Cited by 70Climate variability and modelsHydrology and Drought AnalysisAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Model Assessment of Observed Precipitation Trends over Land Regions: Detectable Human Influences and Possible Low Bias in Model Trends

Knutson, Thomas R., Zeng, Fanrong·2018·Journal of Climate

Abstract

Precipitation trends for 1901–2010, 1951–2010, and 1981–2010 over relatively well-observed global land regions are assessed for detectable anthropogenic influences and for consistency with historical simulations from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The CMIP5 historical all-forcing runs are broadly consistent with the observed trend pattern (1901–2010), but with an apparent low trend bias tendency in the simulations. Despite this bias, observed and modeled trends are statistically consistent over 59% of the analyzed area. Over 20% (9%) of the analyzed area, increased (decreased) precipitation is partly attributable to anthropogenic forcing. These inferred human-induced changes include increases over regions of the north-central United States, southern Canada, Europe, and southern South America and decreases over parts of the Mediterranean region and northern tropical Africa. Trends for the shorter periods (1951–2010 and 1981–2010) do not indicate a prominent low trend bias in the models, as found for the 1901–2010 trends. An atmosphere-only model, forced with observed sea surface temperatures and other climate forcing agents, also underpredicts the observed precipitation increase in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics since 1901. The CMIP5 all-forcing ensemble’s low bias in simulated trends since 1901 is a tentative finding that, if borne out in further studies, suggests that precipitation projections using these regions and models could overestimate future drought risk and underestimate future flooding risk, assuming all other factors equal.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/jcli-d-17-0672.1

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Combining evidence from climate model simulations and observational datasets allows identification of trends likely attributable in part to anthropogenic climate change for near-surface temperature and precipitation at the level of 5 degree (temperature) or 2.5 degree (precipitation) grid cells.

    “Combining evidence from climate model simulations and observational datasets allows identification of trends likely attributable in part to anthropogenic climate change for near-surface temperature and precipitation at the level of 5 degree (temperature) or 2.5 degree (precipitation) grid cells 22,23 .”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knutson, T. R., & Zeng, F.
Affiliations
NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (US)
Venue
Journal of Climate
Published
2018-06
Volume
31
Issue
12
Pages
4617-4637
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
OpenAlex
W2790470939
Cited by
70
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Hydrology and Drought Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
precipitation trends, anthropogenic impacts, CMIP5, land precipitation, sea surface temperature forcing, drought risk, flood risk, Northern Hemisphere extratropics

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