Precipitation Climatology in an Ensemble of CORDEX-Africa Regional Climate Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An ensemble of regional climate simulations is analyzed to evaluate the ability of 10 regional climate models (RCMs) and their ensemble average to simulate precipitation over Africa. All RCMs use a similar domain and spatial resolution of ~50 km and are driven by the ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim) (1989–2008). They constitute the first set of simulations in the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment in Africa (CORDEX-Africa) project. Simulated precipitation is evaluated at a range of time scales, including seasonal means, and annual and diurnal cycles, against a number of detailed observational datasets. All RCMs simulate the seasonal mean and annual cycle quite accurately, although individual models can exhibit significant biases in some subregions and seasons. The multimodel average generally outperforms any individual simulation, showing biases of similar magnitude to differences across a number of observational datasets. Moreover, many of the RCMs significantly improve the precipitation climate compared to that from their boundary condition dataset, that is, ERA-Interim. A common problem in the majority of the RCMs is that precipitation is triggered too early during the diurnal cycle, although a small subset of models does have a reasonable representation of the phase of the diurnal cycle. The systematic bias in the diurnal cycle is not improved when the ensemble mean is considered. Based on this performance analysis, it is assessed that the present set of RCMs can be used to provide useful information on climate projections over Africa.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".