Investigation of the Sensitivity of Water Cycle Components Simulated by the Canadian Regional Climate Model to the Land Surface Parameterization, the Lateral Boundary Data, and the Internal Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the sensitivity of components of the hydrological cycle simulated by the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM) to lateral boundary forcing, the complexity of the land surface scheme (LSS), and the internal variability arising from different models’ initial conditions. This evaluation is a contribution to the estimation of the uncertainty associated to regional climate model (RCM) simulations. The analysis was carried out over the period 1961–99 for three North American watersheds, and it looked at climatological seasonal means, mean (climatological) annual cycles, and interanual variability. The three watersheds—the Mississippi, the St. Lawrence, and the Mackenzie River basins—were selected to cover a large range of climate conditions. An evaluation of simulated water budget components with available observations was also included in the analysis. Results indicated that the response of climatological means and annual cycles of water budget components to land surface parameterizations and lateral boundary conditions varied from basin to basin. Sensitivity to lateral boundary conditions is, in general, smaller than sensitivity to LSS and tends to be stronger for the northern basins (Mackenzie and St. Lawrence). Interannual variability was unaffected by changes in LSS and in driving data. Internal variability triggered by different initial conditions and the nonlinear nature of the climate model did not significantly affect either the 39-yr climatology, the climatological annual cycles, or the interannual variability. A comparison with observations suggests that although the simple Manabe-based LSS may be adequate for simulations of climatological means, skillful simulation of annual cycles require the use of a state-of-the-art LSS.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".