jacobbieker
commented
1 year ago This paper has a simple MLP improve RMSE from 38.24 to 37.78 when incorporating CAMS forecast, and down to 32.75 when also including AERONET and an angstrom(?) coefficient to help correct the CAMS forecast. Not entirely sure what the angstrom coefficient is, but still an improvement, although fairly small from just CAMS. These forecasts were done over the Middle East, where there is a lot of dust, and fairly clear skies in general.
JackKelly
dantravers
We want to determine if it is worth including aerosol data in our experiments and forecasts. This issue is just recording some of the literature and ideas about how to use it.
Arxiv/Blog/Paper Link
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel-Prosper/publication/360978841_Development_of_a_solar_energy_forecasting_system_for_two_real_solar_plants_based_on_WRF_Solar_with_aerosol_input_and_a_solar_plant_model/links/6297124fc660ab61f85695e7/Development-of-a-solar-energy-forecasting-system-for-two-real-solar-plants-based-on-WRF-Solar-with-aerosol-input-and-a-solar-plant-model.pdf
Detailed Description
This paper uses ECMWF CAMS aerosol forecast over India and southern Spain to determine the effects of using it with GFS forecast data. It has a ablation study on how useful the aerosols were, and found a ~10.9% MAE improvement vs just GFS solar information, and had more realistic split between diffuse and direct solar radiation on days with high aerosol forecasts, as well as a 9% NMAE improvement on forecasting temperature. Both underestimated the amount of clouds (which hopefully including satellite cloud imagery would help fix.)
Context
This paper seems like a fairly large improvement including the aerosol forecast.