Bias correction of modelled urban temperatures with crowd-sourced weather data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban climate model evaluation often remains limited by a lack of trusted urban weather observations. The increasing density of personal weather stations (PWS) make them a potential rich source of data for urban climate studies that address the lack of representative urban weather observations. In our study, we demonstrate that PWS data not only improve urban climate models’ evaluation, but can also serve for bias-correcting their output prior to any urban climate impact studies. After simulating near-surface air temperatures over London and south-east England during the hot summer of 2018 with the Weather Research Forecast (WRF) model and its Building Effect Parameterization with the Building Energy Model (BEP-BEM) activated, we evaluated the modelled temperatures against 407 urban PWS and showcased a heterogeneous spatial distribution of the model’s cool bias that was not captured using official weather stations only. This finding indicated a need for spatially-explicit urban bias corrections of air temperatures, which we performed using an innovative method using machine learning to predict the models’ biases in each urban grid cell. Our technique is the first to consider that urban temperatures are heterogeneously accurate in space and that this accuracy is not linearly correlated to the urban fraction. Our results showed that the bias-correction was beneficial to bias-correct daily-minimum, -mean, and -maximum temperatures in the cities. We recommend that urban climate modellers further investigate the use of PWS for model evaluation and derive a framework for bias-correction of urban climate simulations that can serve urban climate impact studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".