Scholarlink

<p>This study evaluates NASA POWER, ERA5, and local in-situ meteorological data at Balıkesir, Turkey (2019–2022), focusing on temperature, pressure, and wind speed. Station coordinates (39.6472° N, 27.8861° E) were bilinearly interpolated from the four surrounding ERA5 (0.25° × 0.25°) and NASA POWER (0.5° × 0.625°) grid points to obtain point-scale estimates. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, RMSE, and bias were calculated, and differences were tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (all p &lt; 0.001). Results show that both reanalysis products capture broad temperature patterns, with NASA POWER outperforming ERA5 (RMSE 2.56&#xa0;°C vs. 3.33&#xa0;°C; bias –1.06&#xa0;°C vs. –1.01&#xa0;°C). For pressure, NASA POWER again leads (RMSE 7.70&#xa0;hPa; bias –7.60&#xa0;hPa) while ERA5 underestimates by –35.23&#xa0;hPa (RMSE 35.27&#xa0;hPa). Wind speed exhibits the greatest discrepancy: ERA5’s grid-cell mean of 8.03&#xa0;m/s greatly exceeds the local station’s 1.33&#xa0;m/s, whereas NASA POWER’s 4.24&#xa0;m/s remains closer but still overestimates (RMSE 3.47&#xa0;m/s; bias 2.91&#xa0;m/s). The wind-speed gap reflects spatial-scale mismatch and coarse roughness parameterization: ERA5 averages across varied land covers and underestimates sheltering, while local terrain features greatly slow winds. We recommend selecting datasets by application—favoring NASA POWER for temperature and pressure studies—and employing high-resolution mesoscale modelling (e.g., WRF at ≤ 1&#xa0;km) to resolve sub-grid terrain effects and develop bias-correction or machine-learning calibration schemes for ERA5 wind assessments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative evaluation of NASA, ERA5, and observational data for accuracy and reliability

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月12日

查看全文
  • Atilla Mutlu

摘要

This study evaluates NASA POWER, ERA5, and local in-situ meteorological data at Balıkesir, Turkey (2019–2022), focusing on temperature, pressure, and wind speed. Station coordinates (39.6472° N, 27.8861° E) were bilinearly interpolated from the four surrounding ERA5 (0.25° × 0.25°) and NASA POWER (0.5° × 0.625°) grid points to obtain point-scale estimates. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, RMSE, and bias were calculated, and differences were tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (all p < 0.001). Results show that both reanalysis products capture broad temperature patterns, with NASA POWER outperforming ERA5 (RMSE 2.56 °C vs. 3.33 °C; bias –1.06 °C vs. –1.01 °C). For pressure, NASA POWER again leads (RMSE 7.70 hPa; bias –7.60 hPa) while ERA5 underestimates by –35.23 hPa (RMSE 35.27 hPa). Wind speed exhibits the greatest discrepancy: ERA5’s grid-cell mean of 8.03 m/s greatly exceeds the local station’s 1.33 m/s, whereas NASA POWER’s 4.24 m/s remains closer but still overestimates (RMSE 3.47 m/s; bias 2.91 m/s). The wind-speed gap reflects spatial-scale mismatch and coarse roughness parameterization: ERA5 averages across varied land covers and underestimates sheltering, while local terrain features greatly slow winds. We recommend selecting datasets by application—favoring NASA POWER for temperature and pressure studies—and employing high-resolution mesoscale modelling (e.g., WRF at ≤ 1 km) to resolve sub-grid terrain effects and develop bias-correction or machine-learning calibration schemes for ERA5 wind assessments.