Future Climate Projections for South Florida: Improving the Accuracy of Air Temperature and Precipitation Extremes With a Hybrid Statistical Bias Correction Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Projecting future climate variables is essential for comprehending the potential impacts on hydroclimatic hazards like floods and droughts. Evaluating these impacts is challenging due to the coarse spatial resolution of global climate models (GCMs); therefore, bias correction is widely used. Here, we applied two statistical methods—standard empirical quantile mapping (EQM) and a hybrid approach, EQM with linear correction (EQM‐LIN)—to bias correct precipitation and air temperature simulated by nine GCMs. We used historical observations from 20 weather stations across South Florida to project future climate under three shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). Compared to the EQM, the hybrid EQM‐LIN method improved R 2 of daily quantiles by up to 30% over the historical period and improved MAE up to 70% in months that contain most extreme values. Projected extreme precipitation at the weather stations showed that, compared to the EQM‐LIN, the EQM method underestimates the high quantiles by up to 26% in SSP585. The projected changes in annual maximum precipitation from historical period (1985–2014) to near future (2040–2069) and far future (2070–2100) were between 2% and 16% across the study area. Projected future precipitation suggested a slight decrease during summer but an increase in fall. This, along with rising summer temperatures, suggested that South Florida can experience rapid oscillations from warmer summers and increased flooding in fall under future climate. Additionally, our comparative analyses with globally and nationally downscaled studies showed that such coarse scale studies do not represent the climatic extremes well, particularly for high quantile precipitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".