Cited by 460Climate variability and modelsMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Heavy precipitation in a changing climate: Does short‐term summer precipitation increase faster?

Open access
Ban, Nikolina, Schmidli, Juerg, Schär, Christoph·2015·Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract

Climate models project that heavy precipitation events intensify with climate change. It is generally accepted that extreme day‐long events will increase at a rate of about 6–7% per degree warming, consistent with the Clausius‐Clapeyron relation. However, recent studies suggest that subdaily (e.g., hourly) precipitation extremes may increase at about twice this rate. Conventional climate models are not suited to assess such events, due to the limited spatial resolution and the need to parametrize convective precipitation (i.e., thunderstorms and rain showers). Here we employ a convection‐resolving model using a horizontal grid spacing of 2.2 km across an extended region covering the Alps and its larger‐scale surrounding from northern Italy to northern Germany. Consistent with previous results, projections using a Representative Concentration Pathways version 8.5 greenhouse gas scenario reveal a significant decrease of mean summer precipitation. However, unlike previous studies, we find that both extreme day‐long and hour‐long precipitation events asymptotically intensify with the Clausius‐Clapeyron relation. Differences to previous studies might be due to the model or region considered, but we also show that it is inconsistent to extrapolate from present‐day precipitation scaling into the future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2014gl062588

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The model bias of too-frequent precipitation will affect percentiles calculated over only wet days rather than all days, even if the extreme events are properly simulated, which suggests that calculating extremes using all days (or all hours) is preferable for comparison of precipitation extremes between models and observations.

    “The model bias of too-frequent precipitation mentioned above will affect percentiles calculated over only wet days rather than all days [9], even if the extreme events are properly simulated, which suggests that calculating extremes using all days (or all hours) is preferable for comparison of precipitation extremes between models and observations.”

    From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [9]

  • The sensitivity of precipitation extremes for long-term climate change need not be the same as for variability in a given climate.

    “While the sensitivity of precipitation extremes for long-term climate change need not be the same as for variability in a given climate [9, 58]”

    From Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change (2015) · cites this paper as [9]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Collins, M., and R. Knutti (2013), Chapter 12: Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility, in Climate Change 2013. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 1029-1136, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K., and New York.
  2. Wilks, D. S. (2011), Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, Acad. Press, San Diego, Calif.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ban, N., Schmidli, J., & Schär, C.
Affiliations
ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Ban, Nikolina
Venue
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2015-02-18
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
1165-1172
ISSN
  • 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8007
OpenAlex
W2058420228
Cited by
460
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 7
FWCI
30.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation ((200021_132614))
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
heavy rainfall, Clausius-Clapeyron equation, summer precipitation, convection-resolving models, climate change projections, convective precipitation, precipitation scaling, Alps, RCP8.5

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review