Evaluation of historical precipitation interannual variability in CMIP6 over the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interannual precipitation variability profoundly influences society via its effects on agriculture, water resources, infrastructure, and disaster risks. In this study, we use daily in situ precipitation observations from the global historical climatology network-daily (GHCN-D) to assess the ability of 21 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models, including the 50-member fifth-generation Canadian Earth System Model single model initial-condition large ensemble (CanESM5_SMILE), to realistically simulate historical interannual precipitation variability trends within 17 regions of the contiguous United States (CONUS). We assess how accurately the CMIP6 simulations align with observational data across annual, summer, and winter periods, focusing on four key hydrometeorological metrics, including interannual precipitation variability, relative interannual precipitation variability (coefficient of variation), annual mean precipitation, and annual wet day frequency. Our findings reveal that CMIP6 ensemble members generally reproduce the spatial patterns of observed trends in annual mean precipitation. In most regions, models agree well with the signs of observed changes in annual mean precipitation, though discrepancies in trend magnitude are evident. Further, observed trends in winter mean precipitation broadly exhibit a spatial pattern similar to that of the observed annual mean. However, analysis of the CanESM5_SMILE shows that trends in precipitation variability may primarily be the result of model-simulated internal variability, suggesting caution in interpreting multi-model single-realization ensemble results. Challenges in accurately simulating interannual precipitation variability underscore the need for ongoing model refinement and validation to enhance climate projections, especially in regions vulnerable to extreme precipitation 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".