ArticleJournal of applied meteorology and climatology2023
Spatially Explicit Correction of Simulated Urban Air Temperatures Using Crowdsourced Data.
Article in Journal of applied meteorology and climatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The High-resolution Urban Meteorology for Impacts Dataset for Atlanta Metropolitan Region (HUMID-Atlanta).Scientific data · 2026Article
- Air conditioning and the future electricity system in Great Britain.Energy research & social science · 2026Article
- Impacts of urban adaptation on reducing temperatures and heat-related deaths in Belgium.Environment international · 2026Article
- Estimated mortality attributable to the urban heat island during the record-breaking 2022 heatwave in London.Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site] · 2024Article
- Unequal distributions of crowdsourced weather data in England and Wales.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The potential of urban trees to reduce heat-related mortality in London.Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site] · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Urban climate model evaluation often remains limited by a lack of trusted urban weather observations. The increasing density of personal weather sensors (PWSs) 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 carefully quality-checked 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 and Forecasting (WRF) Model and its building Effect parameterization with the building energy model (BEP-BEM) activated, we evaluated the modeled temperatures against 402 urban PWSs 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. This bias-correction technique is the first to consider that modeled urban temperatures follow a nonlinear spatially heterogeneous bias that is decorrelated from urban fraction. Our results showed that the bias correction was beneficial to bias correct daily minimum, daily mean, and daily maximum temperatures in the cities. We recommend that urban climate modelers further investigate the use of quality-checked PWSs for model evaluation and derive a framework for bias correction of urban climate simulations that can serve urban climate impact studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.