We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
This is introducing a 0.35K bias, right? the offset for degC to K should be 273.15 https://github.com/euro-cordex/joint-evaluation/blob/58b71dd6b61cd066686ce69731cb0b9165eb9304/eval-book/eobs.ipynb#L1253C29-L1253C34
We should use the source_id as labels, rather than the institution_id (the same institution can run different models) https://github.com/euro-cordex/joint-evaluation/blob/58b71dd6b61cd066686ce69731cb0b9165eb9304/eval-book/eobs.ipynb#L1259
source_id
institution_id
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Agreed! I'll update as soon as possible. Do you have an opinion on #9 ?
Sorry, something went wrong.
yes, I'd go for the missings threshold to get rid of those awful artifacts in the biases
JavierDiezSierra
No branches or pull requests
This is introducing a 0.35K bias, right? the offset for degC to K should be 273.15
https://github.com/euro-cordex/joint-evaluation/blob/58b71dd6b61cd066686ce69731cb0b9165eb9304/eval-book/eobs.ipynb#L1253C29-L1253C34
We should use the
source_id
as labels, rather than theinstitution_id
(the same institution can run different models)https://github.com/euro-cordex/joint-evaluation/blob/58b71dd6b61cd066686ce69731cb0b9165eb9304/eval-book/eobs.ipynb#L1259
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: