Comparison of linearly and nonlinearly statistically downscaled atmospheric variables in terms of future climate indices and daily variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical downscaling (SD) of global climate model output assumes that the SD skills in present climate are retained in future climate (i.e. time-invariant). To check this assumption, I used regional climate model output as pseudo-observations to verify the downscaled models’ performance in terms of both daily variability and climate indices for historical (1971-2000) and future (2041-2070) periods. The variables of interest are daily maximum and minimum temperatures, daily precipitation occurrences and amounts, and surface wind speed. In particular, a variety of nonlinear statistical/machine learning models (e.g. Bayesian neural network (BNN), adaptive regression sufficiently smooth polynomials, and classification and regression trees (CART)) and multiple linear regression models were used to downscale the Canadian Global Climate Model 3.1 output using the Canadian Regional Climate Model 4.2 output as pseudo-observations. The regions of interest are southern Ontario and Quebec, Canada, for temperature and precipitation, and Haida Guaii, British Columbia, Canada, for surface wind speed. The results indicate that choosing the best model based on the historical period performance could result in having one of the worst models for the future period. In particular, when downscaling temperatures, using SD models with greater ability to model complicated relations, by having either nonlinear capability or additional non-temperature predictors, seemed to alleviate the drop in performance found in future climate conditions. When downscaling precipitation occurrences, nonlinear methods outperformed their linear counterparts in terms of the Peirce skill score and the skill did not diminish for future climate. On the other hand, when downscaling precipitation amounts, the model performances deteriorated in future climate, and a BNN model had the best future performance in terms of daily variability, even though the model’s performance varied widely among individual climate indices. Finally, the Wind INDices for the evaluation of EXtremes (WINDEX) were introduced, and it was shown that a BNN model and a probabilistic model were the best in simulating pseudo-observed surface wind speed daily variability and the WINDEX climate indices, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".