Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 simulations of precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon

Open access
Xin, Xiaoge, Wu, Tongwen, Zhang, Jie, Yao, Junchen, Fang, Yongjie·2020·International Journal of Climatology

Abstract

We evaluate and compare the simulation of summer precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM) by eight climate models from Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and the corresponding eight previous models from CMIP5. Skill metrics are calculated to assess the climatology, interannual variation and linear trends during the time period 1961–2005. The CMIP6 multimodel ensemble (MME) is more skillful than the CMIP5 MME in the spatial correlation and standard deviation (SD) of the climatological precipitation over Eastern China. All the CMIP6 models improve the skill scores in the climatological pattern of the EASM relative to the previous models of CMIP5, which is related to their smaller sea surface temperature (SST) biases over the Northwestern Pacific Ocean. The models with a higher capability in reproducing the climatological pattern of the EASM tend to have a better skill in simulating summer precipitation over Eastern China. Most (six of eight) of the CMIP6 models have advantages over the previous CMIP5 models in reproducing the interannual anomalous rainfall pattern over Eastern China related to the EASM. Ten of the 16 models partly reproduce the weakening trend of the EASM during 1961–2005. The high‐skill models (GISS‐E2‐H, GISS‐E2‐1‐H) that simulate a clear weakening trend in the EASM also reasonably simulate the negative correlation between the EASM and the SST over Eastern Indian and the Western Pacific Oceans (EIWP). By contrast, the two models (CESM2 and CESM2‐WACCM) that simulate a positive correlation over the EIWP both produce increasing trends in the EASM indices. This indicates the importance of climate models in simulating the relationship between the EASM and the SST over the EIWP. Among the 16 models, only 2 CMIP6 models (BCC‐CSM2‐MR and GISS‐E2‐1‐H) partly reproduce the linear trend of precipitation over Eastern China, featured by the pattern of “southern flood and northern drought.”

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.6590

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Metadata

Authors
Xin, X., Wu, T., Zhang, J., Yao, J., & Fang, Y.
Venue
International Journal of Climatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-04-27
Volume
40
Issue
15
Pages
6423-6440
ISSN
  • 0899-8418 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0088
OpenAlex
W3015567566
Cited by
325
References
28
FWCI
18.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 simulations of precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/joc.6590
The paper
Xin, X., Wu, T., Zhang, J., Yao, J., & Fang, Y. (2020). Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 simulations of precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon. International Journal of Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6590

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.