4.5 Article

Evaluation of the Performance of CMIP6 HighResMIP on West African Precipitation

期刊

ATMOSPHERE
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos11101053

关键词

CMIP6 HighResMIP; evaluation; ensemble mean; models; West African precipitation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41675069]
  2. Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of NUIST [2018r060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research focuses on evaluating the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP) simulations within the framework of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6 (CMIP6). We used seven of its consortiums to study how CMIP6 reproduced the West African precipitation features during the 1950-2014 historical simulation periods. The rainfall event was studied for two sub-regions of West Africa, the Sahel and the Guinea Coast. Precipitation datasets from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) TS v4.03, University of Delaware (UDEL) v5.01, and Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) were used as observational references with the aim of accounting for uncertainty. The observed annual peak during August, which is greater than 200, 25, and 100 mm/month in the Guinea Coast, the Sahel, and West Africa as a whole, respectively, appears to be slightly underestimated by some of the models and the ensemble mean, although all the models captured the general rainfall pattern. Global climate models (GCMs) and the ensemble mean reproduced the spatial daily pattern of precipitation in the monsoon season (from June to September) over West Africa, with a high correlation coefficient exceeding 0.8 for the mean field and a relatively lower correlation coefficient for extreme events. Individual models, such as IPSL and ECMWF, tend to show high performance, but the ensemble mean appears to outperform all other models in reproducing West African precipitation features. The result from this study shows that merely improving the horizontal resolution may not remove biases from CMIP6.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据