Reliability of climate model multi‐member ensembles in estimating internal precipitation and temperature variability at the multi‐decadal scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi‐member ensembles of climate models are used to study the role of internal climate variability and its potential impact on climate change impact studies. The reliability of such ensembles with respect to representing the internal climate variability is generally implicitly accepted. Using the latest version of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) data set as a baseline, this study verifies the reliability of multi‐member ensembles in estimating the internal precipitation and temperature variability at the multi‐decadal scale. To achieve this, multi‐decadal variability calculated using climate model multi‐member ensembles is first compared to that calculated using CRU data. The inter‐member variability of a single climate model is then compared to the multi‐decadal variability of CRU precipitation and temperature. Three climate models, with the number of members ranging between 5 and 40, are used to investigate whether the reliability is dependent upon the number of members of a climate model. The results show that multi‐member ensembles are capable of capturing the observed spatial pattern of multi‐decadal variability for both precipitation and temperature at the global scale. However, multi‐member ensembles perform better over regions with smaller variability. For the variables and timescale investigated, all three multi‐member ensembles show similar performances, suggesting that a five‐member ensemble may be sufficient to estimate the internal multi‐decadal climate variability for the chosen variables. Overall, this study indicates that the multi‐member ensemble of a climate model can be used to estimate the internal climate variability of annual and seasonal precipitation and temperature at the multi‐decadal and regional scales, if long historical records are not available.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".