Projected changes in characteristics of precipitation spatial structures over North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Spatial structures of hourly precipitation fields were studied from three simulations of the Canadian Regional Climate Model ( CRCM ) and observations of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction ( NCEP ) Stage IV analysis. Each precipitation structure, defined as a contiguous area of precipitation above a given threshold, was analysed through geometric characteristics (position, area, major and minor axes, eccentricity, orientation) and intensity characteristics (volume, mean and maximum intensities, precipitation distribution within the structure) for 16 climatic regions covering North America. While providing new insights on the spatial facet of precipitation, this study aimed to: (1) assess the performance of the CRCM to reproduce observed precipitation structures and (2) analyse the changes in precipitation structures between historical (1961–1990) and future (2071–2100) periods. In addition, the effect of internal variability was investigated using two CGCM ‐driven CRCM simulations. In order to assess the CRCM performance, a reanalysis‐driven CRCM simulation was first compared with observations and then with CGCM ‐driven CRCM simulations. Results suggest that reanalysis‐driven CRCM precipitation structures displayed intensities spatially more homogeneous than observed ones for the central and eastern United States and showed significantly lower precipitation volumes, intensities and areas. However, annual cycles of characteristic values were well reproduced. In addition, CGCM ‐driven CRCM showed significantly lower precipitation volumes and intensities during summer months for southeastern regions when compared to reanalysis‐driven CRCM . Precipitation structures were also larger and shifted further north. Boundary conditions seemed to influence mainly central and eastern regions of North America. In future climate, results suggest more convective summer precipitations for central and eastern regions (increases in volumes, intensities and heterogeneity of structures), drier spring and summer conditions for southwestern regions (decreases in numbers of structures), wetter winter and spring conditions for northern regions (increases in numbers of structures) and wetter autumn conditions for southeastern regions (increases in volumes and intensities).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".