a spatial model (Allard & Bourotte, 2015; Carey‐Smith et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2010; Richardson, 1981; D. Wilks, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%