Automatic cloud type recognition of ground-based infrared images is still a challenging task. A novel cloud classification method is proposed to group images into five cloud types based on manifold and texture features. Compared with statistical features in Euclidean space, manifold features extracted on symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrix space can describe the non-Euclidean geometric characteristics of the infrared image more effectively. The proposed method comprises three stages: pre-processing, feature extraction and classification. Cloud classification is performed by a support vector machine (SVM). The datasets are comprised of the zenithal and whole-sky images taken by the Whole-Sky Infrared Cloud-Measuring System (WSIRCMS). Benefiting from the joint features, compared to the recent two models of cloud type recognition, the experimental results illustrate that the proposed method acquires a higher recognition rate with an increase of 2 %–10 % on the ground-based infrared datasets.

Bayesian model averaging (BMA) and ensemble model output statistics (EMOS) were used to improve the prediction skill of the 500 hPa geopotential height field over the northern hemisphere with lead times of 1–7 days based on ensemble forecasts from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), and UK Met Office (UKMO) ensemble prediction systems. The performance of BMA and EMOS were compared with each other and with the raw ensembles and climatological forecasts from the perspective of both deterministic and probabilistic forecasting. The results show that the deterministic forecasts of the 500 hPa geopotential height distribution obtained from BMA and EMOS are more similar to the observed distribution than the raw ensembles, especially for the prediction of the western Pacific subtropical high. BMA and EMOS provide a better calibrated and sharper probability density function than the raw ensembles. They are also superior to the raw ensembles and climatological forecasts according to the Brier score and the Brier skill score. Comparisons between BMA and EMOS show that EMOS performs slightly better for lead times of 1–4 days, whereas BMA performs better for longer lead times. In general, BMA and EMOS both improve the prediction skill of the 500 hPa geopotential height field.