Solargis Solar Resource Database

Description and Accuracy

Last updated: 13 October 2016

Contact
Solargis s.r.o.
Pionierska 15, 831 02 Bratislava
Slovak Republic
Tel: +421 2 4319 1708
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://solargis.com

Solargis is ISO 9001:2008 certified company for quality management

SOLAR M
 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Table of contents ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 3
3 Glossary...................................................................................................................................................... 4
4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 6
5 Solargis solar resource data ...................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Key features ...................................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Solargis calculation scheme ............................................................................................................10
6 Accuracy of Solargis .................................................................................................................................13
6.1 Model performance ..........................................................................................................................13
6.2 Methods for accuracy calculation ....................................................................................................15
7 Combined uncertainty ...............................................................................................................................17
7.1 Components of uncertainty ..............................................................................................................17
7.2 Comparison of models .....................................................................................................................19
8 About Solargis ...........................................................................................................................................20
List of figures .......................................................................................................................................................21
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................22
References ...........................................................................................................................................................23
Annex .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
List of validation sites ...............................................................................................................................25
GHI Validation statistics ............................................................................................................................29
DNI Validation statistics ............................................................................................................................33
Independent comparison with other satellite-based models .....................................................................36

© 2016 Solargis page 2 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

2 ACRONYMS

AERONET The AERONET (AErosol RObotic NETwork) is a ground-based remote sensing network dedicated to
measure atmospheric aerosol properties. It provides a long-term database of aerosol optical,
microphysical and radiative parameters.

AOD Aerosol Optical Depth at 670 nm. This is one of atmospheric parameters derived from MACC
database and used in Solargis. It has important impact on accuracy of solar calculations in arid
zones.

CFSR Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. The meteorological model operated by the US service NOAA.

CPV Concentrated PhotoVoltaic systems, which uses optics such as lenses or curved mirrors to
concentrate a large amount of sunlight onto a small area of photovoltaic cells to generate electricity.

DIF Diffuse Horizontal Irradiation, if integrated solar energy is assumed. Diffuse Horizontal Irradiance, if
solar power values are discussed.

DNI Direct Normal Irradiation, if integrated solar energy is assumed. Direct Normal Irradiance, if solar
power values are discussed.

ECMWF European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts is independent intergovernmental

organisation supported by 34 states, which provide operational medium- and extended-range
forecasts and a computing facility for scientific research.

EUMETSAT European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

GFS Global Forecast System. The meteorological model operated by the US service NOAA.

GHI Global Horizontal Irradiation, if integrated solar energy is assumed. Global Horizontal Irradiance, if
solar power values are discussed.

GTI Global Tilted (in-plane) Irradiation, if integrated solar energy is assumed. Global Tilted Irradiance, if
solar power values are discussed.

MACC Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate – meteorological model operated by the European
service ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts)

Meteosat MFG Meteosat satellite operated by EUMETSAT organization. MFG: Meteosat First Generation.

Meteosat MSG Meteosat satellite operated by EUMETSAT organization. MSG: Meteosat Second Generation.

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NCEP National Centre for Environmental Prediction

PVOUT Photovoltaic electricity output, often presented as percentage of installed DC power of the
photovoltaic modules. This unit is calculated as a ratio between output power of the PV system and
the cumulative nominal power at the label of the PV modules (Power at Standard Test Conditions).

SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

TEMP Air Temperature at 2 metres

WRF Weather Research and Forecasting model

© 2016 Solargis page 3 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

3 GLOSSARY

Aerosols Small solid or liquid particles suspended in air, for example clouds, haze, and air pollution such
as smog or smoke.

All-sky irradiance The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is mainly determined by Earth-Sun
geometry (the position of a point on the Earth's surface relative to the Sun which is determined
by latitude, the time of year and the time of day) and the atmospheric conditions (the level of
cloud cover and the optical transparency of atmosphere). All-sky irradiance is computed with
all factors taken into account

Bias Represents systematic deviation (over- or underestimation) and it is determined by systematic

or seasonal issues in cloud identification algorithms, coarse resolution and regional
imperfections of atmospheric data (aerosols, water vapour), terrain, sun position, satellite
viewing angle, microclimate effects, high mountains, etc.

Bias values will be positive when satellite modelled values are overestimating and negative
when underestimating (in comparison to ground measurements).

𝑘
𝐵𝑖𝑎𝑠 = 𝑋 𝑘 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑑 − 𝑋𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑

Clear-sky irradiance The clear sky irradiance is calculated similarly to all-sky irradiance but without taking into
account the impact of cloud cover.

Frequency of data (15 Period of aggregation of solar data that can be obtained from the Solargis database.
minute, hourly, daily,
monthly, yearly)

Long-term average Average value of selected parameter (GHI, DNI, etc.) based on multiyear historical time series.
Long-term averages provide a basic overview of solar resource availability and its seasonal
variability.

Alternative terminology: long-term prediction, long-term forecasts.

Root Mean Square Deviation Represents spread of deviations given by random discrepancies between measured and
(RMSD) modelled data and is calculated according to this formula:

∑𝑛 (𝑋𝑘 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 − 𝑋𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑑

𝑘 )2
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐷 = √ 𝑘=1
𝑛

On the modelling side, this could be low accuracy of cloud estimate (e.g. intermediate clouds),
under/over estimation of atmospheric input data, terrain, microclimate and other effects, which
are not captured by the model. Part of this discrepancy is natural - as satellite monitors large
area (of approx. 3 x 4 km), while sensor sees only micro area of approx. 1 sq. centimetre. On
the measurement side, the discrepancy may be determined by accuracy/quality and errors of
the instrument, pollution of the detector, misalignment, data loggers, insufficient quality
control, etc.

Alternative terminology: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)

Site adaptation Application of accuracy-enhancement methods that are capable to adapt satellite-derived DNI
and GHI datasets (and derived parameters) to the local climate conditions that cannot be
recorded in the original satellite and atmospheric inputs. The data adaptation is important
especially when specific situations such as extreme irradiance events are important to be

© 2016 Solargis page 4 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

correctly represented in the enhanced dataset. However, the methods have to be used carefully,
as inappropriate use for non-systematic deviations or use of less accurate ground data leads to
accuracy degradation of the primary satellite-derived dataset.

Alternative term: correlation, calibration.

Solar irradiance Solar power (instantaneous energy) falling on a unit area per unit time [W/m2]. Solar resource
or solar radiation is used when considering both irradiance and irradiation.

Solar irradiation Amount of solar energy falling on a unit area over a stated time interval [Wh/m2 or kWh/m2].

Solar radiation The term embraces both solar irradiance and solar irradiation terms. Solar radiation, selectively
attenuated by the atmosphere, which is not reflected or scattered and reaches the surface
directly, is beam (direct) radiation. The scattered radiation that reaches the ground is diffuse
radiation. The small part of radiation that is reflected from the ground onto the inclined
receiver is reflected radiation. These three components of radiation together create global
radiation.

Spatial grid resolution In digital cartography the term applies to the minimum size of the grid cell or in the other words
minimal size of the pixels in the digital map

Uncertainty Is a parameter characterizing the possible dispersion of the values attributed to an estimated
irradiance/irradiation values. The best estimate or median value is also called P50 value. For
annual and monthly solar irradiation summaries it is close to average, since multiyear
distribution of solar radiation resembles closely normal distribution.

Uncertainty assessment of the solar resource estimate is based on a detailed understanding of

the achievable accuracy of the solar radiation model and its data inputs (satellite, atmospheric
and other data), which is confronted by an extensive data validation experience. The second
important source of uncertainty information is the understanding of quality issues of ground
measuring instruments and methods, as well as the methods correlating the ground-measured
and satellite-based data.

For instance, the range of uncertainty may assume 80% probability of occurrence of values, so
the lower boundary (negative value) of uncertainty represents 90% probability of exceedance,
and it is also used for calculating the P90 value (normal distribution is assumed). Similarly,
other confidence intervals can be considered (P75, P95, P99 values, etc.)

Water vapour Water in the gaseous state. Atmospheric water vapour is the absolute amount of water
dissolved in air.

© 2016 Solargis page 5 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

4 INTRODUCTION

The quality of solar resource data is critical for economic and technical assessment of solar power plants.
Understanding uncertainty and managing weather-related risk is essential for successful planning and operating
of solar electricity assets. High quality solar resource and meteorological data are available today, and they can
be obtained by two approaches:
 By diligent operation of high-accuracy solar instruments installed at a meteorological station. Well-
maintained solar instruments offer higher accuracy and high-frequency data for a given site. Typically
such data is available only for limited period of time, form few months to few years. The number of high-
quality solar measuring stations, deployed worldwide is relatively limited.
 By complex solar meteorological models that read satellite, atmospheric and meteorological data on the
input. Such models are typically less accurate, compared to the good quality measurements. But their
advantage is continuous geographical coverage and ability to serve data for any location with a
continuous history of 10 to more than 20 recent years. Advantage of the models is their ability to serve
data in real time for monitoring and forecasting. To achieve high reliability and low uncertainty the
models are calibrated and validated using high quality ground measurements.
Solargis represents a modelling approach, based on the use of modern and verified solar algorithms. The model
offers long and continuous history and systematic update of primary solar resource parameters (GHI and DNI) as
well as all derived parameters and data products needed by solar energy industry.
Technically, good solar resource data should meet the following criteria:
 Computation should be based on scientifically proven methods
 Outputs should be systematically validated and traceable
 Data should represent at minimum 10 years of harmonized history, optimally 20 or more
 Data should be available fast and for any location
 Outputs should include information about solar resource uncertainty
 Data should be supported by an analytical technical report with metadata
 Service should be supported by dedicated professional team of experts
Solargis database is designed to help effective development of solar energy strategies and projects at all stages
of their lifetime, i.e. for:
 Prospection: strategical planning, site identification, and prefeasibility of projects
 Evaluation: technical design, financial and technical due diligence
 Monitoring: systematic site evaluation, performance assessment and asset management
 Forecasting: for optimised management of power production, balancing, and energy trade
Solargis is a product of more than 16 years of development. The database first developed for Europe has been
step-wise extended to cover all land territories between latitudes 60N and 55S. Solargis is a unique database,
incorporating a number of innovative features:
 High quality and reliability, systematically monitored
 High-resolution (temporal and spatial), geographically stable
 Harmonized combination of solar, meteorological and geographical data
 Computed by the best available methods and input data sources, continuously improved
 The data represent a long history updated in near-real time
 The models are extensively validated by Solargis and by external organizations.
Solar resource availability determines how much electricity will be generated and in what time. Analysis of the
solar radiation components makes it possible to understand the performance of solar power plants (Tab. 1). While
solar irradiance refers to solar power (instantaneous energy) falling on a unit area per unit time [W/m 2], solar
irradiation is the amount of solar energy falling on a unit area over a stated time interval [Wh/m2 or kWh/m2].
Solargis offers solar irradiation and irradiance, depending on a data product.

© 2016 Solargis page 6 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Tab. 1: Solar resource parameters provided by Solargis to solar power industry

Parameter Acrony Description Unit

m

Global Horizontal Irradiance GHI Sum of diffuse and direct components and it is considered as a
(Irradiation) climate reference as it enables comparing individual sites or
regions
Direct Normal Irradiance DNI Component that directly reaches the surface, and is relevant for
(Irradiation) concentrating solar thermal power plants (CSP) and photovoltaic
concentrating technologies (CPV) W/m2
(Wh/m2
Diffuse Horizontal Irradiance DIF Part of the irradiation that is scattered by the atmosphere. Higher or
(Irradiation) values of DIF/GHI ratio represent higher occurrence of clouds, kWh/m2)
higher atmospheric pollution or higher water vapour
Global Tilted Irradiance GTI Sum of direct and diffuse solar radiation falling on a tilted surface.
(Irradiation) Unlike the horizontal surface, the tilted surface also receives small
amount of ground-reflected radiation. It determines performance
characteristics of photovoltaic (PV) technology.

© 2016 Solargis page 7 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

5 SOLARGIS SOLAR RESOURCE DATA

5.1 Key features

Solargis database is organised in grid (raster) data layers. Tab. 2 shows technical features Solargis solar resource
data. Temporal coverage varies by region and depends on the history and features of each particular satellite
mission. Presently we have been processing data from three satellite data providers with geostationary satellites
operating at five key positions, to cover entire world (except polar regions). Please see Chapter 5.2 for the
calculation scheme.

Tab. 2: Features of Solargis solar resource data

Parameters Description

Spatial coverage Land surface and coastal sea between latitudes 60°N to 50°S
Time representation Since 1994/1999/2006 depending on the satellite data coverage
Spatial (grid) resolution Primary data resolution 3 to 6 km (depending on the latitude)
Enhanced resolution by downscaling up to ~250 m (~90 m) in some regions
Temporal resolution (time step) Original 10/15/30 minutes depending on the satellite region
Aggregated into hourly, daily, monthly and yearly data products

Since 1994 Since 1999 Since 2006 Mixed, depending on the site position
Fig. 1: Historical data availability

Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show geographic distribution of long-term yearly sums of solar radiation worldwide. The maps
show aggregated values of Solargis historical database.

© 2016 Solargis page 8 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Fig. 2: Long-term average of yearly GHI

Fig. 3: Long-term yearly average of yearly DNI

© 2016 Solargis page 9 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

5.2 Solargis calculation scheme

The solar radiation retrieval in Solargis is basically split into three steps. First, the clear-sky irradiance (the
irradiance reaching ground with assumption of absence of clouds) is calculated using the clear-sky model.
Second, the satellite data are used to quantify the attenuation effect of clouds by means of cloud index
calculation. Then the clear-sky irradiance is coupled with cloud index to retrieve all-sky irradiance. All this process
is represented in Fig. 4.
The outcome of the procedure is direct normal and global horizontal irradiance, which is used for computing
diffuse and global tilted irradiance. The data from satellite models are usually further post-processed to get
irradiance that fits the needs of specific applications (such as irradiance on tilted or tracking surfaces) and/or
irradiance corrected for shading effects from surrounding terrain or objects.

Atmospheric parameters Environmental variables Solar geometry Satellite data

 Water vapour  Altitude  Zenith angle  Visible channel
 Aerosol optical depth  Terrain shading  Azimuth angle  Infrared channels
 Aerosol type  Air temperature  Extra-terrestrial irradiance
 Ozone  …

Clear-sky model Cloud model

Clear-sky irradiance Cloud index

Other models:
DIF, transposition, terrain

All-sky irradiance

Fig. 4: Scheme of the semi-empirical solar radiation model (Solargis)

Clear-sky model SOLIS calculates clear-sky irradiance from a set of input parameters. Sun position is a
deterministic parameter, and it is described by algorithms with good accuracy. Three constituents determine
geographical and temporal variability of clear-sky atmospheric conditions:
 Aerosols are represented by Atmospheric Optical Depth (AOD), which is derived from the global MACC-
II database. The model uses daily variability of aerosols to simulate more precisely the instantaneous
estimates of DNI and GHI. Use of daily values reduces uncertainty, especially in regions with variable and
high atmospheric load of aerosols.
 Water vapour is also highly variable, but compared to aerosols, it has lower impact on magnitude of DNI
and GHI change. The daily data are derived from CFSR and GFS databases for the whole historical period
up to the present time.
 Ozone has negligible influence on broadband solar radiation and in the model it is considered as a
constant value.
Cloud model estimates cloud attenuation on global irradiance. Data from meteorological geostationary satellites
are used to calculate a cloud index that relates radiance of the Earth’s surface, recorded by the satellite in several
spectral channels with the cloud optical transmittance. A number of improvements are introduced to better cope
with complex identification of albedo in tropical variable cloudiness, complex terrain, at presence of snow and ice,
etc. Other support data are also used in the model, e.g. altitude and air temperature.

© 2016 Solargis page 10 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

To calculate Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) for all atmospheric and cloud conditions, the clear-sky global
horizontal irradiance is coupled with cloud index.
From GHI, other solar irradiance components (direct, diffuse and reflected) are calculated. Direct Normal
Irradiance (DNI) is calculated by modified Dirindex model. Diffuse horizontal irradiance is derived from GHI and
DNI.
Calculation of Global Tilted Irradiance (GTI) from GHI deals with direct and diffuse components separately. While
calculation of direct component is straightforward, estimation of diffuse irradiance for a tilted surface is more
complex, and affected by limited information about shading effects and albedo of nearby objects. For converting
diffuse horizontal irradiance for a tilted surface, the Perez transposition model is used. Reflected component is
also approximated considering that knowledge of local conditions is limited.
Model for simulation of terrain effects (elevation and shading) based on high resolution altitude and horizon data.
Model by Ruiz Arias is used to achieve enhanced spatial representation – from the resolution of satellite (3 to 4
km) to the resolution of digital terrain model.
A description of model inputs can be found in Tab. 3. Considering the shading from terrain, the spatial resolution
of data products is enhanced up to 3 arc-seconds (which is about 90 metres at the equator, less towards the
poles). Typically, SRTM3 elevation data is used for this operation. Final data can be recalculated to any other
spatial resolution.
Primary time step of solar resource parameters is 15 minutes for MSG satellite, 30-minutes for MFG and MTSAT
satellite, 30-minutes for GOES satellite and up to 10-minute for Himawari satellite. Atmospheric parameters
(aerosols and water vapour) represent daily data.

Tab. 3: Input data used in the Solargis model

Inputs to Approx.
Source Time Original
Solargis Spatial coverage grid
of input data representation time step
model resolution
Daily
MERRA-2
NASA (calculated 55 km
reanalysis
from 3-hourly)
1994 to 2002
Monthly long-
MACC-II
term calculated 125 km
reanalysis
Atmospheric from reanalysis
Global
Optical Depth Daily
MACC-II
ECMWF 2003 to 2012 (calculated 125 km
reanalysis
from 6-hourly)
Daily
MACC-II 85 km
2013 to present (calculated
operational 45km
from 3-hourly)

CFSR 1994 to 2010 1 hour 35 km

Water vapour NOAA Global
GFS 2011 to present 3 hours 55 km

Meteosat
Europe, Africa, and 1994 to 2004 30 minutes
MFG
parts of Middle
Meteosat East and Brazil 2005 to present 15 minutes
MSG EUMETSAT
South Asia, Central
Meteosat
Asia, and parts of 1999 to present 30 minutes
IODC
East Asia 3 to 4 km
Cloud index
GOES EAST
North America and
NOAA 1999 to present 30 minutes
South America
GOES WEST

MTSAT East Asia and 2007 to 2015 30 minutes

JMA Western Pacific
Himawari Rim Countries 2016 to present 10 minutes

Altitude and 90
SRTM3 SRTM - -
horizon metres

© 2016 Solargis page 11 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Spatial resolution of Meteosat, GOES, and MTSAT data considered in the calculation scheme is approximately
3 km at sub-satellite point (more details in Tab. 4). Model outputs are resampled to 2 arc-minutes (app. 4x4 km)
regular grid in WGS84 geographical coordinate system.
Satellite-data secure very high temporal coverage (more than 99% in most of regions). Data for very low sun angles
are derived by extrapolation of clear-sky index. The supplied time-series data have all the gaps filled using
intelligent algorithms.

Tab. 4: Approximate pixel size for different regions covered by satellites for the cloud index calculation

Approx. pixel size Approx. pixel size

Satellite Nominal Lat. 0º (Equator) Lat. Máx North /South
Spatial coverage
area Position
N-S E-W N-S E-W
component component component component

Europe, Africa, and parts

PRIME 0º 3 km 3 km 7.1 km 3.2 km
of Middle East and Brazil

South Asia, Central Asia,

IODC 63º E 2.5 km 2.5 km 5.9 km 2.7 km
and parts of East Asia

GOES-EAST 75º W 4 km 4 km 9.5 km 4.3 km

North America and South
America
GOES-
135º W 4 km 4 km 9.5 km 4.3 km
WEST

East Asia and Western

PACIFIC 145º E 4 km 4 km 9.5 km 4.3 km
Pacific Rim Countries

© 2016 Solargis page 12 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

6 ACCURACY OF SOLARGIS

6.1 Model performance

After calculating model statistics by comparing Solargis with good quality ground measurements at more than
200 sites across all type of climates the following has been observed (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 for map representation
and complete list of sites in Annex):
 Bias for 80% of the sites is within ±3.1% for GHI and ±6.8% for DNI
 Bias for 90% of the sites is within ±4.6% for GHI and ±9.0% for DNI
 Bias for 98% of the sites is within ±7.1% for GHI and ±11.8% for DNI

An analysis on the distribution of the bias across different geographies and situations lead us to the following
conclusions (summary in Tab. 5):
 In most situations the expected bias for annual values will be within ±4% for GHI values and ±8% for DNI
values:
o Most of Europe and North America (approx. below 50°) and Japan.
o Mediterranean region, Arabian Peninsula (except the Gulf region) and Morocco.
o South Africa, Chile, Brazil, Australia
o Regions with good availability of high-quality ground measurements
 Situations where the expected bias can be as high as ±8% for GHI values and ±12% for DNI values:
o High latitudes (approx. above 50°)
o Countries in humid tropical climate (e.g. equatorial regions of Africa, America and Pacific,
Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia) and coastal zones (approx. up to 15 km from water)
o Regions with high and dynamically changing concentrations of atmospheric aerosols (Northern
India, West Africa, Gulf region, some regions in China)
o High mountains regions with regular snow and ice coverage and high-reflectance deserts
o Regions with limited or no availability of high-quality ground measurements.

Based on the validation of Solargis data, a location specific uncertainty estimate can be derived on a case-by-case
basis by looking at the model performance after analysing the local climatic and geographic features.

Tab. 5: Model aaccuracy statistics of Solargis annual long-term averages

GHI DNI Description

-
Number of validation sites 208 143

Number of public sites 163 102 -

Tendency to overestimate or to underestimate the

Mean Bias for all sites 0% -1.7%
measured values, on average
Range of deviation of the model estimates assuming
Standard deviation ±2.9% ±5.8%
normal distribution of bias (68% occurrence)
Expected range of bias outside Depends on specific analysis on geography and
validation sites (P90 ±4% to ±8% ±8% to ±12% availability of ground measurements
uncertainty)

© 2016 Solargis page 13 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Fig. 5: Bias for yearly GHI values at validation sites (only public sites, values in percent)

Fig. 6: Bias for yearly DNI values at validation sites (only public sites, values in percent)

© 2016 Solargis page 14 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

6.2 Methods for accuracy calculation

The performance of satellite-based models for a given site is characterized by the following indicators, which are
calculated for each site for which comparisons with good quality ground measurements are available:
 Bias or Mean Bias Deviation (MBD) characterizes systematic model deviation at a given site, i.e.
systematic over- or underestimation. Bias values will be above zero when satellite modelled values are
overestimating and below zero when underestimating (in comparison to ground measurements).
 Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) and Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) are used for indicating the
spread of error for instantaneous values. RMSD indicates discrepancies between short-term modelled
values (sub-hourly, hourly, daily, monthly) and ground measurements.
Typically, bias is considered as the first indicator of the model accuracy, however the interpretation of the model
accuracy should be done analysing all measures. While knowing bias helps to understand a possible error of the
long-term estimate, MAD and RMSD are important for estimating the accuracy of energy simulation and
operational calculations (monitoring, forecasting). Usually validation statistics are normalized and expressed in
percentage.
Other indicators can be calculated as well, like Kolmogorov-Smirnoff Index (KSI), which characterizes
representativeness of distribution of values. It may indicate issues in the model’s ability to represent various solar
radiation conditions. KSI is important for accurate CSP modelling, as the response of these systems is non-linear
to irradiance levels. Even if bias of different satellite-based models is similar, other accuracy characteristics
(RMSD, MAD and KSI) may indicate substantial differences in their performance.

Representativeness of validation sites

Validation statistics for one site do not provide representative picture of the model performance in the given
geographical conditions. This can be explained by the fact that such site may be affected by a local microclimate
or by hidden issues in the ground-measured data.
Therefore, the ability of the model to characterize long-term annual GHI and DNI values should be evaluated at a
sufficient number of validation sites. Good satellite models are consistent in space and time, and thus the
validation at several sites within one geography provides a robust indication of the model accuracy in
geographically comparable regions elsewhere.
As of today Solargis model has been validated at more than 200 sites worldwide. Although the number of
reference stations is increasing with time, availability of high quality ground measurements for comparison is
limited for some regions. In this case, if a number of validation sites within a specific geography shows bias and
RMSD consistently within certain range of values, one can assume that the model will behave consistently also in
regions with similar geography where validation sites are not available.
The accuracy of the model can be calculated provided that the absolute majority of the validation data have been
collected using high-accuracy instruments, applying the best measurement practices and strict quality control
procedures.

Characterization of bias distribution

If we want to characterize the bias in general for sites out of the validation locations, we can take the simplified
assumption of having a normal distribution of deviations between the model and the measured values for model
estimates. When describing the normal distribution curve the following facts can be observed:
 Average of biases is close to zero (close to 0% for GHI and below 2% for DNI). This means that there is
no systematic tendency either to overestimate or underestimate (distribution is symmetrically centered).
 Standard deviation of bias is relatively low (close to 3% for GHI and 6% for DNI) which will be represented
by a narrow probability distribution, i.e. the P90 value (value exceeded in the 90% of the cases) will be
closer to the P50 (most expected value).
As with any other measuring approaches, a user cannot expect zero uncertainty for satellite-based solar models.
However, if the physics represented by the algorithms is correctly implemented, one can expect robust and
uniform behavior of the model for the geographical conditions, for which it has been calibrated and validated.

© 2016 Solargis page 15 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Even though distribution of validation sites is irregular, a stable and predictable performance of Solargis is
observed across various climate regions. The results of the comparison are summarized in the following table
and figures. A complete list with the publicly available validation sites and statistics can be found in the annex.
For a practical use, the statistical measures of accuracy had to be converted into uncertainty, which better
characterizes probabilistic nature of a possible error of the model estimate.
One way of evaluating the uncertainty is to apply confidence intervals for estimating its probabilistic nature. When
assuming normal distribution, statistically one standard deviation characterizes 68% probability of occurrence.
From the standard deviation, other confidence intervals can be constructed (Tab. 6).

Tab. 6: Construction of uncertainty intervals from normal distribution

Probability of occurrence Formula

One standard deviation 68.3% ± STDEV

Two standard deviations 95.5% ± 2*STDEV
Three standard deviations 99.7% ± 3*STDEV

P75 uncertainty 50% ± 0.675*STDEV

P90 uncertainty 80% ± 1.282*STDEV
P95 uncertainty 90% ± 1.645*STDEV
P97.5 uncertainty 95% ± 1.960*STDEV
P99 uncertainty 98% ± 2.326*STDEV

From confidence intervals we can calculate different probability scenarios as represented in Tab. 7. The P50 value
will be the most expected value (center of the probability density curve), from which various levels of confidence
can be expressed. For instance, in solar resource assessment the P90 value has become a standard and it
represents a number that would be exceeded in 90% of the cases.

Tab. 7: Expected values at various probability scenarios assuming normal distribution of values.

Probabilily of exceedance Probabilily of non-exceedance Formula

P50 value 50% 50% Mean

P75 value 75% 25% Mean - 0.675*STDEV
P90 value 90% 10% Mean - 1.282*STDEV
P95 value 95% 5% Mean - 1.645*STDEV
P97.5 value 97.5% 2.5% Mean - 1.960*STDEV
P99 value 99% 1% Mean - 2.326*STDEV

© 2016 Solargis page 16 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

7 COMBINED UNCERTAINTY

7.1 Components of uncertainty

For understanding the model performance key indicators, it is important to consider the several factors that
influence the accuracy of the values, provided both by satellite-based modelling and on-site ground sensors.
On the modelling side, accuracy will be determined by cloud estimate (e.g. intermediate clouds), under/over
estimation of atmospheric input data, terrain, microclimate and other effects, which are not captured by the model.
Part of this discrepancy is natural - as satellites monitor large area (of approx. 3x4 km) while ground sensors see
only micro area of approx. 1 squared centimetre. Due to higher complexity of the model, bias of satellite-based
DNI is higher than GHI.
On the measurement side, the discrepancy will be determined by accuracy/quality and errors of the instrument,
pollution of the detector, misalignment, data loggers, insufficient quality control, etc. Only quality-controlled
measurements from high-standard sensors should be used for reliable validation of satellite-based solar models.
Any issues in the ground measured data result in a skewed evaluation.
The most sought-after value by project developers, technical consultants and finance industry is the uncertainty
of the long-term yearly GHI or DNI estimate for the project site. The model uncertainty can be calculated from the
validation statistics (Bias) as shown in Chapter 6.
However, the uncertainty values should be also taking into account the fact that the measurements also include
an uncertainty component itself. In addition, when assessing the uncertainty of one single year, inter-annual
variability due to the climate factors should be evaluated as well.
In conclusion, assuming that the solar radiation values can be described using a normal probability distribution
(similarly as we have done when characterizing the model bias distribution), the total combined uncertainty is
calculated from:
 Uncertainty of the Solargis model estimate
 Uncertainty of the ground measurements
 Inter-annual weather variability.
The influence of these three factors in the final uncertainty is calculated through the square root of the quadratic
sum of each uncertainty:

𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = √𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 2 + 𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠 2 + 𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑣𝑎𝑟 2

Ground measurements
Estimate of the long-term uncertainty of ground measurements can be a bit subjective – it can be based on
combination of the theoretical uncertainty of the instrument, results of quality control procedures and comparison
of the redundant measurements.
Considering that the absolute majority of the validation data have been collected using high-accuracy instruments
and applying the best measurement practices and strict quality control procedures, it is considered that a ±2.0%
should be added from GHI measurements from pyranometers and ±1.0% from DNI measurements from
pyrheliometers (see Tab. 8 and Tab. 9). This could serve as a good starting point for assessing annual uncertainty
of solar instruments. It is known from other comparisons that these values could be exceeded in standard
operating conditions.
On the other hand, utilization of the state-of-the-art instruments does not alone guarantee good results. Any
measurements are subject to uncertainty and the information is only complete, if the measured values are
accompanied by information on the associated uncertainty. Sensors and measurement process has inherent
features that must be managed by quality control and correction techniques applied to the raw measured data.

© 2016 Solargis page 17 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

The lowest possible uncertainties of solar measurements are essential for accurate determination of solar
resource. Uncertainty of measurements in outdoor conditions is always higher than the one declared in the
technical specifications of the instrument. The uncertainty may dramatically increase in extreme operating
conditions and in case of limited or insufficient maintenance. Quality of measured data has significant impact on
validation and regional adaptation of satellite models.

Tab. 8: Theoretically-achievable daily uncertainty of GHI at 95% confidence level

Pyranometers RSR
Secondary Second
First class (After data post-processing)
standard class
GHI Hourly ±3% ±8% ±20% ±3.5% to ±4.5%
GHI Daily ±2% ±5% ±10% ±2.5% to ±3.5%

Tab. 9: Theoretically-achievable daily uncertainty of DNI at 95% confidence level

Pyrheliometers RSR
Secondary
First class (After data post-processing)
standard
DNI Hourly ±0.7% ±1.5% ±3.5% to ±4.5%
DNI Daily ±0.5% ±1.0% ±2.5% to ±3.5%

Interannual variability
Weather changes in cycles and it has also a stochastic nature. Therefore annual solar radiation in each year can
deviate from the long-term average in the range of few percent. This is expressed by interannual variability, i.e. the
magnitude of the year-by-year change.
The interannual variability for selected sites is calculated from the unbiased standard deviation of the yearly values
over the available period of years, considering a simplified assumption of normal distribution of the annual sums.
All sites show similar patterns of variation over the recorded period. This analysis can be made for longer periods
(see samples for few sites in Tab. 10), i.e. the uncertainty at different confidence levels expected for average
values within more than one-year period.
𝑆𝑇𝐷𝐸𝑉
𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑛 =
√𝑛

Tab. 10: Table of GHI interannual variability of a period of 1, 5, 10 and 25 years for several sample sites

Variability [%]
Nearby city Country
1 year 5 years 10 years 25 years
Kosice Slovakia 3.8 1.7 0.5 0.1
Fresno United States 2.5 1.1 0.4 0.1
Kurnool India 2.3 1.0 0.3 0.1
Calama Chile 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.0
Upington South Africa 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.0

The historical period used for calculating the inter-annual variability may have some influence, although it is
observed to be quite small (e.g. if we compare results from 10 years of data with results from 20 years of data).
The expected difference for GHI would be less than 1% (depends on the climate zone). A higher influence may be
found in data sets representing occurrence of large stratospheric volcano eruptions.

© 2016 Solargis page 18 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

7.2 Comparison of models

Good models have known and lowest possible uncertainty. As it has been described in previous chapters, the
expected uncertainty for a specific site can be derived from the analysis of validation statistics for a sufficient
number of validation points.
Assuming that the solar resource estimates from two different models follow a normal distribution, the combined
uncertainty can be compared and represented in charts. The most expected value (P50) and its uncertainty will
determine the position of the center and the width of the probability distribution respectively.
Using a solar model with proven higher accuracy like Solargis provides more probable estimates and less weather-
related risk for the project. In other words, the distance between P50 and P90 values is smaller in such case.
In the sample below (see Tab.11), the model A has a higher uncertainty than model B and therefore distribution
of expected values in model A will be spread within a wider range. In other words, values expected by model B will
occur with a higher probability.

Tab. 11: Uncertainty of GHI values from two models at a sample site in Kosice, Slovakia

Model A Model B
[kWh/m2] [kWh/m2]
Most expected value (P50) 1193 1230
Value exceeded with 90% probability (P90) 1069 1149
Uncertainty (P90 confidence interval) ±10.4% ±6.6%

Fig. 7: Distribution of GHI expected values by two different models for a sample site

© 2016 Solargis page 19 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

8 ABOUT SOLARGIS

Solargis background
Primary business of Solargis is in providing support to the site qualification, planning, financing and operation of
solar energy systems. We are committed to increase efficiency and reliability of solar technology by expert
consultancy and access to our databases and customer-oriented services.
The Company builds on 25 years of expertise in geoinformatics and environmental modelling, and 15 years in
solar energy and photovoltaics. We strive for development and operation of new generation high-resolution
quality-assessed global databases with focus on solar resource and energy-related weather parameters. We are
developing simulation, management and control tools, map products, and services for fast access to high quality
information needed for system planning, performance assessment, forecasting and management of distributed
power generation. Members of the team have long-term experience in R&D and are active in the activities of
International Energy Agency, Solar Heating and Cooling Program, Task 46 Solar Resource Assessment and
Forecasting.
Solargis operates a set of online services, which includes data, maps, software, and geoinformation services for
solar energy.
http://solargis.com

Legal information
Considering the nature of climate fluctuations, interannual and long-term changes, as well as the uncertainty of
measurements and calculations, Solargis cannot take guarantee of the accuracy of estimates. Solargis has
done maximum possible for the assessment of climate conditions based on the best available data, software
and knowledge. Solargis shall not be liable for any direct, incidental, consequential, indirect or punitive damages
arising or alleged to have arisen out of use of the provided information.
© 2016 Solargis, all rights reserved

Solargis is ISO 9001:2008 certified company for quality management.

Contact and support

Solargis website: http://solargis.com/
Solargis support center: http://support.solargis.info/support/home
Email: [email protected]
Office address: Pionierska 15, 831 02 Bratislava, Slovakia
Tel: +421 2 4319 1708

Solargis s.r.o.
Registered at: M. Marecka 3, 841 07 Bratislava, Slovakia

© 2016 Solargis page 20 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1: Historical data availability .................................................................................................................. 8

Fig. 2: Long-term average of yearly GHI ........................................................................................................ 9
Fig. 3: Long-term yearly average of yearly DNI.............................................................................................. 9
Fig. 4: Scheme of the semi-empirical solar radiation model (Solargis) ....................................................... 10
Fig. 5: Bias for yearly GHI values at validation sites (only public sites, values in percent) .......................... 14
Fig. 6: Bias for yearly DNI values at validation sites (only public sites, values in percent) .......................... 14
Fig. 7: Distribution of GHI expected values by two different models for a sample site ............................... 19

© 2016 Solargis page 21 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

LIST OF TABLES

Tab. 1: Solar resource parameters provided by Solargis to solar power industry 7

Tab. 2: Features of Solargis solar resource data 8
Tab. 3: Input data used in the Solargis model 11
Tab. 4: Approximate pixel size for different regions covered by satellites for the cloud index calculation 12
Tab. 5: Model aaccuracy statistics of Solargis annual long-term averages 13
Tab. 6: Construction of uncertainty intervals from normal distribution 16
Tab. 7: Expected values at various probability scenarios assuming normal distribution of values. 16
Tab. 8: Theoretically-achievable daily uncertainty of GHI at 95% confidence level 18
Tab. 9: Theoretically-achievable daily uncertainty of DNI at 95% confidence level 18
Tab. 10: Table of GHI interannual variability of a period of 1, 5, 10 and 25 years for several sample sites 18
Tab. 11: Uncertainty of GHI values from two models at a sample site in Kosice, Slovakia 19

© 2016 Solargis page 22 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

REFERENCES

[1] Perez R., Cebecauer T., Šúri M., 2013. Semi-Empirical Satellite Models. In Kleissl J. (ed.) Solar Energy
Forecasting and Resource Assessment. Academic press.
[2] Cebecauer T., Šúri M., Perez R., High performance MSG satellite model for operational solar energy
applications. ASES National Solar Conference, Phoenix, USA, 2010.
[3] Cebecauer T., Suri M., Gueymard C., Uncertainty sources in satellite-derived Direct Normal Irradiance: How
can prediction accuracy be improved globally? Proceedings of the SolarPACES Conference, Granada, Spain,
20-23 Sept 2011.
[4] Suri M., Cebecauer T., 2014. Satellite-based solar resource data: Model validation statistics versus user’s
uncertainty. ASES SOLAR 2014 Conference, San Francisco, 7-9 July 2014.
[5] Ineichen P., A broadband simplified version of the Solis clear sky model, 2008. Solar Energy, 82, 8, 758-762.
[6] Morcrette J., Boucher O., Jones L., Salmond D., Bechtold P., Beljaars A., Benedetti A., Bonet A., Kaiser J.W.,
Razinger M., Schulz M., Serrar S., Simmons A.J., Sofiev M., Suttie M., Tompkins A., Uncht A., GEMS-AER
team, 2009. Aerosol analysis and forecast in the ECMWF Integrated Forecast System. Part I: Forward
modelling. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114.
[7] Benedictow A. et al. 2012. Validation report of the MACC reanalysis of global atmospheric composition:
Period 2003-2010, MACC-II Deliverable D83.1.
[8] Cebecauer T., Šúri M., Accuracy improvements of satellite-derived solar resource based on GEMS re-
analysis aerosols. Conference SolarPACES 2010, September 2010, Perpignan, France.
[9] Cebecauer T., Perez R., Šúri M., Comparing performance of Solargis and SUNY satellite models using
monthly and daily aerosol data. Proceedings of the ISES Solar World Congress 2011, September 2011,
Kassel, Germany.
[10] Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CSFR), NOAA. http://cfs.ncep.noaa.gov/cfsr/
[11] Global Forecast System (GFS), NOAA. http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/index.php?branch=GFS
[12] Meteosat satellites MFG and MSG,
EUMETSAT. http://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Satellites/CurrentSatellites/Meteosat/index.html
[13] Hammer A., Heinemann D., Hoyer C., Kuhlemann R., Lorenz E., Müller R., Beyer H.G., 2003. Solar energy
assessment using remote sensing technologies. Rem. Sens. Environ., 86, 423-432.
[14] Perez R., Ineichen P., Maxwell E., Seals R. and Zelenka A., 1992. Dynamic global-to-direct irradiance
conversion models. ASHRAE Transactions-Research Series, pp. 354-369.
[15] Perez, R., Seals R., Ineichen P., Stewart R., Menicucci D., 1987. A new simplified version of the Perez diffuse
irradiance model for tilted surfaces. Solar Energy, 39, 221-232.
[16] Ruiz-Arias J. A., Cebecauer T., Tovar-Pescador J., Šúri M., Spatial disaggregation of satellite-derived
irradiance using a high-resolution digital elevation model. Solar Energy, 84, 1644-1657, 2010.
[17] Cebecauer T., Šúri M., 2012. Correction of Satellite-Derived DNI Time Series Using Locally-Resolved Aerosol
Data.. Proceedings of the SolarPACES Conference, Marrakech, Morocco, September 2012.
[18] AERONET: NASA Aerosol Robotic Network. http://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/
[19] Ineichen P., 2014. Long Term Satellite Global, Beam and Diffuse Irradiance Validation. Energy Procedia,
Volume 48, 1586–1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.179
[20] Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFS v2), NOAA. http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/products/CFSv2/
[21] Meteonorm handbook, Version 6.12, Part II: Theory. Meteotest, 2010
[22] Surface meteorology and Solar Energy (SSE) release 6.0, Methodology, Version 2.4, 2009.
[23] SWERA web site. NREL monthly and annual average global data at 40 km resolution for South America from
NREL, 2006.http://maps.nrel.gov/SWERA

© 2016 Solargis page 23 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

[24] Šúri M., Huld T., Cebecauer T., Dunlop E.D., 2008. Geographic Aspects of Photovoltaics in Europe:
Contribution of the PVGIS Web Site. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and
Remote Sensing, 1, 1, 34-41
[25] Huld T., Müller R., Gambardella A., 2012. A new solar radiation database for estimating PV performance in
Europe and Kuwait, Solar Energy, 86, 6, 1803-1815.
[26] Lohmann S., Schillings C., Mayer B., Meyer R., 2006. Long-term variability of solar direct and global radiation
derived from ISCCP data and comparison with reanalysis data, Solar Energy, 80, 11, 1390-1401.
[27] Gueymard C., Solar resource e assessment for CSP and CPV. Leonardo Energy webinar,
2010. http://www.leonardo-energy.org/webfm_send/4601

© 2016 Solargis page 24 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

ANNEX

List of validation sites

Latitude Longitude Elevation

Site Name Country GHI DNI Source
[°] [°] [m a.s.l.]
Bergen Norway x - 60.38380 5.33190 7 -
Lerwick United Kingdom x x 60.13330 -1.18330 9 In. 2013 (GAW)
Tartu Toravere Estonia x x 58.26530 26.46610 70 -
Zoseni Latvia x - 57.13300 25.91700 188 -
Liepaja Rucava Latvia x - 56.48300 21.01700 4 -
Zilani Latvia x x 56.31000 25.55000 107 In. 2013 (GAW)
Schleswig Germany x - 54.51810 9.57040 12 -
Hamburg Germany x x 53.63330 10.00000 14 -
Leeuwarden Netherlands x - 53.21667 5.75000 0 -
Loughborough United Kingdom x - 52.77000 -1.23000 70 -
Heino Netherlands x - 52.43333 6.26667 4 -
Potsdam Germany x - 52.38100 13.06200 85 -
Lindenberg Germany x x 52.21000 14.12200 125 In. 2013 (BSRN)
Cabauw Netherlands x x 51.97000 4.93000 2 In. 2011 (BSRN-KNMI)
Valentia Ireland x x 51.93800 -10.24800 14 In. 2013 (GAW)
Kassel Germany x x 51.31200 9.47800 173 In. 2013 (FhG)
Westdorpe Netherlands x - 51.21667 3.86667 2 -
Ell Netherlands x - 51.20000 5.76667 30 -
Wroclaw Poland x - 51.12630 17.01380 111 -
Doksany Czech Republic x - 50.45800 14.16900 156 CHMU
Camborne United Kingdom x x 50.21670 -5.31670 88 -
Hradec Kralove Czech Republic x x 50.18300 15.83300 236 -
Luka Czech Republic x - 49.65000 16.95000 510 CHMU
Kocelovice Czech Republic x - 49.46600 13.83300 519 CHMU
Ganovce Slovakia x - 49.03330 20.31670 706 WRDC
Weihenstephan Germany x x 48.40000 11.70000 472 -
Fort Peck, MT United States x x 48.31670 -105.10000 643 SURFRAD
Wien Austria x x 48.24850 16.35560 203 In. 2013 (GAW)
Bratislava Slovakia x x 48.16950 17.07150 195 In. 2013 (CIE)
Freiburg Germany x x 47.97920 7.83110 275 -
Hurbanovo Slovakia x - 47.87330 18.19000 113 -
Seattle, WA United States x x 47.68685 -122.25667 20 NOAA ISIS
Zurich Switzerland x - 47.47500 8.53000 558 In. 2011 (ANETZ)
Nantes France x x 47.25420 -1.55360 30 In. 2013 (CSTB)
Kishinev Moldova x x 47.00130 28.81560 205 -
Weissfluhjoch Switzerland x - 46.83320 9.80530 2690 -
SLF Versuchsfeld Switzerland x - 46.82790 9.80940 2540 -
Payerne Switzerland x x 46.81380 6.94270 490 -
Davos Switzerland x x 46.81320 9.84450 1586 -
Bismarck, ND United States x x 46.77179 -100.75955 503 NOAA ISIS

© 2016 Solargis page 25 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Latitude Longitude Elevation

Site Name Country GHI DNI Source
[°] [°] [m a.s.l.]
Mannlichen Switzerland x - 46.61310 7.94110 2230 -
Jungfraujoch Germany x - 46.54880 7.98500 3580 -
Eggishorn Switzerland x - 46.42730 8.09270 2895 -
Sion Switzerland x - 46.22000 7.33000 489 In. 2011 (ANETZ)
Cimetta Switzerland x - 46.20110 8.78990 1670 -
Geneve Switzerland x x 46.20030 6.13160 420 -
Locarno-Monti Switzerland x x 46.17260 8.78740 370 -
Gornergrat Switzerland x - 45.98420 7.78510 3110 -
Zagreb Croatia x - 45.81880 16.01290 119 -
Ispra Italy x - 45.81200 8.62710 220 -
Vaulx un Velin France x x 45.77860 4.92250 170 -
Bozeman, MT United States x - 45.66200 -111.04500 1507 SOLRADNET
Gospic Croatia x - 44.54860 15.36130 565 -
Carpentras France x x 44.08300 5.05900 100 -
Sioux Falls, SD United States x x 43.73000 -96.62000 473 SURFRAD
A Coruna Spain x x 43.36590 -8.42150 58 -
Oviedo Spain x x 43.35360 -5.87330 336 -
San Sebastian Spain x x 43.30750 -2.03940 252 -
Madison, WI United States x x 43.07250 -89.41133 271 NOAA ISIS
Sapporo Japan x x 43.06000 141.32830 17 BSRN
Val Alinya Spain x - 42.15200 1.44900 1770 In. 2011 (FluxNet)
Soria Spain x x 41.76670 -2.46670 1082 -
Valladolid Spain x x 41.65000 -4.76670 735 -
Lleida Spain x x 41.62580 0.59500 192 -
Barcelona Spain x - 41.38580 2.11690 74 -
Trinidad Obs., CA United States x x 41.05410 -124.15100 107 NOAA ESRL
Salt Lake City, UT United States x x 40.77220 -111.95495 1228 NOAA ISIS
Rock Springs, PA United States x x 40.72000 -77.93330 376 SURFRAD
Thessaloniki Greece x - 40.63240 22.95910 60 -
Madrid Spain x x 40.45280 -3.72420 664 -
Boulder, CO United States x x 40.12500 -105.23700 1689 SURFRAD
Bondville, IL United States x x 40.06670 -88.36670 213 SURFRAD
Las Majadas Spain x - 39.94200 -5.77300 260 In. 2011 (FluxNet)
Xianghe China x x 39.75400 116.96200 32 BSRN
Palma Spain x x 39.56670 2.74390 4 -
Caceres Spain x x 39.47220 -6.33940 405 -
El Saler Spain x - 39.34600 -0.31900 10 In. 2011 (FluxNet)
Sterling, VA United States x x 38.97673 -77.48379 85 NOAA ISIS
Badajoz Spain x x 38.88610 -7.01170 175 -
Penteli Greece x - 38.08770 23.86320 736 -
Murcia Spain x x 38.00280 -1.16940 62 -
Athens Greece x - 37.97180 23.71830 107 -
Cordoba Spain x x 37.84440 -4.85060 91 -
Seoul, Yonsei Univ. South Korea x - 37.56440 126.93490 88 SOLARFLUX
Almeria, PSA Spain x x 37.09279 -2.36240 491 DLR
Malaga Spain x x 36.71920 -4.48030 60 -
Desert Rock, NV United States x x 36.62600 -116.01800 1007 SURFRAD

© 2016 Solargis page 26 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Latitude Longitude Elevation

Site Name Country GHI DNI Source
[°] [°] [m a.s.l.]
Hanford, CA United States x x 36.31357 -119.63164 73 NOAA ISIS
Tsukuba, Tateno Japan x x 36.05000 140.13330 25 BSRN
Crete, TEI Greece x - 35.29970 25.10000 90 -
Albuquerque, NM United States x x 35.03796 -106.62211 1617 NOAA ISIS
Goodwin Creek, MS United States x x 34.25000 -89.87000 98 SURFRAD
Fukuoka Japan x x 33.58170 130.37500 3 BSRN
Amman Jordan x - 32.02470 35.87890 1041 -
Yatir Forest Israel x - 31.34700 35.05200 650 In. 2011 (FluxNet)
Ouarzazate Morocco - x 31.01200 -6.86500 1230 -
Sede Boqer Israel x x 30.85500 34.78190 480 -
Al-Jouf Saudi Arabia x x 29.79000 40.10000 669 KACST/NREL
Pantnagar India x x 29.04580 79.52080 241 SolRadNet
Tabouk Saudi Arabia x x 28.38000 36.61000 768 KACST/NREL
Al-Qaisumah Saudi Arabia x x 28.32000 46.13000 358 KACST/NREL
Izana Spain - x 28.30890 -16.49940 2371 -
San Bartolome de T. Spain x x 27.75810 -15.57560 50 -
Kanpur India x x 26.51270 80.23190 123 SolRadNet
Qassim Saudi Arabia x x 26.31000 43.77000 647 KACST/NREL
Doha Qatar x x 25.32857 51.42571 20 QEEERI
Al-Ahsa Saudi Arabia x x 25.30000 49.48000 178 KACST/NREL
Riyadh, Solar Vil. Saudi Arabia x x 24.91000 46.41000 757 KACST/NREL
Al-Madinah Saudi Arabia x x 24.55000 39.70000 626 KACST/NREL
Ishigaki Japan x x 24.33670 124.16330 11 BSRN
Minamitorishima Japan x x 24.28830 153.98330 7 BSRN
Tamanrasset Algeria x x 22.78330 5.51370 1378 -
Wadi Al-Dawaser Saudi Arabia x x 20.44000 44.68000 701 KACST/NREL
Kailua-Kona, HI United States x - 19.72747 -156.05901 4 NREL
Manua Loa, HI United States x x 19.53620 -155.57630 3397 NOAA ESRL
Abha Saudi Arabia x x 18.23000 42.66000 2101 KACST/NREL
Bovoni, VI United States x - 17.70799 -64.69328 28 NREL
Sharurah Saudi Arabia x - 17.47000 47.11000 725 KACST/NREL
Bamba Mali x - 17.09900 -1.40180 272 AMMA
Gizan Saudi Arabia x x 16.90000 42.58000 7 KACST/NREL
Agoufu Mali x - 15.34450 -1.47910 290 AMMA
M Bour Senegal x - 14.39400 -16.95900 5 AMMA
Silpakorn Thailand x - 13.81880 100.04080 72 SOLARFLUX
Banizoumbou Niger x - 13.53110 2.66130 211 AMMA
El Nido Airp. Philippines x - 11.20500 119.41300 4 SOLARFLUX
Djougou Benin x - 9.69200 1.66200 438 AMMA
Kwajalein Marshall x x 8.72000 167.73100 10 BSRN
Islands
USM Penang Malaysia x - 5.35800 100.30200 51 SOLARFLUX
Kosrae Micronesia x - 5.35290 162.95700 0 -
Bukit Kototabang Indonesia x x -0.20190 100.31810 864 WRDC, GAW
Nauru Island Nauru x x -0.52100 166.91670 7 BSRN
Nairobi Kenya x - -1.33888 36.86530 1650 SolRad-net
Momote Papua New G. x x -2.05800 147.42500 6 BSRN

© 2016 Solargis page 27 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Latitude Longitude Elevation

Site Name Country GHI DNI Source
[°] [°] [m a.s.l.]
Palangka Raya Indonesia x - -2.22800 113.94600 27 SOLARFLUX
Petrolina Brazil x x -9.06800 -40.31900 387 -
Keeling Cocos Islands x x -12.18920 96.83440 3 BSRN
Darwin Airp. Australia x x -12.42390 130.89250 30 BoM
Samoa Obs. Amer. Samoa x x -14.24740 -170.56440 42 NOAA ESRL
Brasilia Brazil x x -15.60100 -47.71300 1023 BSRN
Broome Airp. Australia x x -17.94750 122.23530 7 BoM
Pampa Camarones Chile x - -18.85840 -70.21730 798 Ministerio de Energía
Pozo Almonte Chile x - -20.25680 -69.77500 1033 Ministerio de Energía
Learmonth Airp. Australia x x -22.24060 114.09700 5 BoM
Crucero Chile x - -22.27460 -69.56610 1185 Ministerio de Energía
Salar Chile x - -22.34090 -68.87660 2521 Ministerio de Energía
S. Pedro de A. Chile x - -22.97670 -68.16010 2379 Ministerio de Energía
Puerto Angamos Chile x - -23.07360 -70.38560 28 Ministerio de Energía
Rockhampton Airp. Australia x x -23.37530 150.47750 10 BoM
Alice Springs Airp. Australia x x -23.79510 133.88900 546 BoM
Cerro Armazones Chile x - -24.63460 -70.24260 2576 Ministerio de Energía
Salvador Airp. Chile x - -26.31270 -69.75040 1609 Ministerio de Energía
Inca de Oro Chile x - -26.75320 -69.90600 1580 Ministerio de Energía
Tellerie South Africa x - -27.37500 21.29700 931 -
Florianopolis Brazil x x -27.66800 -48.54200 5 BSRN
Upington South Africa - x -28.46830 21.07150 864 Stellenbosch
Geraldton Airp. Australia x x -28.79530 114.69800 33 BoM
Paulputs South Africa - x -28.88020 19.56500 823 -
Aggeneys South Africa - x -29.29530 18.80530 789 -
S. Martinho da S. Brazil x x -29.44280 -53.82310 489 BSRN
Durban South Africa x x -29.90000 30.98000 151 UKZN
De Aar South Africa x x -30.66670 24.00000 1331 BSRN
Kalgoorlie-B. Airp. Australia x x -30.78470 121.45300 365 BoM
Stellenbosch South Africa x x -33.92800 18.86500 120 Stellenbosch
Adelaide Airp. Australia x x -34.95240 138.52040 2 BoM
Wagga Wagga Airp. Australia x x -35.15830 147.45730 212 BoM
Melbourne Airp. Australia x x -37.66550 144.83210 113 BoM
Cape Grim Australia x x -40.68170 144.68920 95 BoM
Lauder New Zealand x x -45.04500 169.68900 350 BSRN

© 2016 Solargis page 28 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

GHI Validation statistics

Bias GHI Root Mean Square Deviation GHI

Country Valid data
Site Name Hourly Daily Monthly
ISO code pairs [W/m2] [%]
[%] [%] [%]
Bergen NO - 14 8.2 32.2 17.0 11.0
Lerwick GB - 3 1.5 28.5 14.1 3.3
Tartu Toravere EE - -4 -1.8 23.3 10.8 3.7
Zoseni LV - -14 -5.1 23.4 13.3 9.4
Liepaja Rucava LV - -6 -2.2 17.8 8.7 3.3
Zilani LV - -4 -1.0 - - -
Schleswig DE - -11 -4.5 22.0 12.5 7.6
Hamburg DE - 3 1.6 20.8 9.5 3.3
Leeuwarden NL 11777 -4 -1.6 18.7 8.4 3.0
Loughborough GB - -4 -1.7 24.4 11.8 4.2
Heino NL 11973 -1 -0.5 17.7 7.7 1.9
Potsdam DE - -7 -2.7 18.2 8.2 4.0
Lindenberg DE - -9 -3.0 - - -
Cabauw NL 11912 3 1.0 18.9 8.5 2.2
Valentia IE - -9 -4.0 - - -
Westdorpe NL 11910 -8 -2.9 19.0 8.4 4.1
Ell NL 3939 -15 -5.7 20.7 10.4 7.2
Wroclaw PL - 8 3.2 19.5 9.0 4.1
Doksany CZ - 1 0.5 18.5 9.0 4.5
Camborne GB - -4 -1.6 19.9 8.4 2.9
Hradec Kralove CZ - 4 1.5 22.2 10.0 3.2
Luka CZ - 0 0.0 22.1 10.8 5.0
Kocelovice CZ - -5 -2.0 18.9 8.9 4.8
Ganovce SK - -4 -1.6 26.3 12.5 3.2
Weihenstephan DE - -6 -2.3 20.4 10.1 3.7
Fort Peck, MT US 49156 0 0.0 20.8 13.0 4.1
Wien AT - 7 2.5 20.6 9.3 3.1
Bratislava SK - 7 3.0 19.2 9.7 4.2
Freiburg DE - 12 3.9 19.4 8.3 4.4
Hurbanovo SK - -1 -0.2 20.9 10.8 4.8
Seattle, WA US 8702 4 1.3 22.2 9.6 3.8
Zurich CH - 10 4.0 - - -
Nantes FR - -4 -1.3 18.3 9.4 2.7
Kishinev MD - 3 0.9 16.7 7.5 1.9
Weissfluhjoch CH - -9 -2.8 31.5 18.0 8.9
SLF Versuchsfeld CH - -7 -2.4 32.2 18.0 9.0
Payerne CH - 6 1.6 15.3 8.5 2.2
Davos CH - -12 -3.7 27.5 14.0 5.4
Bismarck, ND US 8882 -5 -1.4 21.6 14.4 2.9
Mannlichen CH - -5 -1.7 30.1 15.9 6.4
Jungfraujoch DE - -5 -1.3 32.7 20.8 11.5
Eggishorn CH - 5 1.6 42.1 27.0 15.3
Sion CH - -11 -3.0 - - -

© 2016 Solargis page 29 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Bias GHI Root Mean Square Deviation GHI

Country Valid data
Site Name Hourly Daily Monthly
ISO code pairs [W/m2] [%]
[%] [%] [%]
Cimetta CH - 18 6.1 27.3 14.6 8.0
Geneve CH - 17 5.7 20.0 10.0 5.8
Locarno-Monti CH - -1 -0.3 17.7 7.9 2.1
Gornergrat CH - -25 -6.6 31.1 19.3 11.2
Zagreb HR - 5 1.7 19.2 8.1 3.2
Ispra IT - 13 4.6 15.4 7.7 4.8
Vaulx un Velin FR - 17 6.3 17.8 9.5 6.7
Bozeman, MT US 8434 -6 -1.6 21.8 11.3 2.5
Gospic HR - 3 1.2 24.7 11.1 3.2
Carpentras FR - 3 0.7 12.5 5.5 1.0
Sioux Falls, SD US 33121 -1 -0.4 18.6 11.6 3.7
A Coruna ES - -5 -1.7 18.0 9.2 3.5
Oviedo ES - 19 7.1 24.2 13.6 7.5
San Sebastian ES - 4 1.4 19.4 8.0 2.9
Madison, WI US 9691 -5 -1.3 15.7 8.5 2.2
Sapporo JP 9996 -4 -1.4 29.1 17.1 3.4
Val Alinya ES - 9 2.0 - - -
Soria ES - -2 -0.7 18.2 7.2 1.5
Valladolid ES - 11 3.0 14.0 6.8 3.6
Lleida ES - -2 -0.6 13.1 7.0 3.3
Barcelona ES - 11 3.0 14.9 7.0 3.7
Trinidad Obs., CA US 20211 2 0.5 18.0 8.9 1.9
Salt Lake City, UT US 6933 -4 -1.0 19.6 10.3 2.3
Rock Springs, PA US 50432 3 1.0 20.2 10.9 2.0
Thessaloniki GR - 4 1.0 13.6 5.8 1.7
Madrid ES - 5 1.3 13.3 6.3 1.9
Boulder, CO US 48777 7 1.5 24.7 13.2 4.1
Bondville, IL US 50201 2 0.5 17.4 10.4 2.4
Las Majadas ES - 21 5.0 - - -
Xianghe CN 14891 -3 -1.0 19.9 14.5 3.9
Palma ES - -2 -0.6 13.7 5.5 1.3
Caceres ES - 10 2.5 13.7 6.7 3.1
El Saler ES - 4 1.0 - - -
Sterling, VA US 5532 -7 -1.8 17.2 9.0 3.5
Badajoz ES - 10 2.3 12.0 5.6 3.0
Penteli GR - -13 -3.0 16.6 7.5 3.2
Murcia ES - 5 1.3 12.3 5.7 1.8
Athens GR - 14 3.9 16.1 8.4 4.3
Cordoba ES - 17 3.7 12.2 7.0 4.7
Seoul, Yonsei Univ. KOR 2651 0 0.1 19.7 9.9 3.3
Almeria, PSA ES - 3 0.8 13.5 5.9 1.5
Malaga ES - 13 3.2 14.8 7.5 3.8
Desert Rock, NV US 48353 3 0.6 12.5 5.6 1.2
Hanford, CA US 5221 2 0.4 12.1 6.1 1.9
Tsukuba, Tateno JP 27734 0 -0.1 20.4 10.7 2.4
Crete, TEI GR - 8 2.2 13.4 6.8 2.6

© 2016 Solargis page 30 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Bias GHI Root Mean Square Deviation GHI

Country Valid data
Site Name Hourly Daily Monthly
ISO code pairs [W/m2] [%]
[%] [%] [%]
Albuquerque, NM US 8446 0 0.1 15.9 7.7 1.4
Goodwin Creek, MS US 49789 14 3.4 15.5 7.7 3.6
Fukuoka JP 9978 1 0.2 24.0 13.6 3.2
Amman JO - -10 -1.9 9.6 3.8 1.9
Yatir Forest IL - -4 -1.0 - - -
Sede Boqer IL - -6 -1.3 9.8 4.3 1.6
Al-Jouf SA - 5 1.0 9.5 5.6 2.4
Pantnagar IN 616 -6 -1.5 17.3 11.3 2.5
Tabouk SA - 19 3.8 10.0 6.2 4.0
Al-Qaisumah SA - -7 -1.4 10.7 6.6 2.4
San Bartolome de T. ES - 2 0.5 13.6 5.7 1.1
Kanpur IN 12999 -9 -2.0 14.7 8.2 2.8
Qassim SA - 4 0.8 9.8 5.5 1.6
Doha QA - 0 -1.3 - 5.3 2.0
Al-Ahsa SA - -8 -1.6 10.0 6.4 2.5
Riyadh, Solar Vil. SA - -3 -0.6 9.6 5.5 2.0
Al-Madinah SA - 15 3.1 11.9 6.4 3.4
Ishigaki JP 10141 -5 -1.3 24.2 14.3 2.3
Minamitorishima JP 10155 -2 -0.4 15.0 7.2 1.4
Tamanrasset DZ - 0 0.0 8.5 4.6 1.8
Wadi Al-Dawaser SA - 7 1.4 10.7 5.6 2.0
Kailua-Kona, HI US 3999 1 0.2 13.0 5.0 1.5
Manua Loa, HI US 49774 -40 -6.7 16.8 10.1 6.9
Abha SA - 19 3.6 15.2 6.9 3.9
Bovoni, VI US 2416 15 2.9 28.2 15.8 5.2
Sharurah SA - -3 -0.5 9.6 5.5 1.9
Bamba ML - 0 -2.2 12.0 7.7 5.1
Gizan SA - 0 -0.1 10.0 5.3 2.1
Agoufu ML - 0 -1.0 10.9 6.1 2.9
M Bour SN - 0 1.9 11.2 6.4 3.3
Silpakorn TH 7308 -9 -1.9 23.6 12.2 5.0
Banizoumbou NE - 0 -1.8 12.3 7.5 4.8
El Nido Airp. PH 686 -13 -3.1 26.4 10.7 5.7
Djougou BJ - 0 2.7 16.8 9.6 5.4
Kwajalein MH 8842 -2 -0.5 17.8 8.5 1.3
USM Penang MY 942 -11 -2.8 29.4 10.8 3.0
Kosrae FM 2593 21 5.6 35.0 15.4 6.7
Bukit Kototabang ID 22593 2 0.6 31.6 14.8 2.5
Nauru Island NR 9050 16 3.1 20.0 10.5 3.5
Nairobi KE - 10 2.0 18.0 7.3 3.5
Momote PG 21439 -13 -2.9 25.9 12.4 3.8
Palangka Raya ID 356 -20 -4.6 21.7 9.8 8.0
Petrolina BR - 0 2.4 13.5 6.4 2.9
Keeling CC 23893 -14 -2.9 18.0 7.8 3.7
Darwin Airp. AU 12993 11 2.1 18.3 8.5 2.9
Samoa Obs. AS 44032 -3 -0.6 21.2 9.0 0.9

© 2016 Solargis page 31 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Bias GHI Root Mean Square Deviation GHI

Country Valid data
Site Name Hourly Daily Monthly
ISO code pairs [W/m2] [%]
[%] [%] [%]
Brasilia BR 6317 19 4.2 21.3 9.0 5.1
Broome Airp. AU 14095 1 0.1 11.7 6.0 2.1
Pampa Camarones CL - 0 -0.6 9.1 3.9 1.1
Pozo Almonte CL - 3 0.6 8.1 4.0 1.6
Learmonth Airp. AU 25730 -11 -1.8 11.5 5.1 2.3
Crucero CL - 0 -2.1 6.7 3.5 1.1
Salar CL - 16 2.7 7.6 4.2 3.1
S. Pedro de A. CL - 12 2.2 9.3 4.5 2.4
Puerto Angamos CL - 5 1.0 9.1 4.3 2.0
Rockhampton Airp. AU 14889 -2 -0.5 19.1 8.9 1.7
Alice Springs Airp. AU 14499 2 0.4 12.8 5.8 1.0
Cerro Armazones CL - -18 -2.8 5.8 3.7 3.1
Salvador Airp. CL - -9 -1.5 5.9 3.2 2.0
Inca de Oro CL - -8 -1.4 6.4 3.7 1.7
Tellerie ZA - 5 1.0 15.2 9.6 6.7
Florianopolis BR 7347 10 2.8 26.1 10.7 3.5
Geraldton Airp. AU - -9 -1.8 13.7 5.4 2.1
S. Martinho da S. BR 8847 11 2.8 18.3 9.4 3.3
Durban ZA - 5 1.2 15.5 7.5 3.6
De Aar ZA - 8 1.8 11.5 6.9 2.5
Kalgoorlie-B. Airp. AU - -1 -0.2 15.4 6.0 0.9
Stellenbosch ZA - -10 -2.3 11.8 5.3 3.3
Adelaide Airp. AU 14774 -12 -2.5 15.9 8.1 3.1
Wagga Wagga Airp. AU 14722 -12 -2.7 18.3 10.0 4.1
Melbourne Airp. AU 14557 -9 -2.4 21.5 10.6 3.3
Cape Grim AU 13051 -26 -6.8 21.7 12.0 7.8
Lauder NZ 15102 -14 -4.0 31.1 17.6 5.6

© 2016 Solargis page 32 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

DNI Validation statistics

Bias DNI Root Mean Square deviation DNI

Country Valid data
Site Name Hourly Daily Monthly
ISO code pairs [W/m2] [%]
[%] [%] [%]
Lerwick GB - 9 7.0 - - -
Tartu Toravere EE - -29 -11.8 48.8 30.6 17.6
Zilani LV - -1 0.0 - - -
Hamburg DE - -31 -9.3 32.3 22.8 14.1
Lindenberg DE - -19 -6.0 - - -
Cabauw NL - -13 -6.0 - - -
Cabauw NL - - - - - -
Valentia IE - -48 -22.0 - - -
Kassel DE - 4 2.0 - - -
Camborne GB - -1 -0.6 45.3 23.6 5.5
Hradec Kralove CZ - -27 -11.5 44.6 27.3 16.7
Weihenstephan DE - -15 -4.3 38.0 23.1 9.3
Fort Peck, MT US 45666 -11 -2.5 37.9 23.1 4.9
Wien AT - -6 -2.0 - - -
Bratislava SK - -27 -10.0 - - -
Freiburg DE - -9 -3.3 36.8 16.7 6.7
Seattle, WA US 8700 15 5.8 44.3 20.1 6.7
Nantes FR - -24 -8.0 - - -
Kishinev MD - -23 -7.6 34.4 20.9 12.6
Payerne CH - -10 -2.5 32.7 21.6 11.1
Davos CH - 21 7.2 58.7 27.0 10.2
Bismarck, ND US 8877 1 0.2 41.7 27.1 8.1
Geneve CH - 0 0.2 39.3 22.2 8.4
Locarno-Monti CH - -14 -4.5 48.9 30.4 6.9
Vaulx un Velin FR - -12 -4.1 35.0 20.7 10.6
Carpentras FR - -5 -1.0 24.7 14.8 6.3
Sioux Falls, SD US 29543 6 1.3 32.8 21.1 3.1
A Coruna ES - -8 -2.8 47.0 33.4 12.3
Oviedo ES - 8 3.1 50.2 27.0 8.5
San Sebastian ES - 13 4.9 38.4 20.0 7.8
Madison, WI US 9701 16 4.2 33.5 20.2 5.7
Sapporo JP 7602 5 1.4 53.4 33.8 7.0
Soria ES - 3 0.9 34.1 18.8 4.9
Valladolid ES - 18 4.3 28.1 16.3 7.7
Lleida ES - 8 2.7 33.5 20.8 10.2
Trinidad Obs., CA US 20081 29 10.0 48.0 26.3 16.5
Salt Lake City, UT US 6915 -21 -4.4 35.3 20.0 9.3
Rock Springs, PA US 41430 11 2.9 39.4 25.3 3.8
Madrid ES - -19 -4.1 25.2 15.7 5.4
Boulder, CO US 46499 24 4.5 40.3 23.8 5.6
Bondville, IL US 42296 11 2.6 31.8 20.9 4.0
Xianghe CN 12880 6 1.9 45.0 36.4 5.9
Palma ES - 6 1.4 28.6 16.2 7.9

© 2016 Solargis page 33 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Bias DNI Root Mean Square deviation DNI

Country Valid data
Site Name Hourly Daily Monthly
ISO code pairs [W/m2] [%]
[%] [%] [%]
Caceres ES - 8 1.8 30.6 18.1 6.7
Sterling, VA US 5520 -6 -1.8 36.2 21.7 7.0
Badajoz ES - 49 11.2 28.3 19.7 11.7
Murcia ES - 17 3.9 25.8 16.3 7.3
Cordoba ES - 55 14.3 35.1 23.9 15.7
Almeria, PSA ES - -12 -2.4 23.8 13.4 3.6
Malaga ES - 46 11.4 32.5 24.6 12.9
Desert Rock, NV US 47364 4 0.6 21.8 12.9 3.6
Hanford, CA US 5217 30 5.9 27.1 17.4 10.0
Tsukuba, Tateno JP 27702 -2 -0.7 39.4 22.4 3.4
Albuquerque, NM US 8425 33 5.1 26.9 14.9 5.9
Goodwin Creek, MS US 43959 13 2.8 25.9 16.0 3.2
Fukuoka JP 7788 -15 -4.4 40.3 25.7 8.2
Ouarzazate MA - -6 -1.1 22.8 14.8 5.5
Sede Boqer IL - -34 -5.5 23.9 16.0 6.4
Al-Jouf SA - -40 -7.1 24.5 19.7 9.7
Tabouk SA - -8 -1.4 19.7 13.8 5.2
Al-Qaisumah SA - -46 -9.3 29.6 25.3 12.7
Izana ES - -61 -9.0 31.9 24.2 11.6
San Bartolome de T. ES - 21 4.9 28.0 16.7 5.4
Qassim SA - -21 -4.2 25.6 20.4 6.7
Doha QA - 0 -1.9 - 15.5 4.4
Al-Ahsa SA - -22 -4.7 30.5 24.3 6.3
Riyadh, Solar Vil. SA - -34 -6.1 26.0 21.1 8.3
Al-Madinah SA - -17 -3.2 22.6 16.2 5.1
Ishigaki JP 7770 2 0.7 43.7 25.7 4.9
Minamitorishima JP 9458 -1 -0.3 28.3 14.0 2.3
Tamanrasset DZ - 24 3.9 21.6 16.4 5.6
Wadi Al-Dawaser SA - -29 -5.6 26.1 20.1 7.6
Manua Loa, HI US 49433 -63 -8.2 24.4 15.2 8.5
Abha SA - 0 -0.1 23.5 13.3 3.3
Gizan SA - -27 -6.8 25.4 19.2 10.3
Kwajalein MH 8628 -11 -2.7 33.4 16.2 3.1
Bukit Kototabang ID 15301 19 8.9 72.6 42.1 11.0
Nauru Island NR 8853 30 6.5 38.6 21.2 6.8
Momote PG 19952 5 1.5 49.2 24.1 5.2
Petrolina BR - 0 1.7 22.8 8.7 2.3
Keeling CC 22419 -14 -3.3 37.7 19.4 5.9
Darwin Airp. AU 12583 11 2.2 29.4 14.9 3.2
Samoa Obs. AS 43737 -17 -4.1 42.2 19.9 4.8
Brasilia BR 5919 36 7.8 36.1 18.0 9.3
Broome Airp. AU 13474 14 2.1 21.2 12.7 4.6
Learmonth Airp. AU 23089 -25 -3.4 17.5 9.0 3.6
Rockhampton Airp. AU 13766 17 3.3 31.2 16.5 4.7
Alice Springs Airp. AU 14150 25 3.6 20.9 11.8 4.0
Florianopolis BR 5736 -3 -0.7 44.0 24.1 5.5

© 2016 Solargis page 34 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Bias DNI Root Mean Square deviation DNI

Country Valid data
Site Name Hourly Daily Monthly
ISO code pairs [W/m2] [%]
[%] [%] [%]
Upington ZA - -41 -6.0 19.7 12.4 7.8
Geraldton Airp. AU - -3 -0.5 25.0 11.7 2.2
Paulputs ZA - -54 -7.8 18.0 12.4 9.3
Aggeneys ZA - 6 0.9 17.5 10.1 2.4
S. Martinho da S. BR 7623 18 3.9 31.0 18.2 5.5
Durban ZA - -22 -5.8 32.2 20.3 8.0
De Aar ZA - -6 -1.0 16.8 9.9 2.4
Kalgoorlie-B. Airp. AU - 20 3.4 26.7 12.1 4.4
Stellenbosch ZA - -34 -6.4 20.1 12.1 7.8
Adelaide Airp. AU 13670 4 0.8 28.3 14.9 3.2
Wagga Wagga Airp. AU 12958 7 1.2 28.6 16.7 4.0
Melbourne Airp. AU 12758 15 3.5 38.1 20.6 5.2
Cape Grim AU 11132 -15 -4.0 45.2 25.8 7.3
Lauder NZ 12195 7 1.3 45.1 26.0 5.6

© 2016 Solargis page 35 of 36

 Solargis: Data description and accuracy
solargis.com

Independent comparison with other satellite-based models

2013 study* 2011 study**

Solargis Helioclim3 Solemi Heliomont EnMetSol IrSOLaV Solargis 3Tier
Mean Bias -0.1 1.4 1.8 1 -0.8 0.5 0.4 1.3
GHI
SD of Bias 2.1 5.1 4.8 3.6 3.6 4.2 2.6 3.3
Mean Bias -1.6 5.9 -11.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -2.5 8.1
DNI
SD of Bias 5.9 13.9 14.5 9.3 9.3 12 5.6 11.6
* Ineichen, P. University of Geneva 2013. Long Term Satellite Global, Beam and Diffuse Irradiance Validation.
** Ineichen, P. University of Geneva 2011. Five satellite products deriving beam and global irradiance validation
on data from 23 ground stations.

More info: http://solargis.info/doc/independent-comparison

© 2016 Solargis page 36 of 36