Assessment of <scp>NARCCAP</scp> model in simulating rainfall extremes using a spatially constrained regionalization method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Capturing the intensity and return period of extreme rainfall events in the historic record and projecting them into the future are essential to managing, planning, and designing infrastructure. In this study, we assess the performance of the combination of four General Circulation Models (GCMs) and six Regional Climate Models (RCMs) that comprise the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) and evaluate their performance in simulating rainfall extremes in the continental United States. We adopt a regionalization method to objectively delineate 12 regions in the continental United States with relatively homogenous annual maximum 24‐h rainfall patterns from the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) data set. We then compare the Intensity–Duration–Frequency (IDF) curves generated from control simulations of NARCCAP models with those from NARR in each of these regions. We find significant spatial variability of model performance. The models perform reasonably well in many parts of the country, but poorly in the southeastern United States. The GCM providing boundary conditions strongly influences results – output from those RCMs driven by the Community Climate System Model (CCSM) and Canadian Global Climate Model version 3 (CGCM3) matched the NARR data best. Performance of individual RCMs also varied, often in response to nudging, wherein the regional model is constrained by the GCM fields. We also measure changes in bias‐corrected IDF curves generated from NARCCAP projections of the future. In most regions, most models project intensified 24‐h rainfall events in the future (exceptions include some model‐projected decreases in southern California, the extreme north‐central US, Florida, and the Texas Plains). This study provides a valuable means of assessing NARCCAP models' performance in simulating rainfall extremes at the regional scale and understanding how the GCMs, RCMs, and spatial variability affect model performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".