Assessment of precipitation and near-surface temperature simulation by CMIP6 models in South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated the performance of 50 global climate models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) in simulating the statistical features of precipitation and air temperature in five subdomains of South America during the historical period (1995–2014). Monthly precipitation and temperature simulations were validated with data from the Climate Prediction Center Merged Analysis of Precipitation, the Global Precipitation Climatology Project, and the ERA5 reanalysis. The models’ performance was evaluated using a ranking analysis with statistical metrics such as mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s spatial correlation, annual cycle amplitude, and linear trend. The analyses considered the representation of precipitation and air temperature separately for each subdomain, the representation for all five regions together, and the joint representation of precipitation and air temperature for all five subdomains. In the Brazilian Amazon, the best-performing models were EC-Earth3-Veg, INM-CM4-8, and INMCM5-0 (precipitation), and IPSL-CM6A-LR, MPI-ESM2-0, and IITM-ESM (temperature). In the La Plata Basin, KACE-1-0-G, ACCESS-CM2, and IPSL-CM6A-LR (precipitation), and GFDL-ESM4, TaiESM1, and EC-Earth3-Veg (temperature) yielded the best simulations. In Northeast Brazil, SAM0-UNICON, CESM2, and MCM-UA-1-0 (precipitation), BCC-CSM2-MR, KACE-1-0-G, and CESM2 (temperature) showed the best results. In Argentine Patagonia, the GCMs ACCESS-CM2, ACCESS-ESM1-5 and EC-Earth3-Veg-LR (precipitation), and CAMS-CSM1-0, CMCC-CM2-HR4, and GFDL-ESM4 (temperature) outperformed. Finally, for Southeast Brazil, the models ACCESS-CM2, ACCESS-ESM1-5, and EC-Earth3-Veg-LR (precipitation), and CAMS-CSM1-0, CMCC-CM2-HR4, and GFDL-ESM4 (temperature) yielded the best simulations. The joint evaluation of the regions and variables indicated that the best models are CESM2, TaiESM1, CMCC-CM2-HR4, FIO-ESM-2-0, and MRI-ESM2-0.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".