Downscale of future climate change scenarios applied to Recife-PE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to analyze and compare results from two generations of global climate models (GCMs) simulations for the city of Recife-PE: CMIP3 and CMIP5. Differences and similarities in historical and future climate simulations are presented for four GCMs using CMIP3 scenarios A1B and A2 and for seven CMIP5 scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The scale reduction technique applied to GCMs scenarios is statistical downscaling, employing the same set of large-scale atmospheric variables as predictors for both sets of scenarios, differing only in the type of reanalysis data used to characterize surface variables precipitation, maximum and minimum temperatures. For CMIP3 scenarios the simulated historical climate is 1961-1990 and CMIP5 is 1979-2000, and the validation period is ten years, 1991-2000 for CMIP3 and 2001-2010 for CMIP5. However, for both the future period analyzed is 2021-2050 and 2051-2080. Validation metrics indicated superior results from the historical simulations of CMIP5 over those of CMIP3 for precipitation and minimum and similar temperatures for maximum temperatures. For the future, both CMIP3 and CMIP5 scenarios indicate reduced precipitation and increased temperatures. The potencial evapotranspiration was calculated, projected to increase in scenarios A1B and A2 of CMIP3 and with behavior similar to that observed historically in scenarios RCP4.5 and 8.5.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".