Cited by 208Climate variability and modelsMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsClimate Change and Environmental Impact

Global climate model performance over Alaska and Greenland.

Open access
Walsh, John E., Chapman, William L., Romanovsky, Vladimir, Christensen, Jens H., Stendel, Martin·2008·Journal of Climate

Abstract

The performance of a set of 15 global climate models used in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project is evaluated for Alaska and Greenland, and compared with the performance over broader pan-Arctic and Northern Hemisphere extratropical domains. Root-mean-square errors relative to the 1958–2000 climatology of the 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40) are summed over the seasonal cycles of three variables: surface air temperature, precipitation, and sea level pressure. The specific models that perform best over the larger domains tend to be the ones that perform best over Alaska and Greenland. The rankings of the models are largely unchanged when the bias of each model’s climatological annual mean is removed prior to the error calculation for the individual models. The annual mean biases typically account for about half of the models’ root-mean-square errors. However, the root-mean-square errors of the models are generally much larger than the biases of the composite output, indicating that the systematic errors differ considerably among the models. There is a tendency for the models with smaller errors to simulate a larger greenhouse warming over the Arctic, as well as larger increases of Arctic precipitation and decreases of Arctic sea level pressure, when greenhouse gas concentrations are increased. Because several models have substantially smaller systematic errors than the other models, the differences in greenhouse projections imply that the choice of a subset of models may offer a viable approach to narrowing the uncertainty and obtaining more robust estimates of future climate change in regions such as Alaska, Greenland, and the broader Arctic.

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 · 10.1175/2008jcli2163.1

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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 Walsh et al. 2008

    The Conclusions say that eliminating models with larger biases might narrow uncertainty in Arctic projections. They describe this as a suggested approach for future assessments, not as a demonstrated finding that projections became more consistent after poor models were eliminated. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nakicenovic, N., and R. Swart, Eds., 2000: Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, 599 pp.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walsh, J. E., Chapman, W. L., Romanovsky, V., Christensen, J. H., & Stendel, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Alaska Fairbanks (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Danish Meteorological Institute (DK)
Corresponding author
Walsh, John E.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Published
2008-12-01
Volume
21
Issue
23
Pages
6156-6174
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
OpenAlex
W2131762757
Cited by
208
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 27
FWCI
9.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0520112, 0612533)
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Office of Science
  • Office of Polar Programs
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Environmental Impact
Keywords
global climate model evaluation, CMIP, Alaska, Greenland, Arctic climate, systematic model errors, model bias, surface air temperature, precipitation, sea level pressure, global warming, Arctic precipitation, climate change projections, model selection, ERA-40 reanalysis

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