Correction: Garniwa et al. Application of Semi-Empirical Models Based on Satellite Images for Estimating Solar Irradiance in Korea. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3445

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]. We have realized that some of the values in

Table 6. Accuracy of the GHI models by level of clearness index.

Model	Clearness Level	R2	RMSE (W/m2)	rRMSE (%)	MBE (W/m2)	rMBE (%)
Beyer	$k_T\le 0.25$	0.60	87.23	90.29	10.25	10.61
	$0.25<k_T\le 0.5$	0.88	116.16	39.85	−26.86	−9.21
	$0.5<k_T\le 0.75$	0.97	121.59	19.65	−67.87	−10.97
	$k_T>0.75$	−	−	−	−	−
	All $k_T$	0.94	113.74	29.18	−36.84	−9.45
Rigollier	$k_T\le 0.25$	0.68	90.02	79.40	−30.26	−26.69
	$0.25<k_T\le 0.5$	0.88	145.46	41.45	−83.68	−23.85
	$0.5<k_T\le 0.75$	0.95	133.29	20.98	−12.83	−2.02
	$k_T>0.75$	0.99	145.97	16.85	121.16	13.98
	All $k_T$	0.91	137.38	35.09	−30.12	−7.69
Hammer	$k_T\le 0.25$	0.73	84.34	78.64	−21.65	−20.18
	$0.25<k_T\le 0.5$	0.87	105.56	40.14	−11.01	−4.18
	$0.5<k_T\le 0.75$	0.96	106.23	19.89	0.39	0.07
	$k_T>0.75$	0.98	126.50	15.88	90.87	11.41
	All $k_T$	0.94	103.92	26.54	0.09	0.02
Perez	$k_T\le 0.25$	0.52	84.73	89.46	−1.10	−1.16
	$0.25<k_T\le 0.5$	0.82	122.56	40.55	−16.96	−5.61
	$0.5<k_T\le 0.75$	0.96	111.29	20.46	−17.50	−3.21
	$k_T>0.75$	0.98	103.03	16.35	57.88	9.19
	All $k_T$	0.93	112.57	28.64	14.53	3.70
Hybrid	$k_T\le 0.25$	0.64	82.83	85.03	2.32	2.38
	$0.25<k_T\le 0.5$	0.85	113.39	40.90	−7.36	−2.65
	$0.5<k_T\le 0.75$	0.97	89.60	15.67	−19.17	−3.35
	$k_T>0.75$	0.99	48.24	5.47	10.06	1.14
	All $k_T$	0.95	97.08	24.12	−7.24	−1.80

and

Table 7. Accuracy of the semi-empirical models and LSTM model from October to December 2018.

Model	RMSE (W/m2)	rRMSE (%)	MBE (W/m2)	rMBE (%)
Beyer	118.95	28.10	−88.05	−20.80
Rigollier	143.45	41.09	−107.27	−30.72
Hammer	88.36	25.31	−35.44	−10.15
Perez	89.67	25.75	−28.71	−8.24
Hybrid	86.14	23.92	−19.70	−5.47
LSTM	76.45	21.92	−24.28	−6.96

in the original paper are not correct. We considered different Linke turbidity models ($T_L$), and mistakes that may have possibly occurred when we accidentally mixed up the turbidity input for global horizontal irradiance (GHI) models. Hence, Table 6 and Table 7, and the relevant descriptions need to be changed. These corrections do not affect the scientific output and conclusions of the research.

1. Changes in Tables

In the original paper, nine values of MBE, rMBE, and rRMSE in Table 6 and Table 7 need to be corrected. Additional corrections were made in Table 7 for the consistent number of digits below the decimal point.

2. Changes in Relevant Description

Due to the changes in Table 6 and Table 7, the relevant description in Section 4 should be corrected as follows:

• Page 15, the statement in the original paper is “…In contrast, the Rigollier model exhibited the largest error, with an MBE reaching −36.84 W/m²…”. To avoid ambiguity, Beyer will replace Rigollier, as the Beyer model indeed shows the largest MBE. Thus, the statement would be “…In contrast, the Beyer model exhibited the largest MBE, with the value reaching −36.84 W/m²…”.
• Page 15, the statement in the original paper is “…Meanwhile, the MBE and rMBE of the hybrid model were slightly larger than those of the Hammer model, with the differences 1.51 W/m² and 1.78%, respectively…”. According to the correction in Table 6, the absolute differences in MBE and rMBE between hybrid and Hammer models are 7.15 W/m² and 1.82%. Hence, the statement should be “…Meanwhile, the MBE and rMBE of the hybrid model were slightly larger than those of the Hammer model, with the absolute differences 7.15 W/m² and 1.82%, respectively…”.
• Page 15, the sentence in the original paper is “…The rMBE of the hybrid model is fairly constant regardless of $k_T$ under the maximum value of 3.7%.”. The authors unintentionally placed 3.7% to be the maximum rMBE of the hybrid model. Therefore, the authors would like to correct the statement to be “…The rMBE of the hybrid model is fairly constant regardless of $k_T$ under the maximum absolute value of 3.35%…”.