Do weak AR4 models bias projections of future climate changes over Australia?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Some studies have found more consistent projections when poor models are eliminated.
“In fact, some studies have found more consistent projections when eliminating poor models (e.g., Walsh et al. 2008;Perkins and Pitman 2009;Scherrer 2010).”
From Risks of Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections (2010) · cites this paper as Perkins and Pitman 2009
Cites
Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations.
Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M. H., Barnett, D. N., Jones, G. S., Webb, M. J., Collins, M., & Stainforth, D. A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02771 · Cited by 1,655 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Risks of Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections
Weigel, A. P., Knutti, R., Liniger, M. A., & Appenzeller, C. (2010) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2010jcli3594.1 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
- Authors
- Perkins, S. E., & Pitman, A. J.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Pitman, A. J.
- ORCID
- Pitman, A. J.
- Venue
- Climatic Change
- Published
- 2008-11-05
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 527-558
- ISSN
- 0165-0009 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1480
- OpenAlex
- W1979438776
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Climatic Change (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Environmental Impact
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Keywords
- climate model selection, model skill assessment, regional climate projections, Australia, temperature probability density function, precipitation, annual maximum temperature, rainfall event size, rainy days, model bias, climate change impacts
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
