Large-Scale Analysis of Global Gridded Precipitation and Temperature Datasets for Climate Change Impact Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Currently, there are a large number of diverse climate datasets in existence, which differ, sometimes greatly, in terms of their data sources, quality control schemes, estimation procedures, and spatial and temporal resolutions. Choosing an appropriate dataset for a given application is therefore not a simple task. This study compares nine global/near-global precipitation datasets and three global temperature datasets over 3138 North American catchments. The chosen datasets all meet the minimum requirement of having at least 30 years of available data, so they could all potentially be used as reference datasets for climate change impact studies. The precipitation datasets include two gauged-only products (GPCC and CPC-Unified), two satellite products corrected using ground-based observations (CHIRPS V2.0 and PERSIANN-CDR V1R1), four reanalysis products (NCEP CFSR, JRA55, ERA-Interim, and ERA5), and one merged product (MSWEP V1.2). The temperature datasets include one gauge-based (CPC-Unified) and two reanalysis (ERA-Interim and ERA5) products. High-resolution gauge-based gridded precipitation and temperature datasets were combined as the reference dataset for this intercomparison study. To assess dataset performance, all combinations were used as inputs to a lumped hydrological model. The results showed that all temperature datasets performed similarly, albeit with the CPC performance being systematically inferior to that of the other three. Significant differences in performance were, however, observed between the precipitation datasets. The MSWEP dataset performed best, followed by the gauge-based, reanalysis, and satellite datasets categories. Results also showed that gauge-based datasets should be preferred in regions with good weather network density, but CHIRPS and ERA5 would be good alternatives in data-sparse regions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".