Evaluation of the daily cycle in the simulation of the ClimEx large-ensemble
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To estimate the impact of climate change on our society we need to use climate projections based on numerical models. These models make it possible to assess the effects on climate of the increase in greenhouse gases (GHG) as well as natural variability. We know that the global average temperature will increase and that the occurrence, intensity and spatio-temporal distribution of extreme precipitations will change. These extreme weather events cause droughts, floods and other natural disasters that have significant consequences on our life and environment. Precipitation is a key variable in adapting to climate change. This study focuses on the ClimEx large ensemble, a set of 50 independent simulations created to study the effect of climate change and natural variability on the water network in Quebec. This dataset consists of simulations produced using the Canadian Regional Climate Model version 5 (CRCM5) at 12 km of resolution driven by simulations from the second generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2) global model at 310 km of resolution. The aim of the project is to evaluate the performance of the ClimEx ensemble in simulating the daily cycle and representing extreme values. To get there, 30 years of hourly time series for precipitation and 3 hourly for temperature are analyzed. The simulations are compared with the values from the simulation of CRCM5 driven by ERA-Interim reanalysis, the ERA5 reanalysis and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) stations. An evaluation of the sensitivity of different statistics to the number of members is also performed. The daily cycle of precipitation from ClimEx shows mainly non-significant correlations with the other datasets and its amplitude is less than the observation datas from ECCC stations. For temperature, the correlation is strong and the amplitude of the cycle is similar to observations. ClimEx provides a fairly good representation of the 95, 97, 99th quantiles for precipitation. For temperature it represents a good distribution of quantiles but with a warm bias in southern Quebec. For precipitation hourly maximum, ClimEx shows values 10 times higher than ERA5. For temperature, minimum and maximum values may exceed the ERA5 limit by up to 20°C. For precipitation, the minimum number of members for the estimation of the 95 and 99thquantiles and the mean cycle is between 15 and 50 for an estimation error of less than 5%. For the 95, 99th quantiles of temperature, the minimum number of members is between 1 and 17 and for the mean cycle 1 to 2 members are necessary to obtain an estimation error of less than 0.5°C.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".