Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 884

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Approaches to the simulation of regional climate change: A review

Giorgi, Filippo, Mearns, Linda O.·1991·Reviews of Geophysics

Abstract

The increasing demand by the scientific community, policy makers, and the public for realistic projections of possible regional impacts of future climate changes has rendered the issue of regional climate simulation critically important. The problem of projecting regional climate changes can be identified as that of representing effects of atmospheric forcings on two different spatial scales: large‐scale forcings, i.e., forcings which modify the general circulation and determine the sequence of weather events which characterize the climate regime of a given region (for example, greenhouse gas abundance), and mesoscale forcings, i.e., forcings which modify the local circulations, thereby regulating the regional distribution of climatic variables (for example, complex mountainous systems). General circulation models (GCMs) are the main tools available today for climate simulation. However, they are run and will likely be run for the next several years at resolutions which are too coarse to adequately describe mesoscale forcings and yield accurate regional climate detail. This paper presents a review of these approaches. They can be divided in three broad categories: (1) Purely empirical approaches, in which the forcings are not explicitly accounted for, but regional climate scenarios are constructed by using instrumental data records or paleoclimatic analogues; (2) semiempirical approaches, in which GCMs are used to describe the atmospheric response to large‐scale forcings of relevance to climate changes, and empirical techniques account for the effect of mesoscale forcings; and (3) modeling approaches, in which mesoscale forcings are described by increasing the model resolution only over areas of interest. Since they are computationally inexpensive, empirical and semiempirical techniques have been so far more widely used. Their application to regional climate change projection is, however, limited by their own empiricism and by the availability of data sets of adequate quality. More recently, a nested GCM‐limited area model methodology for regional climate simulation has been developed, with encouraging preliminary results. As it is physically, rather than empirically, based, the nested modeling framework has a wide range of applications.

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 · 10.1029/90rg02636

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 884

Metadata

Authors
Giorgi, F., & Mearns, L. O.
Venue
Reviews of Geophysics
Published
1991-05
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
191-216
ISSN
  • 0096-1043 (ISSN-L)
  • 8755-1209
  • 1944-9208
OpenAlex
W2096835869
Cited by
884
References
0
FWCI
34.44
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: Approaches to the simulation of regional climate change: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/90rg02636
The paper
Giorgi, F., & Mearns, L. O. (1991). Approaches to the simulation of regional climate change: A review. Reviews of Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1029/90rg02636

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.