Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 438

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus between GCM climate change projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South Africa

Hewitson, B. C., Crane, R. G.·2006·International Journal of Climatology

Abstract

This paper discusses issues that surround the development of empirical downscaling techniques as context for presenting a new approach based on self‐organizing maps (SOMs). The technique is applied to the downscaling of daily precipitation over South Africa. SOMs are used to characterize the state of the atmosphere on a localized domain surrounding each target location on the basis of NCEP 6‐hourly reanalysis data from 1979 to 2002, and using surface and 700‐hPa u and v wind vectors, specific and relative humidities, and surface temperature. Each unique atmospheric state is associated with an observed precipitation probability density function (PDF). Future climate states are derived from three global climate models (GCMs): HadAM3, ECHAM4.5, CSIRO Mk2. In each case, the GCM data are mapped to the NCEP SOMs for each target location and a precipitation value is drawn at random from the associated precipitation PDF. The downscaling approach combines the advantages of a direct transfer function and a stochastic weather generator, and provides an indication of the strength of the regional versus stochastic forcing, as well as a measure of stationarity in the atmosphere–precipitation relationship. The methodology is applied to South Africa. The downscaling reveals a similarity in the projected climate change between the models. Each GCM projects similar changes in atmospheric state and they converge on a downscaled solution that points to increased summer rainfall in the interior and the eastern part of the country, and a decrease in winter rainfall in the Western Cape. The actual GCM precipitation projections from the three models show large areas of intermodel disagreement, suggesting that the model differences may be due to their precipitation parameterization schemes, rather than to basic disagreements in their projections of the changing atmospheric state over South Africa. Copyright © 2006 Royal Meteorological Society.

Overview

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/joc.1314

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 438

Metadata

Authors
Hewitson, B. C., & Crane, R. G.
Venue
International Journal of Climatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03-21
Volume
26
Issue
10
Pages
1315-1337
ISSN
  • 0899-8418 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0088
OpenAlex
W2123058372
Cited by
438
References
20
FWCI
15.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus between GCM climate change projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South Africa. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/joc.1314
The paper
Hewitson, B. C., & Crane, R. G. (2006). Consensus between GCM climate change projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South Africa. International Journal of Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1314

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.