MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128498258 · doi:10.1007/s41748-021-00203-y

The Climatic Analysis of Summer Monsoon Extreme Precipitation Events over West Africa in CMIP6 Simulations

2021· article· en· W3128498258 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Systems and Environment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaAfrican Institute for Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Cape TownInternational Development Research CentreDivision of Mathematical SciencesGovernment of Canada
KeywordsClimatologyPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceCoupled model intercomparison projectMonsoonClimate modelSpatial ecologyPrecipitable waterAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyClimate changeGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We evaluate the capability of 21 models from the new state-of-the-art Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 6 (CMIP6) in the representation of present-day precipitation characteristics and extremes along with their statistics in simulating daily precipitation during the West African Monsoon (WAM) period (June–September). The study uses a set of standard extreme precipitation indices as defined by the Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices constructed using CMIP6 models and observational datasets for comparison. Three observations; Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP), Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data (CHIRPS), and Tropical Applications of Meteorology using SATellite and ground-based observation (TAMSAT) datasets are used for the validation of the model simulations. The results show that observed datasets present nearly the same spatial pattern but discrepancies in the magnitude of rainfall characteristics. The models show substantial discrepancies in comparison with the observations and among themselves. A number of the models depict the pattern of rainfall intensity as observed but some models overestimate the pattern over the coastal parts (FGOALS-f3-L and GFDL-ESM4) and western part (FGOALS-f3-L) of West Africa. All model simulations explicitly show the pattern of wet days but with large discrepancies in their frequencies. On extreme rainfall, half of the models express more intense extremes in the 95th percentiles while the other half simulate less intense extremes. All the models overestimate the mean maximum wet spell length except FGOALS-f3-L. The spatial patterns of the mean maximum dry spell length show a good general agreement across the different models, and the observations except for four models that show an overestimation in the Sahara subregion. INM-CM4-8 and INM-CM5-0 display smaller discrepancies from their long-term average rainfall characteristics, in terms of extreme rainfall estimates than the other CMIP6 datasets. For the frequency of heavy rainfall, TaiESM1 and IPSL-CMGA-LR perform better when compared with observational datasets. MIROC6 and GFDL-ESM4 displayed the largest error in representing the frequency of heavy rainfall and 95th percentile extremes, and therefore, cannot be reliable. The study has assessed how rainfall extremes are captured in both observation and the models. Though there are some discrepancies, it gives room for improvement of the models in the next version of CMIP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it