我们评估了从商业预报服务提供商处对显著波高 \(H_s\)、风速 \(W\) 和平均频谱波周期 \(T_m\) 的预报模型进行校准的价值，预报时间为零到168小时，以改善位于北海中部某地点的预报性能。我们考虑了两种简单的校准模型：线性回归（LR）和非齐次高斯回归（NHGR），这些模型结合了确定性预报、控制预报和集合预报均值作为协变量。结果显示，相对简单的校准模型（最多包含三个协变量）即可提供良好的校准效果，并且增加更多协变量并不能证明其合理性。对于物理量预报均值的最佳校准模型总是同时使用相同物理量的确定性预报和集合预报均值，以及一个与不同物理量相关的协变量。最优协变量的选择针对每个预报时间分别进行，而最佳协变量集在不同预报时间之间表现出高度一致性。因此，可以制定一致的模型来校准给定的物理量，该模型在所有时间范围内采用相同的三个协变量组合。对于特定物理量的NHGR模型，该物理量的集合预报标准差能够有效预测预报误差标准差，尤其是对于 \(H_s\) 表现得尤为明显。我们还表明，一致的LR和NHGR校准模型能够使 \(H_s\)、\(W\) 和 \(T_m\) 的预报偏差接近于零，且LR和NHGR校准在均值方面差异不大。这两种模型都可以相对未校准的确定性预报（naive adoption）减少预报误差的标准差，其中NHGR的表现略好一些。

We assess the value of calibrating forecast models for significant wave height Hs, wind speed W and mean spectral wave period Tm for forecast horizons between zero and 168 hours from a commercial forecast provider, to improve forecast performance for a location in the central North Sea. We consider two straightforward calibration models, linear regression (LR) and non-homogeneous Gaussian regression (NHGR), incorporating deterministic, control and ensemble mean forecast covariates. We show that relatively simple calibration models (with at most three covariates) provide good calibration and that addition of further covariates cannot be justified. Optimal calibration models (for the forecast mean of a physical quantity) always make use of the deterministic forecast and ensemble mean forecast for the same quantity, together with a covariate associated with a different physical quantity. The selection of optimal covariates is performed independently per forecast horizon, and the set of optimal covariates shows a large degree of consistency across forecast horizons. As a result, it is possible to specify a consistent model to calibrate a given physical quantity, incorporating a common set of three covariates for all horizons. For NHGR models of a given physical quantity, the ensemble forecast standard deviation for that quantity is skilful in predicting forecast error standard deviation, strikingly so for Hs. We show that the consistent LR and NHGR calibration models facilitate reduction in forecast bias to near zero for all of Hs, W and Tm, and that there is little difference between LR and NHGR calibration for the mean. Both LR and NHGR models facilitate reduction in forecast error standard deviation relative to naive adoption of the (uncalibrated) deterministic forecast, with NHGR providing somewhat better performance.