Systematic land climate and evapotranspiration biases in CMIP5 simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] Land climate is important for human population since it affects inhabited areas. Here we evaluate the realism of simulated evapotranspiration (ET), precipitation, and temperature in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble on continental areas. For ET, a newly compiled synthesis data set prepared within the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment-sponsored LandFlux-EVAL project is used. The results reveal systematic ET biases in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations, with an overestimation in most regions, especially in Europe, Africa, China, Australia, Western North America, and part of the Amazon region. The global average overestimation amounts to 0.17 mm/d. This bias is more pronounced than in the previous CMIP3 ensemble (overestimation of 0.09 mm/d). Consistent with the ET overestimation, precipitation is also overestimated relative to existing reference data sets. We suggest that the identified biases in ET can explain respective systematic biases in temperature in many of the considered regions. The biases additionally display a seasonal dependence and are generally of opposite sign (ET underestimation and temperature overestimation) in boreal summer (June-August).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it