[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (183)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = cloudy-sky

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
21 pages, 8948 KiB  
Article
Solar Irradiance Ramp Classification Using the IBEDI (Irradiance-Based Extreme Day Identification) Method
by Llinet Benavides Cesar and Oscar Perpiñán-Lamigueiro
Energies 2025, 18(2), 243; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18020243 - 8 Jan 2025
Viewed by 394
Abstract
The inherent variability of solar energy presents a significant challenge for grid operators, particularly when it comes to maintaining stability. Studying ramping phenomena is therefore crucial to understanding and managing fluctuations in power supply. In line with this goal, this study proposes a [...] Read more.
The inherent variability of solar energy presents a significant challenge for grid operators, particularly when it comes to maintaining stability. Studying ramping phenomena is therefore crucial to understanding and managing fluctuations in power supply. In line with this goal, this study proposes a new classification approach for solar irradiance ramps, categorizing them into four distinct classes. We have proposed a methodology including adaptation and extension of a wind ramp classification to solar ramp classification titled the Irradiance-Based Extreme Day Identification method. Our proposal includes an agglomerative algorithm to find new ramp class boundaries. The strength of the proposed method relies on that it allows its generalization to any dataset. We assessed it on three datasets from distinct geographic regions—Oregon (northwestern United States), Hawaii (central Pacific Ocean), and Portugal (southwestern Europe)—each with varying temporal resolutions of five seconds, ten seconds, and one minute. The class boundaries for each dataset results in different limits of Z score value, as a consequence of the different climatic characteristics of each location and the time resolution of the datasets. The “low” class includes values less than 0.62 for Portugal, less than 2.17 for Oregon, and less than 2.19 for Hawaii. The “moderate” class spans values from 0.62 to 3.51 for Portugal, from 2.17 to 5.01 for Oregon, and from 2.19 to 5.88 for Hawaii. The “high” class covers values greater than 3.51 and up to 6 for Portugal, greater than 5.01 and up to 10.72 for Oregon, and greater than 5.88 and up to 8.01 for Hawaii. Lastly, the “severe” class includes values greater than 6 for Portugal, greater than 10.72 for Oregon, and greater than 8.01 for Hawaii. Under cloudy sky conditions, it is observed that the proposed algorithm is able to classify the four classes. These thresholds show how the proposed methodology adapts to the unique characteristics of each regional dataset. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Featured Papers in Solar Energy and Photovoltaic Systems Section)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Classes obtained from the irradiance ramps after applying the method based on standard deviation on the data of one day. Note: The green color represents the low class, the orange color the high class, and the red color the severe class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Representation of a generic dendrogram. Categories and values in the axis are only included as an example. Note: The letters A-E represent the elements to be grouped.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Clearness index values differentiating the categories by color. Red color represents clear days, green color represents partly cloudy days, and blue color represents cloudy days.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Sample of days classified using the clearness index for the Oregon dataset. The left subplot represents a clear day (<b>a</b>) GHI data recorded on 3 June 2023. The center subplot represents a partially cloudy day, (<b>b</b>) GHI data recorded on 14 August 2023. The right subplot represents a cloudy day, (<b>c</b>) GHI data for 25 September 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Selection based on the identification of extremely clear and cloudy days. The left subplot represents a clear day, GHI data recorded on 29 January 2023. The right subplot represents a cloudy day, GHI data for 18 January 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relative frequency using a logarithmic scale, 10-day records on the left to train the agglomerative algorithm and on the right using one day.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Result of the application of the algorithms—original and proposed—on a clear day. Note: Original refers to method based on standard deviation score and proposed refers to the methodology based on IBEDI method. Green represents the low class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Result of the application of the algorithms—original and proposed—on a cloudy day. Note: Original refers to method based on standard deviation score and proposed refers to the methodology based on IBEDI method. Green represents the low class, blue the moderate class, orange the high class, and red the severe class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Relative frequency using a logarithmic scale, grouped by time of day for the classes found for the year 2013 in Portugal dataset. On the left results of the original algorithm and on the right results of the modified algorithm. Note: Original refers to method based on standard deviation score and proposed refers to the methodology based on IBEDI method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Relative frequency using a logarithmic scale, grouped by time of day for the classes found in Oregon dataset for 2023 data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Relative frequency using a logarithmic scale, grouped by time of day for the classes found for the period of April 2010 to March 2011 in Hawaii dataset for DH3 sensor data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Classes obtained from the irradiance ramps after applying the proposed methodology to one day of data from DH3station in Hawaii dataset. Note: Green color represents the low class, blue color the moderate class, orange color the high class, and red color the severe class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Classes obtained from the irradiance ramps after applying the proposed methodology to one day of data from the Oregon dataset. Note: Green color represents the low class, blue color the moderate class, orange color the high class, and red color the severe class.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 5604 KiB  
Article
Solar Energy Forecasting Framework Using Prophet Based Machine Learning Model: An Opportunity to Explore Solar Energy Potential in Muscat Oman
by Mazhar Baloch, Mohamed Shaik Honnurvali, Adnan Kabbani, Touqeer Ahmed, Sohaib Tahir Chauhdary and Muhammad Salman Saeed
Energies 2025, 18(1), 205; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18010205 - 6 Jan 2025
Viewed by 699
Abstract
The unpredictable nature of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, makes them unreliable sources of energy for the power system. Nevertheless, with the advancement in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), one can predict the availability of solar and wind energy [...] Read more.
The unpredictable nature of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, makes them unreliable sources of energy for the power system. Nevertheless, with the advancement in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), one can predict the availability of solar and wind energy in the short, medium, and long term with fairly high accuracy. As such, this research work aims to develop a machine-learning-based framework for forecasting global horizontal irradiance (GHI) for Muscat, Oman. The proposed framework includes a data preprocessing stage, where the missing entries in the acquired data are imputed using the mean value imputation method. Afterward, data scaling is carried out to avoid the overfitting/underfitting of the model. Features such as the GHI cloudy sky index, the GHI clear sky index, global normal irradiance (GNI) for a cloudy sky, GNI for a clear sky, direct normal irradiance (DNI) for a cloudy sky, and DNI for a clear sky are extracted. After analyzing the correlation between the abovementioned features, model training and the testing procedure are initiated. In this research, different models, named Linear Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVR), KNN Regressor, Decision Forest Regressor, XGBoost Regressor, Neural Network (NN), Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Random Forest Regressor, Categorical Boosting (CatBoost), Deep Autoregressive (DeepAR), and Facebook Prophet, are trained and tested under both identical features and a training–testing ratio. The model evaluation metrics used in this study include the mean absolute error (MAE), the root mean squared error (RMSE), R2, and mean bias deviation (MBD). Based on the outcomes of this study, it is concluded that the Facebook Prophet model outperforms all of the other utilized conventional machine learning models, with MAE, RMSE, and R2 values of 9.876, 18.762, and 0.991 for the cloudy conditions and 11.613, 19.951 and 0.988 for the clean weather conditions, respectively. The mentioned error values are the lowest among all of the studied models, which makes Facebook Prophet the most accurate solar irradiance forecasting model for Muscat, Oman. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A2: Solar Energy and Photovoltaic Systems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Research flow chart for solar irradiance prediction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Hourly solar irradiance of selected site after removing missing value entries.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Distribution of ghi_clear_sky values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Distribution of cloudy sky global horizontal irradiance values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Monthly variability of solar irradiance parameters: comparing cloudy and clear sky conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Correlation of solar irradiance features with hour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Correlation heatmap of solar irradiance parameters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Actual vs. predicted GHI_Clear_Sky using Prophet model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Actual vs. predicted GHI_Cloudy_Sky using Prophet model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Residual distribution comparison for GHI_Cloudy_Sky predictions: Prophet, Random Forest, and XGBoost models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Cumulative error plot for GHI_Cloudy_Sky predictions: Prophet, Random Forest, and XGBoost models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Cumulative error plot for GHI_Clear_Sky predictions: Prophet, Random Forest, and XGBoost models.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 3271 KiB  
Article
A Comparison of Physical-Based and Statistical-Based Radiative Transfer Models in Retrieving Atmospheric Temperature Profiles from the Microwave Temperature Sounder-II Onboard the Feng-Yun-3 Satellite
by Qiurui He, Xiao Guo, Ruiling Zhang, Jiaoyang Li, Lanjie Zhang, Junqi Jia and Xuhui Zhou
Atmosphere 2025, 16(1), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16010044 - 2 Jan 2025
Viewed by 443
Abstract
The statistical retrieval of atmospheric parameters will be greatly affected by the accuracy of the simulated brightness temperatures (BTs) derived from the radiative transfer model. However, it is challenging to further improve a physical-based radiative transfer model (RTM) developed based on the physical [...] Read more.
The statistical retrieval of atmospheric parameters will be greatly affected by the accuracy of the simulated brightness temperatures (BTs) derived from the radiative transfer model. However, it is challenging to further improve a physical-based radiative transfer model (RTM) developed based on the physical mechanisms of wave transmission through the atmosphere. We develop a deep neural network-based RTM (DNN-based RTM) to calculate the simulated BTs for the Microwave Temperature Sounder-II onboard the Fengyun-3D satellite under different weather conditions. The DNN-based RTM is compared in detail with the physical-based RTM in retrieving the atmospheric temperature profiles by the statistical retrieval scheme. Compared to the physical-based RTM, the DNN-based RTM can obtain higher accuracy for simulated BTs and enables the statistical retrieval scheme to achieve higher accuracy in temperature profile retrieval in clear, cloudy, and rainy sky conditions. Due to its ability to simulate microwave observations more accurately, the DNN-based RTM is valuable for the theoretical study of microwave remote sensing and the application of passive microwave observations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Techniques, Instruments, and Modeling)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The schematic of data pre-processing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The schematic of building the DNN-based RTM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The schematic of building and validating the retrieval model based on simulations for the clear sky.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The diagram of the observation bias correction for the clear sky.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The probability density distributions of the biases between the measured and simulated BTs in different weather conditions: (<b>a</b>) clear sky; (<b>b</b>) cloudy sky; (<b>c</b>) rainy sky.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of the accuracy of the DNN-based BTs with that of the RTTOV-based BTs in different weather conditions: (<b>a</b>) clear sky; (<b>b</b>) cloudy sky; (<b>c</b>) rainy sky.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The probability density distributions of RTTOV-based and DNN-based biases before and after observation bias correction in different weather conditions: (<b>a</b>) clear sky; (<b>b</b>) cloudy sky; (<b>c</b>) rainy sky.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The correction results of the observation bias in clear sky conditions: (<b>a</b>) RTTOV-based bias; (<b>b</b>) DNN-based bias.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The correction results of the observation bias in cloudy sky conditions: (<b>a</b>) RTTOV-based bias; (<b>b</b>) DNN-based bias.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The correction results of the observation bias in rainy sky conditions: (<b>a</b>) RTTOV-based bias; (<b>b</b>) DNN-based bias.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The retrieval results in clear sky conditions: (<b>a</b>) RTTOV-based retrieval results; (<b>b</b>) DNN-based retrieval results.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The retrieval results in cloudy sky conditions: (<b>a</b>) RTTOV-based retrieval results; (<b>b</b>) DNN-based retrieval results.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The retrieval results in rainy sky conditions: (<b>a</b>) RTTOV-based retrieval results; (<b>b</b>) DNN-based retrieval results.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The retrieval results obtained using the corrected observations: (<b>a</b>) clear sky; (<b>b</b>) cloudy sky; (<b>c</b>) rainy sky.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 5993 KiB  
Article
Enhanced Ultra-Short-Term PV Forecasting Using Sky Imagers: Integrating MCR and Cloud Cover Estimation
by Weixiong Wu, Rui Gao, Peng Wu, Chen Yuan, Xiaoling Xia, Renfeng Liu and Yifei Wang
Energies 2025, 18(1), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18010028 - 25 Dec 2024
Viewed by 364
Abstract
Accurate photovoltaic (PV) power forecasting is crucial for stable grid integration, particularly under rapidly changing weather conditions. This study presents an ultra-short-term forecasting model that integrates sky imager data and meteorological radar data, achieving significant improvements in forecasting accuracy. By dynamically tracking cloud [...] Read more.
Accurate photovoltaic (PV) power forecasting is crucial for stable grid integration, particularly under rapidly changing weather conditions. This study presents an ultra-short-term forecasting model that integrates sky imager data and meteorological radar data, achieving significant improvements in forecasting accuracy. By dynamically tracking cloud movement and estimating cloud coverage, the model enhances performance under both clear and cloudy conditions. Over an 8-day evaluation period, the average forecasting accuracy improved from 67.26% to 77.47% (+15%), with MSE reduced by 39.2% (from 481.5 to 292.6), R2 increased from 0.724 to 0.855, NSE improved from 0.725 to 0.851, and Theil’s U reduced from 0.42 to 0.32. Notable improvements were observed during abrupt weather transitions, particularly on 1 July and 3 July, where the combination of MCR and sky imager data demonstrated superior adaptability. This integrated approach provides a robust foundation for advancing ultra-short-term PV power forecasting. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A2: Solar Energy and Photovoltaic Systems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of the sun’s position.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Relationship between solar angles and the PV power station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>A PV power forecasting model integrating radar data and sky imager data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Variations in solar altitude and azimuth angles in Guizhou on 27 June 2024.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Installation location of the sky imager.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of forecasted irradiance, observed irradiance, mean of MCR, and actual power output.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>A precipitation event displayed by MCR data (1 July 2024).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Sky region extraction from sky imager.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Trajectory of the sun on the sky imager.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Positions of the sun in captured images at different times.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Relationships between cloud cover data (global sky and sun-centric) and observed irradiance (1 July–8 July 2024).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of actual and predicted power output.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 6563 KiB  
Article
Integration and Comparative Analysis of Remote Sensing and In Situ Observations of Aerosol Optical Characteristics Beneath Clouds
by Jing Chen, Jing Duan, Ling Yang, Yong Chen, Lijun Guo and Juan Cai
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(1), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17010017 - 25 Dec 2024
Viewed by 472
Abstract
Lidar is the primary tool used to determine the vertical distribution of aerosol optical characteristics. Based on the observation characteristics of the mountain’s gradient, a validation analysis of the remote sensing and in situ observations of the aerosol optical characteristics and research on [...] Read more.
Lidar is the primary tool used to determine the vertical distribution of aerosol optical characteristics. Based on the observation characteristics of the mountain’s gradient, a validation analysis of the remote sensing and in situ observations of the aerosol optical characteristics and research on seasonal, monthly, and daily variations in aerosol optical depth (AOD) were performed using the dual-wavelength Lidar deployed at the foot of Mt. Lu and the aerosol particle-size spectrometer at the top of Mt. Lu. The validation results show that at the comparison heights, under cloudy-sky conditions with strong winds (>3.4 m/s) and high relative humidity (RH) (>70%), the aerosol extinction coefficients between the two sites are in good agreement; thus, the observations at the top of the mountain are more suitable for in situ validation under cloudy-sky conditions; however, the local circulations under clear-sky conditions lead to large differences in the aerosol properties at the same altitude between the two sites and are unsuitable for validation. An analysis of the AOD data from Mt. Lu reveals the following: (1) The AOD seasonal distribution frequencies under both clear-sky and cloudy-sky conditions are unimodal, with a values of 0.2∼0.6, and the inhomogeneity of the aerosol distribution in winter is evident; the seasonal difference in the AOD under clear-sky conditions is more significant, following the order of spring > summer > winter > autumn, and the AOD seasonal difference under cloudy-sky conditions is not obvious. (2) In the analysis of the AOD monthly variations, due to the influence of the meteorological conditions (high humidity, low wind speed) and pollutant transport, the AOD reached its peak in February (clear-sky: 0.63, cloudy-sky: 0.82). (3) Under clear-sky conditions, the negative correlation between the daily variations in AOD, and visibility is more significant during the daytime, and after 12:00, the AOD is positively correlated with PM2.5; these results indicate that the AOD is affected mainly by pollutants and the boundary layer height. Under cloudy-sky conditions, the peaks in the daytime AOD are related to the morning and evening rush hours, the correlations with the visibility and PM2.5 are low, and the accumulation of pollutants during the nighttime. And (4) overall, the AOD is greater under cloudy-sky conditions than under clear-sky conditions; this result is likely related to the more favorable subcloud humidity conditions for aerosol hygroscopic growth. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Locations of the observational data; 1: Lushan city Meteorological Bureau; 2: Lushan Meteorological Bureau; and 3: Jiujiang Comprehensive Industrial Park. Dashed box: MERRA-2 grid area used in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Monthly distribution of the valid Lidar data for 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic of the Lidar detection system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Temporal and height evolution of the extinction coefficients of the Lidar (<b>a</b>) from 14:00 on 10 January 2024 to 08:00 on 11 January 2024, and (<b>b</b>) from 15:00 on 16 January 2024 to 15:00 on 17 January 2024.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Temporal and height evolution of the reflectivity of the Ka-band mm cloud radar and cloud base of the ceilometer (<b>a</b>) from 14:00 on 10 January 2024 to 08:00 on 11 January 2024, and (<b>b</b>) from 15:00 on 16 January 2024 to 15:00 on 17 January 2024.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Aerosol extinction coefficient trends from Lidar employed at the Lushan city Meteorological Bureau and Welas employed at the Lushan Meteorological Bureau. (<b>b</b>) Meteorological observations (temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction) from the Lushan Meteorological Bureau.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Wind (barb) at sea level pressure (blue contour, hPa) and 850 hPa and relative humidity (shaded) from ERA-5 at Mt. Lu at (<b>a</b>) 20:00 on 10 January 2024, (<b>b</b>) 08:00 on 11 January 2024, (<b>c</b>) 20:00 on 16 January 2024, and (<b>d</b>) 08:00 on 17 January 2024. The red circle marks the Lushan Meteorological Bureau.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Scatter plots of the aerosol extinction coefficients for Lidar data at 1125 m, during the observation period, with Welas at (<b>a</b>) different relative humidities, and (<b>b</b>) different wind speeds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Schematic illustration of suitable conditions for the mountain-top in-suit aerosol validation of Lidar observation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Matching of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>A</mi> <mi>O</mi> <msub> <mi>D</mi> <mrow> <mn>550</mn> <mi>n</mi> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> data from Lidar and MERRA-2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Seasonal probability distribution of AOD: (<b>a</b>) AOD under clear-sky conditions and (<b>b</b>) AOD under cloud-sky conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Monthly average variations in the AOD and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <msub> <mi>M</mi> <mrow> <mn>2.5</mn> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> concentration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Daily variation analysis under (<b>a</b>) clear-sky and (<b>b</b>) cloudy-sky conditions.</p>
Full article ">
30 pages, 16574 KiB  
Article
Short-Term Photovoltaic Power Forecasting Using PV Data and Sky Images in an Auto Cross Modal Correlation Attention Multimodal Framework
by Chen Pan, Yuqiao Liu, Yeonjae Oh and Changgyoon Lim
Energies 2024, 17(24), 6378; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17246378 - 18 Dec 2024
Viewed by 627
Abstract
The accurate prediction of photovoltaic (PV) power generation is crucial for improving virtual power plant (VPP) efficiency and power system stability. However, short-term PV power forecasting remains highly challenging due to the significant impact of weather changes, especially the complexity of cloud motion. [...] Read more.
The accurate prediction of photovoltaic (PV) power generation is crucial for improving virtual power plant (VPP) efficiency and power system stability. However, short-term PV power forecasting remains highly challenging due to the significant impact of weather changes, especially the complexity of cloud motion. To this end, this paper proposes an end-to-end innovative deep learning framework for data fusion based on multimodal learning, which utilizes a new auto cross modal correlation attention (ACMCA) mechanism designed in this paper for feature extraction and fusion by combining historical PV power generation time-series data and sky image data, thereby enhancing the model’s prediction performance under complex weather conditions. In this paper, the effectiveness of the proposed model was verified through a large number of experiments, and the experimental results showed that the model’s forecast skill (FS) reached 24.2% under all weather conditions 15 min in advance, and 24.32% under cloudy conditions with the largest fluctuations. This paper also compared the model with a variety of existing unimodal and multimodal models, respectively. The experimental results showed that the model in this paper outperformed other benchmark methods in all indices under different weather conditions, demonstrating stronger adaptability and robustness. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A2: Solar Energy and Photovoltaic Systems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Photographs of the different sky images. (<b>A</b>) Cloudy sky image taken on 5 July 2017 at 12:04:10. (<b>B</b>) Clear sky image taken on 20 May 2017 at 11:48:50.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>PV output for the twenty test days in the test set. The <b>top</b> graph shows the PV output on ten sunny days and the <b>bottom</b> graph shows the PV output on ten cloudy days. These images cover seasonal variations throughout the year.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The short-term photovoltaic power forecasting framework.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) The visualization results of the proposed model and the benchmark model for three different modalities in the 10-min prediction range. (<b>b</b>) The visualization results of the proposed model and the benchmark model for three different modalities in the 15-min prediction range. (<b>c</b>) The visualization results of the proposed model and the benchmark model for three different modalities in the 20-min prediction range.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) The visualization results of the proposed model and the benchmark model for three different modalities in the 10-min prediction range. (<b>b</b>) The visualization results of the proposed model and the benchmark model for three different modalities in the 15-min prediction range. (<b>c</b>) The visualization results of the proposed model and the benchmark model for three different modalities in the 20-min prediction range.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) The MAE performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (<b>c</b>) The forecast skill performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (The upward arrows (↑) indicate that higher values are better, while the downward arrows (↓) indicate that lower values are better).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) The MAE performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (<b>c</b>) The forecast skill performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (The upward arrows (↑) indicate that higher values are better, while the downward arrows (↓) indicate that lower values are better).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) The MAE performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (<b>b</b>) The RMSE performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (<b>c</b>) The forecast skill performance of the proposed model compared with the benchmark model of different modes under different weather conditions with different prediction time scales. (The upward arrows (↑) indicate that higher values are better, while the downward arrows (↓) indicate that lower values are better).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Visualization of the error distribution between the proposed model and the only PV benchmark model. (<b>b</b>) Visualization of the error distribution between the proposed model and the only image benchmark model. (<b>c</b>) Visualization of the error distribution between the proposed model and the multimodal benchmark model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Visualization of the error distribution between the proposed model and the only PV benchmark model. (<b>b</b>) Visualization of the error distribution between the proposed model and the only image benchmark model. (<b>c</b>) Visualization of the error distribution between the proposed model and the multimodal benchmark model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Visualization of the five times fivefold cross-validation and mean RMSE. (# represents the sequence number of the repeated experiments conducted during five times five-fold cross-validation).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Visualization of the impact of different input sequence lengths.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 12480 KiB  
Article
Bionic Compass Method Based on Atmospheric Polarization Optimization in Non-Ideal Clear Condition
by Yuyang Li, Xia Wang, Min Zhang, Ruiqiang Li and Qiyang Sun
Photonics 2024, 11(12), 1099; https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11121099 - 21 Nov 2024
Viewed by 512
Abstract
The bionic polarization compass is a fascinating subject in the navigation domain. Existing polarization navigation models are primarily based on Rayleigh scattering theory, which is applicable to high-altitude, dry, and clear weather conditions. In most scenarios, it is difficult to meet such ideal [...] Read more.
The bionic polarization compass is a fascinating subject in the navigation domain. Existing polarization navigation models are primarily based on Rayleigh scattering theory, which is applicable to high-altitude, dry, and clear weather conditions. In most scenarios, it is difficult to meet such ideal clear conditions. This paper proposes a bionic navigation method based on atmospheric polarization optimization to improve heading accuracy under non-ideal clear conditions. A signal model under non-ideal clear conditions was firstly established to introduce disturbances of aerosols and other particles into the raw signal function acquired by a camera. Then, an energy functional optimization model was constructed to eliminate the disturbances caused by large particle scattering and restore the original sky polarization pattern. Subsequently, the heading angle was calculated using astronomical data, enhancing accuracy under non-ideal conditions. Finally, we constructed a polarization compass system and conducted field experiments. The results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm effectively mitigates the impact of scattering from aerosols and other particles, reducing the heading angle error to within 2° under sunny, cloudy, overcast and sandy conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polarization Optics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Illustration of the sky polarization mode detection process. (<b>a</b>) Formation schematic of the sky’s polarization distribution pattern; (<b>b</b>) a mathematical model for polarization mode detection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Three-dimensional simulation of skylight polarization field, (<b>a</b>) DOP and (<b>b</b>) AOP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Process of heading determination algorithm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Structure of the polarized light camera.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Schematic diagram of raw image splitting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The schematic diagram of diagonal division.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The schematic diagram of pixel division.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The schematic diagram of the AOP before and after coordinate transformation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The schematic diagram of the sun azimuth and heading angle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The schematic diagram of the bionic light compass system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of the values and errors of the AOP before and after optimization and the theoretical AOP. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) 40 to 60°; (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) −10 to 10°; and (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) −60 to −40°.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11 Cont.
<p>Comparison of the values and errors of the AOP before and after optimization and the theoretical AOP. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) 40 to 60°; (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) −10 to 10°; and (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) −60 to −40°.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of AOP images before and after optimization and the theoretical AOP. (<b>a</b>) AOP image before optimization and its local magnification; (<b>b</b>) AOP image after optimization and its local magnification; and (<b>c</b>) theoretical AOP and its local magnification.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Experiment field with the designed polarization compass system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Heading measurement values and errors of Experiment 1. (<b>a</b>) Heading angle measurement values and their local magnification; (<b>b</b>) heading angle measurement errors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Heading measurement values and errors of Experiment 2. (<b>a</b>) Heading angle measurement values and their local magnification; (<b>b</b>) heading angle measurement errors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Heading measurement values and errors of Experiment 3. (<b>a</b>) Heading angle measurement values and their local magnification; (<b>b</b>) heading angle measurement errors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Schematic diagram of the sample image and its sky polarization distribution pattern in the orientation experiment.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 6344 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of Fengyun-4B Satellite Temperature Profile Products Using Radiosonde Observations and ERA5 Reanalysis over Eastern Tibetan Plateau
by Yuhao Wang, Xiaofei Wu, Haoxin Zhang, Hong-Li Ren and Kaiqing Yang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(22), 4155; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224155 - 7 Nov 2024
Viewed by 942
Abstract
The latest-generation geostationary meteorological satellite, Fengyun-4B (FY-4B), equipped with the Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS), offers high-spatiotemporal-resolution three-dimensional temperature structures. Its deployment serves as a critical complement to atmospheric temperature profile (ATP) observation in the Tibetan Plateau (TP). Based on radiosonde observation (RAOB) [...] Read more.
The latest-generation geostationary meteorological satellite, Fengyun-4B (FY-4B), equipped with the Geostationary Interferometric Infrared Sounder (GIIRS), offers high-spatiotemporal-resolution three-dimensional temperature structures. Its deployment serves as a critical complement to atmospheric temperature profile (ATP) observation in the Tibetan Plateau (TP). Based on radiosonde observation (RAOB) and the fifth-generation ECMWF global climate atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5), this study validates the availability and representativeness of FY-4B/GIIRS ATP products in the eastern TP region. Due to the issue of satellite zenith, this study focuses solely on examining the eastern TP region. Under a clear sky, FY-4B/GIIRS ATP exhibits good consistency with RAOB compared to cloudy conditions, with an average root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.57 K. FY-4B/GIIRS tends to underestimate temperatures in the lower layers while overestimating temperatures in the upper layers. The bias varies across seasons. Except for summer, the horizontal and vertical bias distribution patterns are similar, though there are slight differences in values. Despite the presence of bias, FY-4B/GIIRS ATP maintains a good consistency with observations and reanalysis data, indicating commendable product quality. These results demonstrate that it can play a vital role in augmenting the ATP observation network limited by sparse radiosonde stations in the eastern TP, offering crucial data support for numerical weather prediction, weather monitoring, and related meteorological research in this region. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Distribution map of the nine RAOB stations (red triangles) over the TP. (<b>b</b>) The FY-4B/GIIRS observation pixels (blue dots) for the Garze station in the MW method at 12 UTC on 17 January 2023. The color shading represents the elevation (units, m), and the red line in (<b>a</b>) indicates the border of the TP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>RMSE (green bars) and the number of effective data (orange bars) for the IDW and the MW method at nine RAOB stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The percentages of the FY-4B/GIIRS ATP products quality flags during clear sky (green bars) and cloudy sky (orange bars).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The average ATP observed by FY-4B/GIIRS (blue line) and RAOB (orange line) and the average bias of FY-4B/GIIRS referring to RAOB (cyan line with triangles) for (<b>a</b>–<b>i</b>) 00 UTC and (<b>j</b>–<b>r</b>) 12 UTC. The light cyan shading accompanied with the bias line indicates one standard variation of the bias.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatter plot of FY-4B/GIIRS ATP versus the RAOB ATP (black dashed line represents the 1:1 line, red line represents regression line). (<b>a</b>–<b>i</b>) represent nine RAOB stations arranged in order of elevation from lowest to highest.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-04155-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>, but for ERA5 ATP versus the RAOB ATP. (<b>a</b>–<b>i</b>) represent nine RAOB stations arranged in order of elevation from lowest to highest.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Satellite zenith angle (shaded, degree) of FY-4B/GIIRS at 11:00 UTC on 17 January 2024 and the annual mean troposphere temperature (<b>b</b>) before and (<b>c</b>) after filtering based on the satellite zenith angle of 60° as the red line shown in (<b>b</b>). The black line in (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) indicates the TP region. Points A and B in (<b>b</b>) are the intersection points of the contour line of 60° and the borderline of the TP region in (<b>a</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The spatial distribution of annual mean temperature bias between FY-4B/GIIRS and ERA5 ATP: (<b>a</b>) horizontal distribution of troposphere (600–100 hPa) averaged bias and (<b>b</b>) vertical distribution of regional averaged bias for the blue box in (<b>a</b>). The shading in (<b>b</b>) indicates one STD range of the bias.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Scatter plot of seasonal average FY-4B/GIIRS ATP versus ERA5 ATP for each of the four seasons among the eastern TP, the black dashed line represents the 1:1 line, and the red line represents the regression line. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) correspond to winter, spring, summer, and autumn, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The horizontal distribution of annual mean troposphere (600–100 hPa) averaged temperature bias between FY-4B/GIIRS and ERA5 ATP. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) correspond to winter, spring, summer, and autumn, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The vertical distribution of annual mean regional averaged temperature bias between FY-4B/GIIRS and ERA5 ATP for the blue box in <a href="#remotesensing-16-04155-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a>a. The shading indicates one STD range of the bias. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) correspond to winter, spring, summer, and autumn, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
28 pages, 8773 KiB  
Article
On the Relationships between Clear-Sky Indices in Photosynthetically Active Radiation and Broadband Ranges in Overcast and Broken-Cloud Conditions
by William Wandji Nyamsi, Yves-Marie Saint-Drenan, John A. Augustine, Antti Arola and Lucien Wald
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(19), 3718; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16193718 - 6 Oct 2024
Viewed by 894
Abstract
Several studies proposed relationships linking irradiances in the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) range and broadband irradiances. A previous study published in 2024 by the same authors proposes a linear model relating clear-sky indices in the PAR and broadband ranges that has been validated [...] Read more.
Several studies proposed relationships linking irradiances in the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) range and broadband irradiances. A previous study published in 2024 by the same authors proposes a linear model relating clear-sky indices in the PAR and broadband ranges that has been validated in clear and overcast conditions only. The present work extends this study for broken-cloud conditions by using ground-based measurements obtained from the Surface Radiation Budget Network in the U.S.A. mainland. As expected, the clear-sky indices are highly correlated and are linked by affine functions whose parameters depend on the fractional sky cover (FSC), the year, and the site. The previous linear model is also efficient in broken-cloud conditions, with the same level of accuracy as in overcast conditions. When this model is combined with a PAR clear-sky model, the result tends to overestimate the PAR as the FSC decreases, i.e., when fewer and fewer scattered clouds are present. The bias is equal to 1 W m−2 in overcast conditions, up to 18 W m−2 when the FSC is small, and 6 W m−2 when all cloudy conditions are merged. The RMSEs are, respectively, 5, 24, and 15 W m−2. The linear and the clear-sky models can be combined with estimates of the broadband irradiance from satellites to yield estimates of PAR. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map showing the locations of the seven SURFRAD sites (black diamonds). The orographic <span class="html-italic">basemap</span> is in the public domain and is from the Etopo1 data set from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States of America.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic overview of the astronomical quantities, measurements, and derivatives.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Mean of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> for each data subset, each year at each station and all stations merged (ALL).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Correlation coefficients between <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>B</mi> <mi>B</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> for each data subset, each year at each station and all stations merged (ALL).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Slopes of the affine functions obtained by least-squares fitting for each subset, each year at each station and all stations merged.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Intercepts of the affine functions obtained by least-squares fitting for each subset, each year at each station and all stations merged.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The 2D histogram of measured <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>w</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.05, 0.30] (C1), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The 2D histogram of measured <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>w</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.30, 0.60] (C2), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The 2D histogram of measured <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>w</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.60, 0.95] (C3), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The 2D histogram of measured <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>w</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.05, 0.95] (any broken-cloud), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The 2D histogram of measured <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>w</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.05, 1.00] (any cloudy), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The 2D histogram of measured <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi>w</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.95, 1.00] (overcast), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Bias in <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> at each station as a function of the solar zenithal angle (SZA) for each class of cloudy conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Standard deviation (STD) of errors in <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>K</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> at each station as a function of the solar zenithal angle (SZA) for each class of cloudy conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The 2D histogram of measured PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>W</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.05, 0.30] (C1), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>The 2D histogram of measured PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>W</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.30, 0.60] (C2), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>The 2D histogram of measured PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>W</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.60, 0.95] (C3), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>The 2D histogram of measured PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>W</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.05, 0.95] (any broken-cloud), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>The 2D histogram of measured PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>W</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.05, 1.00] (any cloudy), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>The 2D histogram of measured PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> <mi>e</mi> <mi>a</mi> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (horizontal axis) and estimated PAR <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>W</mi> <mi>N</mi> <mn>2024</mn> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> (vertical axis) for the class ]0.95, 1.00] (overcast), all stations merged. The color bar indicates the number of pairs in each class.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Bias in <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> at each station as a function of the solar zenithal angle (SZA) for each class of cloudy conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Standard deviation (STD) of errors in <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mrow> <mi>E</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>P</mi> <mi>A</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> at each station as a function of the solar zenithal angle (SZA) for each class of cloudy conditions.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 7177 KiB  
Article
Neural Network-Based Estimation of Near-Surface Air Temperature in All-Weather Conditions Using FY-4A AGRI Data over China
by Hai-Lei Liu, Min-Zheng Duan, Xiao-Qing Zhou, Sheng-Lan Zhang, Xiao-Bo Deng and Mao-Lin Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(19), 3612; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16193612 - 27 Sep 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 592
Abstract
Near-surface air temperature (Ta) estimation by geostationary meteorological satellites is mainly carried out under clear-sky conditions. In this study, we propose an all-weather Ta estimation method utilizing FY-4A Advanced Geostationary Radiation Imager (AGRI) and the Global Forecast System (GFS), [...] Read more.
Near-surface air temperature (Ta) estimation by geostationary meteorological satellites is mainly carried out under clear-sky conditions. In this study, we propose an all-weather Ta estimation method utilizing FY-4A Advanced Geostationary Radiation Imager (AGRI) and the Global Forecast System (GFS), along with additional auxiliary data. The method includes two neural-network-based Ta estimation models for clear and cloudy skies, respectively. For clear skies, AGRI LST was utilized to estimate the Ta (Ta,clear), whereas cloud top temperature and cloud top height were employed to estimate the Ta for cloudy skies (Ta,cloudy). The estimated Ta was validated using the 2020 data from 1211 stations in China, and the RMSE values of the Ta,clear and Ta,cloudy were 1.80 °C and 1.72 °C, while the correlation coefficients were 0.99 and 0.986, respectively. The performance of the all-weather Ta estimation model showed clear temporal and spatial variation characteristics, with higher accuracy in summer (RMSE = 1.53 °C) and lower accuracy in winter (RMSE = 1.88 °C). The accuracy in southeastern China was substantially better than in western and northern China. In addition, the dependence of the accuracy of the Ta estimation model for LST, CTT, CTH, elevation, and air temperature were analyzed. The global sensitivity analysis shows that AGRI and GFS data are the most important factors for accurate Ta estimation. The AGRI-estimated Ta showed higher accuracy compared to the ERA5-Land data. The proposed models demonstrated potential for Ta estimation under all-weather conditions and are adaptable to other geostationary satellites. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Thermal Infrared Remote Sensing II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geolocation of the stations used in this study over China. The sites of training and validation data for the near-surface air temperature (<span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span>) estimation model are marked in blue and red colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flowchart of all-weather <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> estimation model incorporating multi-source data integration and neural networks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Two-dimensional histogram of AGRI-derived <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> under clear sky (<span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,clear</sub></span>) (<b>a</b>) and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> under cloudy sky (<span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,cloudy</sub></span>) (<b>b</b>) versus in situ <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> at meteorological stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Histogram of <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> differences between the AGRI-estimated <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,clear</sub></span> (red) and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,cloudy</sub></span> (blue) versus in situ <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial patterns of R (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), RMSE (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>), and bias (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) for the AGRI-derived <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,clear</sub></span> (<b>left</b>) and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,cloudy</sub></span> (<b>right</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The monthly variation in RMSE for AGRI-derived (<b>a</b>) and GFS (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,clear</sub></span> and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,cloudy</sub></span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Time series of in situ and AGRI-derived all-weather <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> at 3 h intervals at four stations in 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison of the spatial pattern of GFS (first column), the ERA5−Land (second column) and AGRI-estimated all−weather <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> (third column) at 12:00 UTC on 15 January, April, July, and October 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparisons of ERA5−Land and AGRI <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> with in situ <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> at 12:00 UTC, 15 January (<b>a</b>), April (<b>b</b>), July (<b>c</b>), and October (<b>d</b>) 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of the spatial pattern of all-weather <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> estimated by GFS (<b>a</b>), ERA5-Land (<b>b</b>), and AGRI (<b>c</b>) over Sichuan province at 12:00 UTC on 15 July 2020. The elevation distribution map of Sichuan Province (<b>d</b>) is also presented.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Normalized total sensitivity indexes for predictors of <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,clear</sub></span> (<b>a</b>) and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,cloud</sub></span> (<b>b</b>) estimation models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Dependence of the RMSE (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and bias (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) of the AGRI <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> estimation models on elevation and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> for clear and cloudy conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Dependence of the RMSE on LST and CTT for <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,clear</sub></span> (<b>a</b>) and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a,cloudy</sub></span> (<b>b</b>) models.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 10158 KiB  
Article
Object Extraction-Based Comprehensive Ship Dataset Creation to Improve Ship Fire Detection
by Farkhod Akhmedov, Sanjar Mukhamadiev, Akmalbek Abdusalomov and Young-Im Cho
Fire 2024, 7(10), 345; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7100345 - 27 Sep 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 862
Abstract
The detection of ship fires is a critical aspect of maritime safety and surveillance, demanding high accuracy in both identification and response mechanisms. However, the scarcity of ship fire images poses a significant challenge to the development and training of effective machine learning [...] Read more.
The detection of ship fires is a critical aspect of maritime safety and surveillance, demanding high accuracy in both identification and response mechanisms. However, the scarcity of ship fire images poses a significant challenge to the development and training of effective machine learning models. This research paper addresses this challenge by exploring advanced data augmentation techniques aimed at enhancing the training datasets for ship and ship fire detection. We have curated a dataset comprising ship images (both fire and non-fire) and various oceanic images, which serve as target and source images. By employing diverse image blending methods, we randomly integrate target images of ships with source images of oceanic environments under various conditions, such as windy, rainy, hazy, cloudy, or open-sky scenarios. This approach not only increases the quantity but also the diversity of the training data, thus improving the robustness and performance of machine learning models in detecting ship fires across different contexts. Furthermore, we developed a Gradio web interface application that facilitates selective augmentation of images. The key contribution of this work is related to object extraction-based blending. We propose basic and advanced data augmentation techniques while applying blending and selective randomness. Overall, we cover eight critical steps for dataset creation. We collected 9200 ship fire and 4100 ship non-fire images. From the images, we augmented 90 ship fire images with 13 background images and achieved 11,440 augmented images. To test the augmented dataset performance, we trained Yolo-v8 and Yolo-v10 models with “Fire” and “No-fire” augmented ship images. In the Yolo-v8 case, the precision-recall curve achieved 96.6% (Fire), 98.2% (No-fire), and 97.4% mAP score achievement in all classes at a 0.5 rate. In Yolo-v10 model training achievement, we got 90.3% (Fire), 93.7 (No-fire), and 92% mAP score achievement in all classes at 0.5 rate. In comparison, both trained models’ performance is outperforming other Yolo-based SOTA ship fire detection models in overall and mAP scores. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Fire Science Models, Remote Sensing, and Data)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Object extraction blending framework combined with other approaches.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Gradio web app interface for OE data augmentation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Collected sea vessel image samples for ship “No-fire images”.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Sample ocean background images for data augmentation with target ship images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Representation of a ship fire image (<b>a</b>) and the background removed ship fire images (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Framework of OE (source) data augmentation with blending to background (target) image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Data augmentation results in proposed data augmentation methods. Red cycle is indicating ship fire localization in background image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Labeled dataset example with bounding boxes in training set images. A value of 0 is a representation of a “Fire” class image, and 1 is a representation of a “No-fire” class image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Example of labeled validation set images with bounding box information and class names.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Training Yolo-v8 and Yolo-v10 on 100 epochs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Yolo-8 and Yolo-v10 model fine-tuning on augmented ship fire detection dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>PR curve of Yolo-v8 and Yolo-v10 in labeled classes at mAP@0.5 rate.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 19820 KiB  
Article
Evaluation of the Surface Downward Longwave Radiation Estimation Models over Land Surface
by Yingping Chen, Bo Jiang, Jianghai Peng, Xiuwan Yin and Yu Zhao
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(18), 3422; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16183422 - 14 Sep 2024
Viewed by 1121
Abstract
Surface downward longwave radiation (SDLR) is crucial for maintaining the global radiative budget balance. Due to their ease of practicality, SDLR parameterization models are widely used, making their objective evaluation essential. In this study, against comprehensive ground measurements collected from more than 300 [...] Read more.
Surface downward longwave radiation (SDLR) is crucial for maintaining the global radiative budget balance. Due to their ease of practicality, SDLR parameterization models are widely used, making their objective evaluation essential. In this study, against comprehensive ground measurements collected from more than 300 globally distributed sites, four SDLR parameterization models, including three popular existing ones and a newly proposed model, were evaluated under clear- and cloudy-sky conditions at hourly (daytime and nighttime) and daily scales, respectively. The validation results indicated that the new model, namely the Peng model, originally proposed for SDLR estimation at the sea surface and applied for the first time to the land surface, outperformed all three existing models in nearly all cases, especially under cloudy-sky conditions. Moreover, the Peng model demonstrated robustness across various land cover types, elevation zones, and seasons. All four SDLR models outperformed the Global Land Surface Satellite product from Advanced Very High-Resolution Radiometer Data (GLASS-AVHRR), ERA5, and CERES_SYN1de-g_Ed4A products. The Peng model achieved the highest accuracy, with validated RMSE values of 13.552 and 14.055 W/m2 and biases of −0.25 and −0.025 W/m2 under clear- and cloudy-sky conditions at daily scale, respectively. Its superior performance can be attributed to the inclusion of two cloud parameters, total column cloud liquid water and ice water, besides the cloud fraction. However, the optimal combination of these three parameters may vary depending on specific cases. In addition, all SDLR models require improvements for wetlands, bare soil, ice-covered surfaces, and high-elevation regions. Overall, the Peng model demonstrates significant potential for widespread use in SDLR estimation for both land and sea surfaces. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Earth Radiation Budget and Earth Energy Imbalance)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Spatial distribution of the 318 sites in nine surface radiation observing networks. Detailed information about the nine observing networks is provided in <a href="#remotesensing-16-03422-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Validation accuracy of the Prata, Carmona2, and Peng models with the original and calibrated coefficients at daily scales under clear-sky conditions. The color bar indicates the number of samples.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-03422-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a>, but for the K-C, Carmona2, and Peng models under cloudy-sky conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Validation accuracies of the four evaluated SDLR models at a daily scale for eight land cover types under clear- and cloudy-sky conditions. The dashed boxes indicate the results under a cloudy sky.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-03422-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>, but for six elevation zones (&lt;300 m, 300–1000 m, 1000–1500 m, 1500–2500 m, 2500–3500 m, 3500–4500 m). The results under cloudy-sky conditions are added to the gray background.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-03422-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>, but for four seasons: Spring (Mar.–May), Summer (Jun.–Aug.), Autumn (Sep.–Nov.), and Winter (Dec.–Feb.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Overall validation accuracy of the four SDLR models and three products (ERA5, CERES4, and GLASS-AVHRR) at daily scales under clear- (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) and (<b>g</b>–<b>l</b>) cloudy-sky conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The spatial distribution of the validated RRMSE at site scale for (<b>a</b>) Peng model and (<b>b</b>–<b>d</b>) three products (GLASS-AVHRR, ERA5, CERES4).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The time series of the daily SDLR from the Peng model and other three products at two sites (<b>a</b>) SF_GCM (34.25°N, 89.87°W, Grassland) and (<b>b</b>) PM-QAS_M (61.100°N, −46.833°W, ICE).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Differences in the validated RMSE (ΔRMSE) between the Peng models with different combinations of the five input variables and the original one (all five variables).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-16-03422-f010" class="html-fig">Figure 10</a>, but on a daily scale under cloudy-sky conditions for the four seasons. The red box indicates the smallest ΔRMSE. Note that a negative ΔRMSE indicates that the corresponding combination of variables in the Peng model performed better than the original one.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 2912 KiB  
Article
A Standardized Sky Condition Classification Method for Multiple Timescales and Its Applications in the Solar Industry
by Shukla Poddar, Merlinde Kay and John Boland
Energies 2024, 17(18), 4616; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17184616 - 14 Sep 2024
Viewed by 827
Abstract
The deployment of photovoltaic (PV) systems has increased globally to meet renewable energy targets. Intermittent PV power generated due to cloud-induced variability introduces reliability and grid stability issues at higher penetration levels. Variability in power generation can induce voltage fluctuations within the distribution [...] Read more.
The deployment of photovoltaic (PV) systems has increased globally to meet renewable energy targets. Intermittent PV power generated due to cloud-induced variability introduces reliability and grid stability issues at higher penetration levels. Variability in power generation can induce voltage fluctuations within the distribution system and cause adverse effects on power quality. Therefore, it is essential to quantify resource variability to mitigate an intermittent power supply. In this study, we propose a new scheme to classify the sky conditions that are based on two common variability metrices: daily clear-sky index and normalized aggregate ramp rates. The daily clear-sky index estimates the cloudiness in the sky, and ramp rates account for the variability introduced in the system generation due to sudden cloud movements. This classification scheme can identify clear-sky, highly variable, low intermittent, high intermittent and overcast days. By performing a Chi-square test on the training and test sets, we obtain Chi-square statistic values greater than 3 with p-value > 0.05. This indicates that the distribution of the training and test clusters are similar, indicating the robustness of the proposed sky classification scheme. We have demonstrated the applicability of the scheme with diverse datasets to show that the proposed classification scheme can be homogenously applied to any dataset globally despite their temporal resolution. Using various case studies, we demonstrate the potential applications of the scheme for understanding resource allocation, site selection, estimating future intermittency due to climate change, and cloud enhancement effects. The proposed sky classification scheme enhances the precision and reliability of solar energy forecasts, optimizing system performance and maximizing energy production efficiency. This improved accuracy is crucial for variability control and planning, ensuring optimal output from PV plants. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Wind and Solar Farm Forecasting—3rd Edition)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Optimal number of clusters suggested by the elbow method. This figure shows the WCSS for different numbers of clusters formed with the data. The mean and the quantiles are represented with solid line and shading, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>DCI versus nDARR plot presenting data classes obtained using k-means algorithm applied to data from all sites. Different colors indicate different clusters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Proposed sky classification scheme with five categories: clear-sky days, overcast days, low intermittent (low IT) days, high intermittent (high IT) days, and high variability days. This figure is obtained using BOM weather data for Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia for the period 2000–2020. Data points falling under the green, black, and light blue circle represent overcast, highly variable, and clear-sky days, respectively. The data points bounded by blue square represent high intermittent days and unbounded data points represent low intermittent days.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GHI profiles for Alice Spring plotted using data recorded at 5 min (<b>a</b>–<b>e</b>), 30 min (<b>f</b>–<b>j</b>), and 60 min (<b>k</b>–<b>o</b>) interval. Panel (<b>a</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>k</b>) represent clear day (5 May 2010). Panel (<b>b</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>l</b>) represent overcast day (24 February 2010). Low intermittent days are plotted in panels (<b>c</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>m</b>) (7 April 2010). High intermittent days and highly variable days are plotted in panels (<b>d</b>,<b>i</b>,<b>n</b>) (6 December 2015) and (<b>e</b>,<b>j</b>,<b>o</b>) (11 February 2010), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Frequency of clear, overcast, low intermittent, high intermittent, and highly variable days globally for the year 2022 obtained using the proposed classification scheme. This figure is obtained using ERA5 reanalysis dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Density distribution plots of number of clear-sky, overcast, high intermittent, low intermittent, and highly variable days for Powell Creek solar farm located in Northern Territory, Australia for historical (1976–2005) and future (2030–2059) periods. The distribution for the historical period is shown in bold line. The future scenario used here corresponds to high-emission RCP8.5 future scenario and is shown by the dashed line. The vertical lines indicate the mean for that period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Arrowhead plot for power output and nDARR. <b>(b</b>) Density distribution plots of system generation on clear-sky, overcast, high intermittent, low intermittent, and highly variable days for a PV system located in Desert Knowledge Australia Solar Centre, Alice Spring. The dashed lines indicate the mean generation of the system for each of the five categories.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 1876 KiB  
Article
Comparative Analysis of Solar Radiation Forecasting Techniques in Zacatecas, Mexico
by Martha Isabel Escalona-Llaguno, Luis Octavio Solís-Sánchez, Celina L. Castañeda-Miranda, Carlos A. Olvera-Olvera, Ma. del Rosario Martinez-Blanco, Héctor A. Guerrero-Osuna, Rodrigo Castañeda-Miranda, Germán Díaz-Flórez and Gerardo Ornelas-Vargas
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(17), 7449; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177449 - 23 Aug 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 845
Abstract
This work explores the prediction of daily Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) patterns in the region of Zacatecas, Mexico, using a diverse range of predictive models, encompassing traditional regressors and advanced neural networks like Evolutionary Neural Architecture Search (ENAS), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent [...] Read more.
This work explores the prediction of daily Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) patterns in the region of Zacatecas, Mexico, using a diverse range of predictive models, encompassing traditional regressors and advanced neural networks like Evolutionary Neural Architecture Search (ENAS), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and Meta’s Prophet. This work addressing a notable gap in regional research, and aims to democratize access to accurate solar radiation forecasting methodologies. The evaluations carried out using the time series data obtained by Comisión Nacional del Agua (Conagua) covering the period from 2015 to 2018 reveal different performances of the model in different sky conditions, showcasing strengths in forecasting clear and partially cloudy days while encountering challenges with cloudy conditions. Overall, correlation coefficients (r) ranged between 0.55 and 0.72, with Root Mean Square Error % (RMSE %) values spanning from 20.05% to 20.54%, indicating moderate to good predictive accuracy. This study underscores the need for longer datasets to bolster future predictive capabilities. By democratizing access to these predictive tools, this research facilitates informed decision-making in renewable energy planning and sustainable development strategies tailored to the unique environmental dynamics of the region of Zacatecas and comparable regions. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>CNN applied to time series forecasting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Compressed (<b>left</b>) and unfolded (<b>right</b>) basic RNN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Basic architecture for ENAS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>RMSE for 1-day-ahead forecasting of daily GHI was calculated using all models on the test dataset (2018) for the OMZ stations, categorized by the three sky conditions defined in the text.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison on the forecasted and measured next-day GHI for the test year 2018 using (<b>a</b>) the Prophet model and (<b>b</b>) ENAS according to three types of daily sky conditions: clear, partly cloudy, and cloudy. Statistical indicators of model performance are also provided.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Time series of 1-day-ahead GHI forecasted by the best and worst model and the corresponding measurements using the test data (2018).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Model comparison for the test year (2018) using (<b>a</b>) r and (<b>b</b>) RMSE %.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 7650 KiB  
Article
Evaluation and Correction of GFS Water Vapor Products over United States Using GPS Data
by Hai-Lei Liu, Xiao-Qing Zhou, Yu-Yang Zhu, Min-Zheng Duan, Bing Chen and Sheng-Lan Zhang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(16), 3043; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16163043 - 19 Aug 2024
Viewed by 965
Abstract
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is one of the most dynamic components of the atmosphere, playing a critical role in precipitation formation, the hydrological cycle, and climate change. This study used SuomiNet Global Positioning System (GPS) data from April 2021 to June 2023 in [...] Read more.
Precipitable water vapor (PWV) is one of the most dynamic components of the atmosphere, playing a critical role in precipitation formation, the hydrological cycle, and climate change. This study used SuomiNet Global Positioning System (GPS) data from April 2021 to June 2023 in the United States to comprehensively evaluate 3 and 6 h Global Forecast System (GFS) PWV products (i.e., PWV3h and PWV6h). There was high consistency between the GFS PWV and GPS PWV data, with correlation coefficients (Rs) higher than 0.98 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of about 0.23 cm. The PWV3h product performed slightly better than PWV6h. PWV tended to be underestimated when PWV > 4 cm, and the degree of underestimation increased with increasing water vapor value. The RMSE showed obvious seasonal and diurnal variations, with the RMSE value in summer (i.e., 0.280 cm) considerably higher than in winter (i.e., 0.158 cm), and nighttime were RMSEs higher than daytime RMSEs. Clear-sky conditions showed smaller RMSEs, while cloudy-sky conditions exhibited a smaller range of monthly RMSEs and higher Rs. PWV demonstrated a clear spatial pattern, with both Rs and RMSEs decreasing with increasing elevation and latitude. Based on these temporal and spatial patterns, Back Propagation neural network and random forest (RF) models were employed, using PWV, Julian day, and geographic information (i.e., latitude, longitude, and elevation) as input data to correct the GFS PWV products. The results indicated that the RF model was more advantageous for water vapor correction, improving overall accuracy by 12.08%. In addition, the accuracy of GFS PWV forecasts during hurricane weather was also evaluated. In this extreme weather, the RMSE of the GFS PWV forecast increased comparably to normal weather, but it remained less than 0.4 cm in most cases. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data in Hydrology and Water Management)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Spatial distribution of total average Global Positioning System precipitable water vapor (GPS PWV) at 330 stations in the continental United States.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Time series of monthly mean GPS and GFS PWV, including three-hour (PWV<sub>3h</sub>) and six-hour forecasts (PWV<sub>6h</sub>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flowchart of the Back Propagation (BP) neural network PWV estimation model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Flowchart of the RF PWV estimation model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Two-dimensional histogram for GPS PWV versus GFS PWV<sub>3h</sub> (<b>a</b>) and PWV<sub>6h</sub> (<b>b</b>) products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Error statistics diagram of 0.5 cm PWV bin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Boxplot of the monthly time series for GPS (yellow), GFS PWV<sub>3h</sub> (red), and PWV<sub>6h</sub> (blue).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Time series of monthly mean statistics for GPS PWV and GFS PWV (PWV<sub>3h</sub> and PWV<sub>6h</sub>) (<b>a</b>) and correlation coefficient (R) (<b>b</b>), root mean square error (RMSE) (<b>c</b>), and bias (<b>d</b>) between GFS PWV (PWV<sub>3h</sub> and PWV<sub>6h</sub>) and GPS PWV.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Diurnal variation in R (<b>a</b>), RMSE (<b>b</b>), and bias (<b>c</b>) statistical indicators for GFS PWV<sub>3h</sub> (03, 09, 15, and 21 UTC) and GFS PWV<sub>6h</sub> (06, 12, 18, and 00 UTC) compared with GPS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Spatial distribution of R (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), RMSE (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>), and bias (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) between GPS PWV and PWV<sub>3h</sub> and PWV<sub>6h</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Two-dimensional histograms of GFS PWV<sub>3h</sub> and GFS PWV<sub>6h</sub> versus GPS PWV under clear-sky (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and cloudy conditions (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Time series of monthly R, RMSE, and bias between GFS PWV and GPS PWV under clear- and cloudy-sky conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Daily variation in water vapor values and their statistical indicators at different stations for three different hurricanes: CLAUDETTE (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), ELSA (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>), and LAN (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>). Three-hour forecasts are at 03, 09, 15, and 21 UTC. Six-hour forecasts are at 06, 12, 18, and 00 UTC.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The validation results of GPS station data and GFS PWV<sub>3h</sub> and PWV<sub>6h</sub> forecasts within a 250 km radius of the hurricane impact zone during the passage of five hurricanes (CLAUDETTE, ELSA, FRED, IDA, and LAN) in 2021 and 2022. Different colors represent forecast times of 00 UTC (blue), 06 UTC (purple), 12 UTC (orange), and 18 UTC (green), with hollow and solid markers corresponding to PWV<sub>3h</sub> and PWV<sub>6h</sub> forecast results, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Monthly time series of RMSE-optimized percentages after BP neural network and RF revision.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop