Probable Maximum Precipitation in the U.S. Pacific Northwest in a Changing Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The safety of large and aging water infrastructures is gaining attention in water management given the accelerated rate of change in landscape, climate, and society. In current engineering practice, such safety is ensured by the design of infrastructure for the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). Recently, several numerical modeling approaches have been proposed to modernize the conventional and ad hoc PMP estimation approach. However, the underlying physics have not been fully investigated and thus differing PMP estimates are sometimes obtained without physics‐based interpretations. In this study, we present a hybrid approach that takes advantage of both traditional engineering practice and modern climate science to estimate PMP for current and future climate conditions. The traditional PMP approach is modified and applied to five statistically downscaled CMIP5 model outputs, producing an ensemble of PMP estimates in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) during the historical (1970–2016) and future (2050–2099) time periods. The hybrid approach produced consistent historical PMP estimates as the traditional estimates. PMP in the PNW will increase by 50% ± 30% of the current design PMP by 2099 under the RCP8.5 scenario. Most of the increase is caused by warming, which mainly affects moisture availability through increased sea surface temperature, with minor contributions from changes in storm efficiency in the future. Moist track change tends to reduce the future PMP. Compared with extreme precipitation, PMP exhibits higher internal variability. Thus, long‐time records of high‐quality data in both precipitation and related meteorological fields (temperature, wind fields) are required to reduce uncertainties in the ensemble PMP estimates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".