CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 155

Performance Assessment of General Circulation Model in Simulating Daily Precipitation and Temperature Using Multiple Gridded Datasets

Khan, Najeebullah, Shahid, Shamsuddin, Ahmed, Kamal, Ismail, Tarmizi, Nawaz, Nadeem, Son, Minwoo·2018·Water
DOI 10.3390/w10121793
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The performance of general circulation models (GCMs) in a region are generally assessed according to their capability to simulate historical temperature and precipitation of the region. The performance of 31 GCMs of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) is evaluated in this study to identify a suitable ensemble for daily maximum, minimum temperature and precipitation for Pakistan using multiple sets of gridded data, namely: Asian Precipitation–Highly-Resolved Observational Data Integration Towards Evaluation (APHRODITE), Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST), Princeton Global Meteorological Forcing (PGF) and Climate Prediction Centre (CPC) data. An entropy-based robust feature selection approach known as symmetrical uncertainty (SU) is used for the ranking of GCM. It is known from the results of this study that the spatial distribution of best-ranked GCMs varies for different sets of gridded data. The performance of GCMs is also found to vary for both temperatures and precipitation. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia (CSIRO)-Mk3-6-0 and Max Planck Institute (MPI)-ESM-LR perform well for temperature while EC-Earth and MIROC5 perform well for precipitation. A trade-off is formulated to select the common GCMs for different climatic variables and gridded data sets, which identify six GCMs, namely: ACCESS1-3, CESM1-BGC, CMCC-CM, HadGEM2-CC, HadGEM2-ES and MIROC5 for the reliable projection of temperature and precipitation of Pakistan.

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 · 10.3390/w10121793

Cites

1 of 1 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?

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: 43

  1. Yip, S.; Ferro, C.A.; Stephenson, D.B.; Hawkins, E. A simple, coherent framework for partitioning uncertainty in climate predictions. J. Clim. 2011, 24, 4634-4643. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Maraun, D.; Wetterhall, F.; Ireson, A.; Chandler, R.; Kendon, E.; Widmann, M.; Brienen, S.; Rust, H.; Sauter, T.; Themeßl, M. Precipitation downscaling under climate change: Recent developments to bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user. Rev. Geophys. 2010, 48. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Lutz, A.F.; ter Maat, H.W.; Biemans, H.; Shrestha, A.B.; Wester, P.; Immerzeel, W.W. Selecting representative climate models for climate change impact studies: An advanced envelope-based selection approach. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 3988-4005. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Salman, S.A.; Shahid, S.; Ismail, T.; Ahmed, K.; Wang, X.-J. Selection of climate models for projection of spatiotemporal changes in temperature of Iraq with uncertainties. Atmos. Res. 2018, 213, 509-522. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  5. Pour, S.H.; Shahid, S.; Chung, E.-S.; Wang, X.-J. Model output statistics downscaling using support vector machine for the projection of spatial and temporal changes in rainfall of Bangladesh. Atmos. Res. 2018, 213, 149-162. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  6. Mote, P.; Brekke, L.; Duffy, P.B.; Maurer, E. Guidelines for constructing climate scenarios. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 2011, 92, 257-258. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Srinivasa Raju, K.; Nagesh Kumar, D. Ranking general circulation models for India using TOPSIS. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 288-299. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Warszawski, L.; Frieler, K.; Huber, V.; Piontek, F.; Serdeczny, O.; Schewe, J. The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI-MIP): Project framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3228-3232. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  9. Hidalgo, H.G.; Das, T.; Dettinger, M.; Cayan, D.; Pierce, D.; Barnett, T.; Bala, G.; Mirin, A.; Wood, A.; Bonfils, C. Detection and attribution of streamflow timing changes to climate change in the western United States. J. Clim. 2009, 22, 3838-3855. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Raju, K.S.; Sonali, P.; Kumar, D.N. Ranking of CMIP5-based global climate models for India using compromise programming. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2017, 128, 563-574. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Ahmed, K.; Shahid, S.; Ali, R.; Harun, S.; Wang, X. Evaluation of the performance of gridded precipitation products over Balochistan Province, Pakistan. Désalin. Water Treat. 2017, 79, 73-86. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Talavera, L. An evaluation of filter and wrapper methods for feature selection in categorical clustering. In Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis VI; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 440-451.
  13. Maxino, C.; McAvaney, B.; Pitman, A.; Perkins, S. Ranking the AR4 climate models over the Murray-Darling Basin using simulated maximum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation. Int. J. Climatol. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2008, 28, 1097-1112. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Perkins, S.; Pitman, A.; Holbrook, N.; McAneney, J. Evaluation of the AR4 climate models' simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions. J. Clim. 2007, 20, 4356-4376. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Yokoi, S.; Takayabu, Y.N.; Nishii, K.; Nakamura, H.; Endo, H.; Ichikawa, H.; Inoue, T.; Kimoto, M.; Kosaka, Y.; Miyasaka, T. Application of cluster analysis to climate model performance metrics. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2011, 50, 1666-1675. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Jiang, X.; Waliser, D.E.; Xavier, P.K.; Petch, J.; Klingaman, N.P.; Woolnough, S.J.; Guan, B.; Bellon, G.; Crueger, T.; DeMott, C. Vertical structure and physical processes of the Madden-Julian oscillation: Exploring key model physics in climate simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2015, 120, 4718-4748. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Min, S.K.; Hense, A. A Bayesian approach to climate model evaluation and multi-model averaging with an application to global mean surface temperatures from IPCC AR4 coupled climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Afshar, A.A.; Hasanzadeh, Y.; Besalatpour, A.; Pourreza-Bilondi, M. Climate change forecasting in a mountainous data scarce watershed using CMIP5 models under representative concentration pathways. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2017, 129, 683-699. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Xuan, W.; Ma, C.; Kang, L.; Gu, H.; Pan, S.; Xu, Y.-P. Evaluating historical simulations of CMIP5 GCMs for key climatic variables in Zhejiang Province, China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2017, 128, 207-222. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Taylor, K.E. Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2001, 106, 7183-7192. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Kharin, V.V.; Zwiers, F.W.; Zhang, X. Intercomparison of near-surface temperature and precipitation extremes in AMIP-2 simulations, reanalyses, and observations. J. Clim. 2005, 18, 5201-5223. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Gleckler, P.J.; Taylor, K.E.; Doutriaux, C. Performance metrics for climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2008, 113. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  23. Johnson, F.; Sharma, A. Measurement of GCM skill in predicting variables relevant for hydroclimatological assessments. J. Clim. 2009, 22, 4373-4382. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Fu, G.; Charles, S.P.; Kirshner, S. Daily rainfall projections from general circulation models with a downscaling nonhomogeneous hidden Markov model (NHMM) for south-eastern Australia. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 27, 3663-3673. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Rupp, D.E.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Hegewisch, K.C.; Mote, P.W. Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific Northwest USA. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 10884-10906. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Gu, H.; Yu, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, G.; Yang, T.; Ju, Q.; Yang, C.; Xu, F.; Fan, C. Assessing CMIP5 general circulation model simulations of precipitation and temperature over China. Int. J. Climatol. 2015, 35, 2431-2440. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Reichler, T.; Kim, J. How well do coupled models simulate today's climate? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2008, 89, 303-312. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Witten, I.H.; Paynter, G.W.; Frank, E.; Gutwin, C.; Nevill-Manning, C.G. KEA: Practical Automated Keyphrase Extraction. In Design and Usability of Digital Libraries: Case Studies in the Asia Pacific; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2005; pp. 129-152.
  29. Khan, N.; Shahid, S.; Ismail, T.; Ahmed, K.; Nawaz, N. Trends in heat wave related indices in Pakistan. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2018. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Ahmed, K.; Shahid, S.; Nawaz, N. Impacts of climate variability and change on seasonal drought characteristics of Pakistan. Atmos. Res. 2018, 214, 364-374. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Khan, N.; Shahid, S.; bin Ismail, T.; Wang, X.-J. Spatial distribution of unidirectional trends in temperature and temperature extremes in Pakistan. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2018, 1-15. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Rohde, R.; Muller, R.; Jacobsen, R.; Muller, E.; Perlmutter, S.; Rosenfeld, A.; Wurtele, J.; Groom, D.; Wickham, C. A new estimate of the average Earth surface land temperature spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinform. Geostat. Overv. 2013. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Xie, P.; Chen, M.; Shi, W. CPC unified gauge-based analysis of global daily precipitation. In Proceedings of the Preprints, 24th Conference on Hydrology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 17-21 January 2010.
  34. Sheffield, J.; Goteti, G.; Wood, E.F. Development of a 50-year high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface modeling. J. Clim. 2006, 19, 3088-3111. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Chaney, N.; Herman, J.; Reed, P.; Wood, E. Flood and drought hydrologic monitoring: The role of model parameter uncertainty. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 3239-3251. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Yatagai, A.; Arakawa, O.; Kamiguchi, K.; Kawamoto, H.; Nodzu, M.I.; Hamada, A. A 44-year daily gridded precipitation dataset for Asia based on a dense network of rain gauges. Sola 2009, 5, 137-140. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Yatagai, A.; Kamiguchi, K.; Arakawa, O.; Hamada, A.; Yasutomi, N.; Kitoh, A. APHRODITE: Constructing a long-term daily gridded precipitation dataset for Asia based on a dense network of rain gauges. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2012, 93, 1401-1415. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Palazzi, E.; Von Hardenberg, J.; Provenzale, A. Precipitation in the Hindu-Kush Karakoram Himalaya: Observations and future scenarios. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 85-100. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Wang, L.; Ranasinghe, R.; Maskey, S.; van Gelder, P.M.; Vrijling, J. Comparison of empirical statistical methods for downscaling daily climate projections from CMIP5 GCMs: A case study of the Huai River Basin, China. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 145-164. [CrossRef] Water 2018, 10, 1793 · DOI
  40. Novaković, J. Toward optimal feature selection using ranking methods and classification algorithms. Yugosl. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 21, 119-135. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Singh, B.; Kushwaha, N.; Vyas, O.P. A feature subset selection technique for high dimensional data using symmetric uncertainty. J. Data Anal. Inf. Process. 2014, 2, 95-105. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Kannan, S.S.; Ramaraj, N. A novel hybrid feature selection via Symmetrical Uncertainty ranking based local memetic search algorithm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2010, 23, 580-585. [CrossRef] · DOI
  43. Shreem, S.S.; Abdullah, S.; Nazri, M.Z.A. Hybrid feature selection algorithm using symmetrical uncertainty and a harmony search algorithm. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2016, 47, 1312-1329. [CrossRef · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khan, N., Shahid, S., Ahmed, K., Ismail, T., Nawaz, N., & Son, M.
Affiliations
  • School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
  • Faculty of Water Resource Management, Lasbela University of Agriculture Water and Marine Sciences (LUAWMS), 90150 Uthal, Balochistan, Pakistan
  • Department of Civil Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
ORCID
Venue
Water
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-12-06
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
1793
ISSN
2073-4441
DOI
10.3390/w10121793
Cited by
155
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Chungnam National University (Chungnam National University)

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