4.2 Article

Statistical modeling of hot spells and heat waves

期刊

CLIMATE RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 191-205

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/cr00924

关键词

Climate change; Clustering of extremes; Generalized Pareto distribution; Point process approach; Heat wave simulator

资金

  1. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
  2. NSF [DMS-0355474]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although hot spells and heat waves are considered extreme meteorological phenomena, the statistical theory of extreme values has only rarely, if ever, been applied. To address this shortcoming, we extended the point process approach to extreme value analysis to model the frequency, duration, and intensity of hot spells. The annual frequency of hot spells was modeled by a Poisson distribution, and their length by a geometric distribution. To account for the temporal dependence of daily maximum temperatures within a hot spell, the excesses over a high threshold were modeled by a conditional generalized Pareto distribution, whose scale parameter depends on the excess on the previous day. Requiring only univariate extreme value theory, our proposed approach is simple enough to be readily generalized to incorporate trends in hot spell characteristics. Through a heat wave simulator, the statistical modeling of hot spells can be extended to apply to more full-fledged heat waves, which are difficult to model directly. Our statistical model for hot spells was fitted to time series of daily maximum temperature during the summer heat wave season in Phoenix, Arizona (USA), Fort Collins, Colorado (USA), and Paris, France. Trends in the frequency, duration, and intensity of hot spells were fitted as well. The heat wave simulator was used to convert any such trends into the corresponding changes in the characteristics of heat waves. By being based at least in part on extreme value theory, our proposed approach is both more realistic and more flexible than techniques heretofore applied to model hot spells and heat waves.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据