Downscale of future climate change scenarios applied to Recife-PE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 it