The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of the AR4 Climate Models’ Simulated Daily Maximum Temperature, Minimum Temperature, and Precipitation over Australia Using Probability Density Functions
Open accessAbstract
The coupled climate models used in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are evaluated. The evaluation is focused on 12 regions of Australia for the daily simulation of precipitation, minimum temperature, and maximum temperature. The evaluation is based on probability density functions and a simple quantitative measure of how well each climate model can capture the observed probability density functions for each variable and each region is introduced. Across all three variables, the coupled climate models perform better than expected. Precipitation is simulated reasonably by most and very well by a small number of models, although the problem with excessive drizzle is apparent in most models. Averaged over Australia, 3 of the 14 climate models capture more than 80% of the observed probability density functions for precipitation. Minimum temperature is simulated well, with 10 of the 13 climate models capturing more than 80% of the observed probability density functions. Maximum temperature is also reasonably simulated with 6 of 10 climate models capturing more than 80% of the observed probability density functions. An overall ranking of the climate models, for each of precipitation, maximum, and minimum temperatures, and averaged over these three variables, is presented. Those climate models that are skillful over Australia are identified, providing guidance on those climate models that should be used in impacts assessments where those impacts are based on precipitation or temperature. These results have no bearing on how well these models work elsewhere, but the methodology is potentially useful in assessing which of the many climate models should be used by impacts groups.
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
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
Processing of Mars Exploration Rover imagery for science and operations planning
Alexander, D. A., Deen, R. G., Andres, P. M., Zamani, P., Mortensen, H. B., Chen, A. C., Cayanan, M. K., Hall, J. R., Klochko, V. S., Pariser, O., et al. (2006) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets · doi:10.1029/2005je002462 · Cited by 163
Cited by
On the measurement of heat waves
Perkins, S. E., & Alexander, L. V. (2013) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00383.1 · Cited by 1,432
Self-citationChallenges 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
Attribution of extreme weather and climate‐related events
Stott, P. A., Christidis, N., Otto, F. E. L., Sun, Y., Vanderlinden, J., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Vautard, R., von Storch, H., Walton, P., Yiou, P., et al. (2016) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.380 · Cited by 781
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
Salman, S. A., Shahid, S., Ismail, T., Ahmed, K., & Wang, X.-J. (2018) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.07.008 · Cited by 195
Pour, S. H., Shahid, S., Chung, E.-S., & Wang, X.-J. (2018) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.06.006 · Cited by 183
Khan, N., Shahid, S., Ahmed, K., Ismail, T., Nawaz, N., & Son, M. (2018) · Water · doi:10.3390/w10121793 · Cited by 183
Ranking of global climate models for India using multicriterion analysis
Raju, K., & Nagesh Kumar, D. (2014) · Climate Research · doi:10.3354/cr01222 · Cited by 140
McMahon, T. A., Peel, M. C., & Karoly, D. J. (2015) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-19-361-2015 · Cited by 89
Do weak AR4 models bias projections of future climate changes over Australia?
Perkins, S. E., & Pitman, A. J. (2009) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9502-1 · Cited by 48
Self-citationCatchment response to climate change under CMIP6 scenarios: a case study of the Krishna River Basin
Anil, S., P, A. R., & Vema, V. K. (2024) · Journal of Water and Climate Change · doi:10.2166/wcc.2024.442 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Perkins, S. E., Pitman, A. J., Holbrook, N. J., & McAneney, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2007-09-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 4356-4376
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W1965731662
- Cited by
- 820
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.