The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies
Open accessAbstract
Regional or local climate change modeling studies currently require starting with a global climate model, then downscaling to the region of interest. How should global models be chosen for such studies, and what effect do such choices have? This question is addressed in the context of a regional climate detection and attribution (D&A) study of January-February-March (JFM) temperature over the western U.S. Models are often selected for a regional D&A analysis based on the quality of the simulated regional climate. Accordingly, 42 performance metrics based on seasonal temperature and precipitation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are constructed and applied to 21 global models. However, no strong relationship is found between the score of the models on the metrics and results of the D&A analysis. Instead, the importance of having ensembles of runs with enough realizations to reduce the effects of natural internal climate variability is emphasized. Also, the superiority of the multimodel ensemble average ( MM ) to any 1 individual model, already found in global studies examining the mean climate, is true in this regional study that includes measures of variability as well. Evidence is shown that this superiority is largely caused by the cancellation of offsetting errors in the individual global models. Results with both the MM and models picked randomly confirm the original D&A results of anthropogenically forced JFM temperature changes in the western U.S. Future projections of temperature do not depend on model performance until the 2080s, after which the better performing models show warmer temperatures.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models.
Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J., & Meehl, G. A. (2010) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2009jcli3361.1 · Cited by 1,270
Rainfall trends in the African Sahel: Characteristics, processes, and causes
Biasutti, M. (2019) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.591 · Cited by 336
Projected climate change in Australian marine and freshwater environments
Hobday, A. J., & Lough, J. M. (2011) · Marine and Freshwater Research · doi:10.1071/mf10302 · Cited by 280
Review of approaches for selection and ensembling of GCMs
Raju, K. S., & Kumar, D. N. (2020) · Journal of Water and Climate Change · doi:10.2166/wcc.2020.128 · Cited by 215
Managing uncertainty in climate-driven ecological models to inform adaptation to climate change
Littell, J. S., McKenzie, D., Kerns, B. K., Cushman, S., & Shaw, C. G. (2011) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es11-00114.1 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Santer, B. D., & Gleckler, P. J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2009-05-26
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 8441-8446
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2019097137
- Cited by
- 640
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0900094106
- The paper
- Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Santer, B. D., & Gleckler, P. J. (2009). Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900094106
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.