Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
earth and planetary sciences
Evaluation of the CORDEX-Africa multi-RCM hindcast: Systematic model errors
Climate Dynamics, Volume 42, No. 5-6, Year 2014
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Monthly-mean precipitation, mean (TAVG), maximum (TMAX) and minimum (TMIN) surface air temperatures, and cloudiness from the CORDEX-Africa regional climate model (RCM) hindcast experiment are evaluated for model skill and systematic biases. All RCMs simulate basic climatological features of these variables reasonably, but systematic biases also occur across these models. All RCMs show higher fidelity in simulating precipitation for the west part of Africa than for the east part, and for the tropics than for northern Sahara. Interannual variation in the wet season rainfall is better simulated for the western Sahel than for the Ethiopian Highlands. RCM skill is higher for TAVG and TMAX than for TMIN, and regionally, for the subtropics than for the tropics. RCM skill in simulating cloudiness is generally lower than for precipitation or temperatures. For all variables, multi-model ensemble (ENS) generally outperforms individual models included in ENS. An overarching conclusion in this study is that some model biases vary systematically for regions, variables, and metrics, posing difficulties in defining a single representative index to measure model fidelity, especially for constructing ENS. This is an important concern in climate change impact assessment studies because most assessment models are run for specific regions/sectors with forcing data derived from model outputs. Thus, model evaluation and ENS construction must be performed separately for regions, variables, and metrics as required by specific analysis and/or assessments. Evaluations using multiple reference datasets reveal that cross-examination, quality control, and uncertainty estimates of reference data are crucial in model evaluations. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Authors & Co-Authors
Kim, J.
United States, Los Angeles
University of California, Los Angeles
Waliser, Duane E.
United States, Los Angeles
University of California, Los Angeles
United States, Pasadena
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Mattmann, Chris A.
United States, Los Angeles
University of California, Los Angeles
United States, Pasadena
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Goodale, Cameron E.
United States, Pasadena
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Hart, Andrew F.
United States, Pasadena
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Zimdars, Paul A.
United States, Pasadena
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Crichton, Daniel J.
United States, Pasadena
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Jones, Colin
Sweden, Norrkoping
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
Nikulin, Grigory N.
Sweden, Norrkoping
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
Hewitson, Bruce C.
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
Jack, Chris David
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
Lennard, Christopher J.
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
Favre, Alice
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
France, Dijon
Université de Bourgogne
Statistics
Citations: 190
Authors: 13
Affiliations: 5
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1007/s00382-013-1751-7
ISSN:
09307575
e-ISSN:
14320894
Research Areas
Environmental
Study Approach
Quantitative