ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of ERA5 wind parameter with in-situ data offshore China.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are abundant wind energy resources along the coast of China. Understanding spatial-temporal characteristics of wind speed is significant in meteorology, coastal engineering design and maritime industries. Reliable wind products such as reanalysis data, coupled with accurate wind speed measurements, are essential for elucidating the primary characteristics of the wind field. In this study, we evaluated hourly 10 m and 100 m wind speed data from the fifth-generation ECMWF atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5) by comparing it with direct wind measurements obtained from 19 wind tower located across the coastal waters of China. The results are as follows: 1) the basic statistical characteristic between ERA5 reanalysis and observed wind speeds demonstrate good consistency. However, the ERA5 tends to underestimate wind speed, particularly at high speeds during extreme conditions. 2) Compare ERA5 data with observations from each station using a frequency distribution-based score method, hourly scores of most stations are between 0.8 to 0.9. It shows the higher simulation skill in the northern region than the southern due to the influence of high-frequency typhoon in the South China Sea. 3)Distribution function parameters, mean values, variability, and wind threshold frequencies were analyzed for this ensemble of observation, providing an overall description of wind characteristics. Generally speaking, there is no clear linear relationship between scores and the other variables. On longer time scales (6-24 hours), the score and correlation between ERA5 and observations further increased, while the centered root-mean-square error (CRMSE) and standard deviation decrease. 4) Hourly wind data with a regular spatial distribution in ERA5 reanalysis provides valuable information for further detailed research on meteorology or renewable energy perspectives, but some inherent shortcomings should be considered.
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.