Uncertainty of climate change and its impact on reference evapotranspiration in Rasht City, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many factors of uncertainty regarding the impact of climate change on reference evapotranspiration (ETo). The accuracy of the results is strictly related to these factors and ignoring any one of them reduces the precision of the results, and reduces their applicability for decision makers. In this study, the uncertainty related to two ETo models, the Hargreaves-Samani (HGS) and Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and two Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs), Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3 (HadCM3) climatic model and the Canadian Global Climate Model, version 3 (CGCM3) climatic model under climate change, was evaluated. The models predicted average temperature increases by 2010 to 2039 of 0.95 °C by the HadCM3 model and 1.13°C by the CGCM3 model under the A2 scenario relative to observed temperature. Accordingly, the models predicted average ETo would increase of 0.48, 0.60, 0.50 and 0.60 (mm/day) by 2010 to 2039 projected by four methods (by introducing the temperature of the HadCM3-A2 model and the CGCM3-A2 to ANN and HGS) relative to ETo of the observed period. The results showed that uncertainty of the AOGCMs is more than that of the ETo models applied in this study.
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) | 0.000 | 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".