International Journal of Mathematics and Computer

Applications Research (IJMCAR)

ISSN 2249-6955
Vol. 3, Issue 2, Jun 2013, 65-78
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

FORECASTING SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE USING NEURAL NETWORKS
K. ANITHA KUMARI
1
, NAVEEN KUMAR BOIROJU
2
, T. GANESH
3
& P. RAJASHEKARA REDDY
4
1,3,4
Department of Statistics, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India
2
Department of Statistics, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT
In this paper, forecasting of monthly mean of minimum surface air temperature of India using seasonal
autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) model, feed forward neural networks (FFNN) and higher order
neural networks (HONN) is discussed. The prediction ability of the models also tested using sign test, Diebold-Mariano
test and Bootstrap test procedure for absolute errors. FFNN and HONN models outperforming than that of SARIMA
model in out-of-sample forecasts.
KEYWORDS: Box-Jenkins Methodology, Neural Networks, Prediction Accuracy Tests
INTRODUCTION
Surface air temperature (SAT) is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the air near the surface of the
earth and it also measures the radiation. SAT is very important in all fields of natural sciences, including physics, geology,
chemistry, atmospheric sciences and biology. SAT plays a vital role in environmental and agricultural issues, water cycle,
energy cycle, weather forecasts and global climate change. Atmospheric stability is determined by SAT. Hypothermia and
Frostbite are due to the changes in SAT. Air temperature prediction is of a concern in environment, industry, agriculture,
and health management. Tosadduq et.al. (2005) discussed on application of neural networks for the prediction of hourly
mean surface temperatures. Afzali et.al. (2011) used artificial neural networks to predict the ambient air temperature.
Shrivastva et.al. (2012) presented a review on applications of neural networks in weather forecasting. Smith (2006)
discussed on air temperature prediction using neural networks. Stein and Lloret (2001) used Box-Jenkins methodology for
the forecasting of air and water temperatures. Some of the authors, Brunetti et.al. (2000), Anisimov (2001), Bodri (2003),
Alfaro (2004), Lee and Sohn(2007), Kulkarni et.al. (2008), FAN Ke (2009), Hejase and Assi (2012), Kemajou (2012)
discussed on modelling of air temperatures.
Monthly mean of minimum surface air temperature in degrees Celsius data of all India is collected from Indian
Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM), Pune, India. This data consists of 1284 monthly observations during 1901 to
2007, in which 100 years of data (1212 monthly observations) during1901-2001 are used for model fitting and remaining 6
years of data (72 monthly observations) during 2002-2007 are used as out-of-sample set to measure the predictability of the
selected models using mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error and root mean squared error.
The following section presents the Box-Jenkins methodology and neural networks methodologies. Section 3
presents the forecasting models using seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) model, feed forward
neural networks (FFNN) and higher order neural networks (HONN). Comparison of models reported in the Section 4 and
final conclusion presented in Section 5 followed by references.
METHODOLOGY
This section presents the forecasting model building procedures using Box-Jenkins methodology and neural
networks methodologies.
66 K. Anitha Kumari, Naveen Kumar Boiroju, T. Ganesh

& P. Rajashekara Reddy
Box-Jenkins Methodology
Box Jenkins methodology provides us a class of univariate time series models. SARIMA model is one of the
models in Box Jenkins methodology. SARIMA model sometimes consider as a benchmark model for comparison of the
models applied to same data set. Box-Jenkins methodology is an iterative procedure to build an adequate model for the
given time series. The basic class of SARIMA model is denoted by ( ) ( )
S
Q D P X q d p SARIMA , , , , and the model is
given by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
t
s
Q q t
D
s
d s
P p
a B B Z B B O = V V u u |
where
t
Z is the time series value at time t and O u and u | , , are polynomials of order of p, P, q and Q
respectively. B is the backward shift operator,
s t t
s
Z Z B

= and ( ) B = V 1 . Order of seasonality is represented by s.
Non-seasonal and seasonal difference order is denoted by d and D respectively. White noise process is denoted by
t
a . (Box
et.al. 1994).
The Box-Jenkins procedure consists of the following four steps: (1) model identification, where the orders d, D, p,
P, q and Q are determined by observing the behaviour of the corresponding autocorrelation function (ACF) and partial
autocorrelation function (PACF); (2) estimation, where the parameters of the model are estimated by the maximum
likelihood method; (3) diagnostic checking by the Portmanteau test, where the adequacy of the fitted model is checked
by the Ljung-Box statistic applied to the residuals of the model; (4) forecasts are obtained from an adequate model using
minimum mean squared error method. If the model is judged to be inadequate, steps 1-3 are repeated with different values
of d, D, p, P, q and Q until an adequate model is obtained. The detailed procedure of SARIMA Model building is explained
in the Section 3.
Feed Forward Neural Networks
An artificial neural networks, usually called neural networks, is a mathematical model or computational model
that is inspired by the structure and/or functional aspects of biological neural networks. A neural network consists of an
interconnected group of artificial neurons, and it processes information using a connectionist approach to computation. In a
feed forward neural network (FFNN) structure, the only appropriate connections are between the outputs of each layer and
the inputs of the next layer. Therefore, no connections exist between the outputs of a layer and the inputs of either the same
layer or previous layers. In this topology, the inputs of each neuron are the weighted sum of the outputs from the previous
layer. There are weighted connections between the outputs of each layer and the inputs of the next layer. If the weight of a
branch is assigned a zero, it is equivalent to no connection between correspondence nodes. The inputs are connected to
each neuron in hidden layer via their correspondence weights. Outputs of the last layer are considered the outputs of the
network. Selecting the best number of hidden neurons involves experimentation. The forward selection method involves
adding hidden neurons until network performance starts deteriorating. A neural network is required to go through training
before it is actually being applied. Training involves feeding the network with data so that it would be able to learn the
knowledge among inputs through its learning rule. Backpropogation algorithm is used in supervised learning of the
network. The main idea of the backpropagation algorithm is to minimize the error, which is the difference between the
expected value and the output of the model. Weights between neurons are adjusted until the error reaches an acceptable
value. In order to train the network successfully, the output of the network is made to approach the desired output by
continually reducing the error between the network's output and the desired output. This is achieved by adjusting the
Forecasting Surface Air Temperature Using Neural Networks 67
weights between layers by calculating the approximation error and backpropagating this error from the final layer to the
first layer. The weights are then adjusted in such a way to reduce the approximation error. The approximation error is
minimized using the gradient descent optimization technique (Rojas 1996).
Faraway and Chatfield (1998) compared FFNN models with a SARIMA model on their accuracy for forecasting
airline data. In their paper, they discovered that FFNN model also reduces the mean square errors (MSEs) of out-of-sample
prediction. Rao (2011), Naveen Kumar Boiroju (2012) and Zhang et.al. (1998) provide a comprehensive review of the
current status of research in this area. Forecasting of minimum SAT using FFNN model is explained in Section 3.
Higher Order Neural Networks
HONNs have only started recently to be used in time series modeling. Higher order neural network is a feed
forward neural network trained with the higher order inputs. HONNs use joint activation functions; this technique reduces
the need to establish the relationships between inputs when training. Furthermore this reduces the number of free weights
and means that HONNS are faster to train than even MLPs.
However because the number of inputs can be very large for higher order architectures, orders of 4 and over are
rarely used. Another advantage of the reduction of free weights means that the problems of over fitting and local optima
affecting the results of neural networks can be largely avoided. For a detailed description of HONNs see Knowles et al.
(2005) and Naveen Kumar Boiroju (2012). Forecasting of minimum SAT using HONN is explained in the section 3.
Measures of Errors
The mean absolute error (MAE) measures forecast accuracy by averaging the magnitudes of the forecast errors
(i.e. absolute values of each error).

= =
= =
N
t
t
N
t
t t
e
N
Z Z
N
MAE
1 1
1

1

The mean squared error (MSE) is another method for evaluating a forecasting technique.

= =
= =
N
t
t t
N
t
t
e
N
Z Z
N
MSE
1
2 2
1
1
)

(
1

And the root mean squared error (RMSE) is given as


= =
= =
N
t
t t
N
t
t
e
N
Z Z
N
RMSE
1
2 2
1
1
)

(
1

Mean absolute percentage error is given by 100
1
1
=

=
N
t t
t
Z
e
N
MAPE .
These error measures used to compare the accuracy of the different techniques applied on a time series data.
FORECASTING MODELS
This section presents some forecasting models for forecasting monthly mean of minimum SAT using Box-Jenkins
methodology and neural networks.

68 K. Anitha Kumari, Naveen Kumar Boiroju, T. Ganesh

& P. Rajashekara Reddy
Building SARIMA Model
In this section, monthly mean of minimum SAT is modeled using Box-Jenkins methodology. The development of
SARIMA model for any variable involves following four steps: Identification, Estimation, Diagnostic checking and
Forecasting.

Time plot of the minimum SAT reveals that the data is seasonal and non stationary.

Figure 1: Time Plot of Monthly Mean of Minimum Surface Air Temperature in India
Sample autocorrelation function (ACF) also computed to check whether the time series is non-stationary and
seasonal or not.

Figure 2: Autocorrelation Function for Minimum SAT
Forecasting Surface Air Temperature Using Neural Networks 69
From the above ACF, it is observed that the ACF is dies out slowly for higher lags which indicates non-
stationarity of the series and the significant spikes at seasonal lags shows that the series is a seasonal time series. Seasonal
difference of order one (D=1) is sufficient to achieve stationarity of the series. Autocorrelation function and partial
autocorrelation function (PACF) is computed for the differenced series and are presented below.

Figure 3: Sample ACF for Minimum SAT with Seasonal Difference D=1

Figure 4: Sample PACF for Minimum SAT with Seasonal Difference D=1
From the above ACF and PACF it is observed that the order of p is at most 1, P is at most 4, q is at most 2 and Q
is at most 1. All the tentative models are considered with the above specifications and observed that the most suitable
model is SARIMA (1, 0, 2) X (0, 1, 1)
12.

Model parameters (without constant term in the model) are estimated using SPSS for selected model. Estimates of
parameters are given below.
70 K. Anitha Kumari, Naveen Kumar Boiroju, T. Ganesh

& P. Rajashekara Reddy
Table 1: SARIMA Model Parameters

Transformation Parameter Estimate SE T Sig.
No Transformation
AR Lag 1 .895 .040 22.551 .000
MA
Lag 1 .647 .050 12.949 .000
Lag 2 .113 .035 3.240 .001
Seasonal Difference 1

MA, Seasonal Lag 1 .951 .012 80.540 .000

with the above parameters the fitted model is
t t
a B B B Z B ) 951 . 0 1 )( 113 . 0 647 . 0 1 (
~
) 895 . 0 1 (
12 2 1
12
= V

Adequacy of the model is tested using Portmanteau test. For this purpose, the various autocorrelations of residuals
for 25 lags are computed and the same along with their significance which is tested by Box-Ljung Q- test statistic. Let the
hypothesis on the model is
H
o
: The selected model is adequate.
H
1
: The selected model is inadequate.
Table 2: Portmanteau Test

Ljung-Box Q-Test
Statistic DF Sig.
9.421 14 0.803

Since the probability corresponding to Ljung-Box Q-statistic is greater than 0.05, therefore, we accept H
o
and we
may conclude that the selected SARIMA model is an adequate model for the given time series on Mean of Minimum
Surface Air temperature.
One can forecast the future mean of minimum SAT using the equation (fitted model)
12
1 2 12
(1 0.895 ) (1 0.647 0.113 )(1 0.951 )
t t
B Z B B B a V =

by minimum mean square error method.

The above model is used to forecast the future values of monthly mean of minimum SAT and the forecasts for
out-of-sample are presented in the Table 5. Prediction performance of the model is measured using the error measures and
the results are presented in the Table 6.
Building FFNN Model
In this section, building of forecasting model for minimum SAT using FFNN is discussed. The in-sample data set
is partitioned into two sets namely training set and testing set. For model building 70% of the in-sample data is taken as
training set and 30% of the data is taken as testing set. The feed forward neural network (FFNN) consists of input layer,
hidden layer and output layer. Input layer consists of 14 units representing the month (numbers from 1 to 12),
1 t
Z and
12 t
Z values. Output layer consists of only one neuron and represents the forecast value (
t
Z

) of the series. Number of

hidden neurons in the hidden layer is determined using forward selection method. The optimum number of hidden neurons
is four. Hyperbolic tangent function is used as an activation function and scaled conjugate gradient algorithm is used to
Forecasting Surface Air Temperature Using Neural Networks 71
train the network. The network is trained until the number of epochs is equivalent to 10,000. SPSS software is used to train
the network. With the above specifications the following synaptic weights are obtained.
Table 3: Synoptic Weights of FFNN Model

Predictor
Predicted
Hidden Layer 1 Output Layer
H(1:1) H(1:2) H(1:3) H(1:4) Min_SAT
Input
Layer
(Bias) -0.118 0.151 -0.298 0.209

[MONTH=1] -0.310 -0.361 0.708 0.144

[MONTH=2] -0.256 -0.043 0.278 0.280

[MONTH=3] -0.360 0.969 -0.278 0.341

[MONTH=4] 0.779 0.193 -0.129 -0.384

[MONTH=5] 0.715 0.564 -0.031 -0.381

[MONTH=6] 0.504 0.207 -0.312 -0.821

[MONTH=7] 0.303 0.154 -0.381 -0.567

[MONTH=8] 0.288 0.273 -0.422 -0.241

[MONTH=9] 0.409 -0.118 -0.371 -0.399

[MONTH=10] -0.253 0.232 -0.286 0.160

[MONTH=11] -0.113 -0.514 0.065 0.151

[MONTH=12] -0.747 -0.457 0.599 0.070

( )
1 t
Z S 0.080 0.121 0.260 -0.672

( )
12 t
Z S 0.265 -0.187 -0.368 0.103

Hidden
Layer 1
(Bias)

-0.233
H(1:1)

0.601
H(1:2)

0.708
H(1:3)

-0.411
H(1:4)

-0.697

FFNN forecasting model can be constructed using above synoptic weights as follows
s t
Z Z

o + = Where and o are the mean and standard deviation of the in-sample data set and
( ) ) 4 : 1 ( 697 . 0 ) 3 : 1 ( 411 . 0 ) 2 : 1 ( 708 . 0 1 : 1 601 . 0 233 . 0

H H H H Z
s
+ + =
wher


72 K. Anitha Kumari, Naveen Kumar Boiroju, T. Ganesh

& P. Rajashekara Reddy


M= month, ( ) ( ) ) ( / ) (
1 1 1 1
=
t t t t
Z Z Z Z S o , ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
12 12 12 12
/

=
t t t t
Z Z Z Z S o and ( ) A I is an
indicator function.
The above model is used to forecast the future values of monthly mean of minimum SAT and the forecasts for
out-of-sample are presented in the table 5. Prediction performance of the model is measured using the error measures and
the results are presented in the Table 6.
Building HONN Model
In this section, building of forecasting model for minimum SAT using HONN is discussed. The in-sample data set
is partitioned into two sets namely training set and testing set. For model building 70% of the in-sample data is taken as
training set and 30% of the data is taken as testing set. The HONN model is similar to FFNN model and it consists of input
layer, hidden layer and output layer. Input layer consists of 14 units representing the month (numbers from 1 to 12),
1 t
Z ,
12 t
Z ,
2
1 t
Z ,
2
12 t
Z and
12 1 t t
Z Z values. Output layer consists of only one neuron and represents the forecast value (
t
Z

)
of the series. Number of hidden neurons in the hidden layer is determined using forward selection method. The optimum
number of hidden neurons is four. Hyperbolic tangent function is used as an activation function and scaled conjugate
gradient algorithm is used to train the network. The network is trained until the number of epochs is equivalent to 1,000.
SPSS software is used to train the network. With the above specifications the following synaptic weights are obtained.
Table 4: Synoptic Weights for HONN Model

Predictor
Predicted
Hidden Layer 1 Output Layer
H(1:1) H(1:2) H(1:3) H(1:4) Min_SAT
Input Layer
(Bias) .232 -.069 -.470 -.355

[MONTH=1] -.232 .227 .274 .377

[MONTH=2] .241 -.220 .155 -.070

[MONTH=3] -.179 .504 -.533 -.549

[MONTH=4] -.072 -.821 -.757 .092

[MONTH=5] -.315 -.064 -.187 -.518

[MONTH=6] -.268 -.240 .127 -.394

[MONTH=7] -.198 -.312 .174 -.020

[MONTH=8] .032 .413 .465 -.334

[MONTH=9] -.059 -.364 .230 .240

[MONTH=10] -.078 -.155 .007 .893

[MONTH=11] .156 .676 .653 -.065

[MONTH=12] -.409 .169 .548 .343

( )
1 t
Z S .343 -.394 .020 .101

Forecasting Surface Air Temperature Using Neural Networks 73
Table 4 Contd.,
( )
12 t
Z S -.111 -.706 -.139 .177

( )
2
1 t
Z S .544 -.275 -.165 -.469

( )
2
12 t
Z S -.158 -.249 -.099 -.005

( )
12 1 t t
Z Z S .495 .094 -.161 .086

Hidden Layer 1
(Bias)

-.433
H(1:1)

.132
H(1:2)

-.585
H(1:3)

-.589
H(1:4)

-.709

From the above weight matrix the forecasting model can be constructed as
s t
Z Z

o + = Where and o are the mean and standard deviation of the in-sample data set
and ) 4 : 1 ( 709 . 0 ) 3 : 1 ( 589 . 0 ) 2 : 1 ( 585 . 0 ) 1 : 1 ( 32 . 1 433 . 0

H H H H Z
s
+ =




M= month, ( ) Z S is the standardized values of Z and ( ) A I is an indicator function.
The above model is used to forecast the future values of monthly mean of minimum SAT and the forecasts for
out-of-sample are presented in the table 5. Prediction performance of the model is measured using the error measures and
the results are presented in the Table 6.
74 K. Anitha Kumari, Naveen Kumar Boiroju, T. Ganesh

& P. Rajashekara Reddy
Table 5: Out-of-Sample Forecasts from SARIMA, FFNN and HONN Models



COMPARISON OF FORECASTING MODELS
This section presents the error measures and the significance of equal prediction ability of the forecasting models.
Table 6: Error Measures for SARIMA, FFNN and HONN Models

Sample Error SARIMA FFNN HONN
In-Sample
MAE 0.431 0.425 0.419
MAPE 2.809 2.793 2.753
RMSE 0.573 0.566 0.557
Out-of-Sample
MAE 0.519 0.440 0.426
MAPE 3.186 2.719 2.584
RMSE 0.653 0.581 0.558

From the above table, it is observed that the HONN model has minimum error measures in both the in-sample and
out-of-sample sets compared to SARIMA and FFNN models. FFNN model has minimum error measures than that of
SARIMA model. From the above study it is observed that, HONN model is good at forecasting of minimum SAT.
Testing Equal Forecasting Accuracy with Respect to Absolute Errors
This section presents the results of Sign test, Diebold-Mariano (DM) test and Bootstrap test to test the equal
prediction accuracy of the forecasting models with respect to the out-of-sample absolute errors. The detailed procedure of
Forecasting Surface Air Temperature Using Neural Networks 75
these tests presented in the paper of Naveen Kumar Boiroju et.al. (2011). the following table presents the test statistic
values for testing the null hypothesis of equal prediction accuracy of the models.
Table 7: Equal Prediction Accuracy Tests

Models
Test Statistics Bootstrap Test
Sign test DM test LDL UDL
SARIMA vs FFNN 2.593 2.228 0.0188 0.1399
SARIMA vs HONN 2.828 2.742 0.0284 0.1565
FFNN vs HONN 1.179 1.037 -0.0109 0.0385

Sign test statistic value (2.593) is greater than the critical value (1.96) at 5% level of significance for comparison
of SARIMA and FFNN models. Therefore null hypothesis is rejected and we may conclude that there is a significant
difference in forecasting ability between SARIMA and FFNN models.
Sign test statistic value (2.828) is greater than the critical value (1.96) at 5% level of significance for comparison
of SARIMA and HONN models. Therefore null hypothesis is rejected and we may conclude that there is a significant
difference in forecasting ability between SARIMA and HONN models.
Sign test statistic value (1.179) is greater than the critical value (1.96) at 5% level of significance for comparison
of FFNN and HONN models. Therefore null hypothesis is accepted and we may conclude that there is no significant
difference in forecasting ability between FFNN and HONN models.
DM test statistic value (2.228) which is greater than the critical value (1.96) at 5% level of significance for
comparison of SARIMA and FFNN models. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and we may conclude that there is a
significant difference in prediction ability between SARIMA and FFNN models.
DM test statistic value (2.742) which is greater than the critical value (1.96) at 5% level of significance for
comparison of SARIMA and HONN models. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and we may conclude that there is a
significant difference in prediction ability between SARIMA and HONN models.
DM test statistic value (1.037) which is greater than the critical value (1.96) at 5% level of significance for
comparison of FFNN and HONN models. Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted and we may conclude that there is no
significant difference in prediction ability between FFNN and HONN models.
Bootstrap test procedure for absolute errors is also applied to test the equal prediction accuracy of the models. The
decision limits (0.0284, 0.1565) are obtained using the bootstrap test procedure for comparison of SARIMA and FFNN
models. Since the hypothetical difference zero does not belongs to the interval of decision limits that is, 0e(0.0284,
0.1565). Therefore null hypothesis is rejected and we may conclude that there is a significant difference in prediction
ability between the SARIMA and HONN models.
The decision limits (0.0188, 0.1399) are obtained using the bootstrap test procedure for comparison of SARIMA
and HONN models. Since the hypothetical difference zero does not belongs to the interval of decision limits that is,
0e(0.0188, 0.1399). Therefore null hypothesis is rejected and we may conclude that there is a significant difference in
prediction ability between the SARIMA and HONN models.
The decision limits (-0.0109, 0.0385) are obtained using the bootstrap test procedure for comparison of FFNN and
HONN models. Since the hypothetical difference zero belongs to the interval of decision limits that is, 0e(-0.0188,
76 K. Anitha Kumari, Naveen Kumar Boiroju, T. Ganesh

& P. Rajashekara Reddy
0.0385). Therefore null hypothesis is accepted and we may conclude that there is no significant difference in prediction
ability between the FFNN and HONN models.
From the above tests, it is observed that, the forecasting accuracy of the models is not same and empirical
evidence shows that FFNN model is good at forecasting than that of SARIMA model. FFNN and HONN models are
equally efficient at forecasting of minimum SAT.
CONCLUSIONS
Three different forecasting models, SARIMA, FFNN and HONN models have been developed in this study to
predict the mean of minimum surface air temperature in India. Error measures showed small values that demonstrate the
developed models are suitable and adequate for the forecasting of SAT. Forecasting errors of neural network models is less
compared to SARIMA model. Equal prediction accuracy tests reports that the neural networks models are significantly
different from SARIMA model. FFNN and HONN models are equally efficient at forecasting of minimum SAT. Hence,
neural networks are robust models for forecasting the mean of minimum surface air temperature.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Author is very thankful to Department of Science and Technology (DST), India, for providing Inspire fellowship
to carry out this research work.
REFERENCES
1. Afzali, M., Afzali, A. & Zahedi, G. (2011). Ambient Air Temperature Forecasting Using Artificial Neural
Network Approach, 2011 International Conference on Environmental and Computer Science , IPCBEE Vol.19,
IACSIT Press, Singapore.
2. Alfaro, E. (2004). A Method for Prediction of California Summer Air Surface Temperature, Eos, Vol. 85, No. 51,
21 December 2004.
3. Anisimov O.A., (2001). Predicting Patterns of Near-Surface Air Temperature Using Empirical Data, Climatic
Change, Vol. 50, No. 3, 297-315.
4. Bodri, L.,ermk, V. (2003). Prediction of Surface Air Temperatures by Neural Network, Example Based on
Three-Year Temperature Monitoring at Spoilov Station, Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, Vol. 47, 1, 173-184.
5. Box, G. E. P., Jenkins, G. M. & Reinsel, G. C. (1994). Time Series Analysis Forecasting and Control, 3rd ed.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall.
6. Brunetti, M., Buffoni,L., Maugeri, M. & Nanni, T., (2000). Trends of minimum and maximum daily temperatures
in Italy from 1865 to 1996. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 66, 4960.
7. FAN Ke, (2009). Predicting Winter Surface Air Temperature in Northeast China, Atmospheric and Oceanic
Science Letters, Vol. 2, NO. 1, 1417.
8. Faraway, J. & Chatfield, C. (1998). Time series forecasting with neural networks: a comparative study using the
air line data, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C, Vol. 47, 2, 231-250.
9. Hejase, H.A.N. & Assi, A.H. (2012). Time-Series Regression Model for Prediction of Mean Daily Global Solar
Radiation in Al-Ain, UAE, ISRN Renewable Energy, Vol. 2012, Article ID 412471, 11 pages.
Forecasting Surface Air Temperature Using Neural Networks 77
10. Kmajou, A., Mba, L. & Meukam, P. (2012). Application of Artificial Neural Network for Predicting the Indoor
Air Temperature in Modern Building in Humid Region, British Journal of Applied Science & Technology 2(1),
23-34.
11. Knowles, A., Hussein, A., Deredy, W., Lisboa, P. & Dunis, C. L. (2005). Higher-Order Neural Networks with
Bayesian Confidence Measure for Prediction of EUR/USD Exchange Rate, CIBEF Working Papers. Available at
www.cibef.com.
12. Kulkarni,M.A., Patil, S., Rama, G.V. & Sen, P.N. (2008). Wind speed prediction using statistical regression and
neural network, J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, No. 4, 457463.
13. Lee, J.H., Sohn, K. (2007). Prediction of monthly mean surface air temperature in a region of China, Advances in
Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 24, 3, 503-508.
14. Naveen Kumar Boiroju (2012). Forecasting Foreign Exchange Rates using Neural Networks, Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Statistics, Osmania University.
15. Naveen Kumar Boiroju, Ramu, Y., Venugopala Rao, M. & Krishna Reddy, M. (2011). A bootstrap test for
equality of mean absolute errors, ARPN Journal of engineering and applied sciences, 6(5), 9-11.
16. Rao, S.S. (2011). Forecasting of Monthly Rainfall in Andhra Pradesh using Neural Networks, Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Statistics, Osmania University.
17. Rojas, R. (1996). Neural Networks: A systematic introduction, Springer-Verlag.
18. Shrivastava, G., Karmakar, S., Kowar, M.K., Guhathakurta, P. (2012). Application of Artificial Neural Networks
in Weather Forecasting: A Comprehensive Literature Review, International Journal of Computer Applications,
Vol. 51, No.18, August 2012.
19. Smith, B.A. (2006). Air temperature prediction using artificial neural networks, M.Sc. (Thesis), University of
Gerogia.
20. Stein, M. & Lloret, J. (2001). Forecasting of Air and Water Temperatures for Fishery Purposes with Selected
Examples from Northwest Atlantic, J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 29, 23-30.
21. Tasadduq. I., Rehman, S., Bubshait, K. (2005). Application of neural networks for the prediction of hourly mean
surface temperatures in Saudi Arabia. Renewable Energy, 25, 545-554.
22. Zhang, G., Patuwo, B.E. & Hu, M.Y. (1998). Forecasting with Artificial Neural Networks: The State of the Art,
International Journal of Forecasting, 14, 35-62.