Ensemble Dressing of Meteorological Fields: Using Spatial Regression to Estimate Uncertainty in Deterministic Gridded Meteorological Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most datasets of surface meteorology are deterministic, yet many applications using these datasets require or can benefit from uncertainty estimates in meteorological fields. Motivated by this gap, we evaluated the use of a spatial regression method to estimate the uncertainty in precipitation and temperature fields of existing deterministic gridded meteorological datasets. Taking the widely used North American Land Data Assimilation System 2 (NLDAS-2) precipitation and temperature dataset as an example, we used the deterministic NLDAS-2 values to generate ensemble estimates for daily precipitation, mean temperature, and the diurnal temperature range. Our method is a form of ensemble dressing. Nine variations were tested to assess the impacts of sampling density on the estimates of the mean and uncertainty, and one strategy was selected to generate 100 ensemble members at 1/8° and daily resolution for the period 1979–2019, termed as the Ensemble Dressing of NLDAS-2 (EDN2). Compared with an independent station-based ensemble dataset, the ensemble dressing method produces reasonable uncertainty patterns for precipitation and underestimates uncertainty for temperature. For precipitation, the uncertainty increases with the increase in daily accumulation. For temperature, the uncertainty is relatively small in the warm season and large in the cold season. This ensemble dressing method is applicable to other deterministic gridded meteorological datasets. The generated spatiotemporally varying uncertainty information could support applications such as land surface and hydrologic modeling, data assimilation, and forecasting, especially where application models are tied to a specific meteorological dataset.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".