Extreme Precipitation in the Eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland: An Evaluation of Atmospheric Reanalyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extreme precipitation events are becoming more common in the Arctic as the climate warms, but characterizing these events is notoriously challenging. Atmospheric reanalyses have become popular tools for climate studies in data-sparse regions such as the Arctic. While modern reanalyses have been shown to perform reasonably well at reproducing Arctic climate, their ability to represent extreme precipitation events has not been investigated in depth. In this study, three of the most recent reanalyses, ERA-5, MERRA-2, and CFSR, are compared to surface precipitation observations in the Eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland from 1980 to 2016 to assess how well they represent the most intense observed events. Overall, the reanalyses struggled to match observed accumulations from individual events (−0.11 ≤ r ≤ 0.47) but matched the observed seasonality of precipitation extremes. The region with the strongest match between observations and reanalyses was Southwest Greenland. Performance varies by event, and the best match between reanalyses and station observations may have a spatial/temporal offset (up to one grid cell or 1 day). The three products saw similar performance in general; however, ERA-5 tends to see slightly higher correlations and lower biases than MERRA-2 or CFSR. Considering the limitations of in situ observations, these results suggest that the reanalyses are capable of representing aggregate extreme precipitation (e.g., seasonal or annual time scales), but struggle to consistently match the timing and location of specific observed events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".