Assessing natural variability in RCM signals: comparison of a multi model EURO-CORDEX ensemble with a 50-member single model large ensemble
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainties in climate model ensembles are still relatively large. Besides scenario and model response uncertainty, natural variability is another important source of uncertainty. To study regional natural variability on timescales of several decades and more, observations are often too sparse and short. Regional Climate Models (RCMs) can be used to overcome this lack of useful data at high spatial resolutions. In this study, we compare a new 50-member single RCM large ensemble (CRCM5-LE) with an ensemble of 22 EURO-CORDEX models for seasonal temperature and precipitation at 0.11° grid size over Europe—all driven by the RCP 8.5 scenario. This setup allows us to quantify the contribution of natural/model-internal variability on the total uncertainty of a multi-model ensemble. The variability of climate change signals within the two ensembles is compared for three future periods (2020–2049, 2040–069 and 2070–2099). Results show that the single model spread is usually smaller than the multi-model spread for temperature. Similar variabilities can mostly be found in the near future (and to a lesser extent in the mid future) during winter and spring, especially for northern and central parts of Europe. The contribution of internal variability is generally higher for precipitation. In the near future almost all seasons and regions show similar variabilities. In the mid and far future only fall, summer and spring still show similar variabilites. There is a significant decrease of the contribution of internal variability over time for both variables. However, even in the far future for most regions and seasons 25–75% of the overall variability can be explained by internal variability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".