A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Comparison between CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models over MENA Region Using Historical Simulations and Future Projections
The study evaluated the ability of 11 global climate models of the latest two versions of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6) to simulate observed (1965–2005) rainfall, maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures, mean eastward (uas) and northward (vas) wind speed, and mean surface pressure. It also evaluated relative uncertainty in projections of climate variables using those two CMIPs. The European reanalysis (ERA5) data were used as the reference to evaluate the performance of the GCMs and their mean and median multimodel ensembles (MME). The study revealed less bias in CMIP6 GCMs than CMIP5 GCMs in simulating most climate variables. The biases in rainfall, Tmax, Tmin, uas, vas, and surface pressure were −55 mm, 0.28 °C, −0.11 °C, −0.25 m/s, −0.06 m/s, and −0.038 Kpa for CMIP6 compared to −65 mm, 0.07 °C, −0.87 °C, −0.41 m/s, −0.05 m/s, and 0.063 Kpa for CMIP5. The uncertainty in CMIP6 projections of rainfall, Tmax, Tmin, uas, vas, and wind speed was relative more narrow than those for CMIP5. The projections showed a higher increase in Tmin than Tmax by 0.64 °C, especially in the central region. Besides, rainfall in most parts of MENA would increase; however, it might decrease by 50 mm in the coastal regions. The study revealed the better ability of CMIP6 GCMs for a wide range of climatic studies.
Comparison between CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models over MENA Region Using Historical Simulations and Future Projections
The study evaluated the ability of 11 global climate models of the latest two versions of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6) to simulate observed (1965–2005) rainfall, maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures, mean eastward (uas) and northward (vas) wind speed, and mean surface pressure. It also evaluated relative uncertainty in projections of climate variables using those two CMIPs. The European reanalysis (ERA5) data were used as the reference to evaluate the performance of the GCMs and their mean and median multimodel ensembles (MME). The study revealed less bias in CMIP6 GCMs than CMIP5 GCMs in simulating most climate variables. The biases in rainfall, Tmax, Tmin, uas, vas, and surface pressure were −55 mm, 0.28 °C, −0.11 °C, −0.25 m/s, −0.06 m/s, and −0.038 Kpa for CMIP6 compared to −65 mm, 0.07 °C, −0.87 °C, −0.41 m/s, −0.05 m/s, and 0.063 Kpa for CMIP5. The uncertainty in CMIP6 projections of rainfall, Tmax, Tmin, uas, vas, and wind speed was relative more narrow than those for CMIP5. The projections showed a higher increase in Tmin than Tmax by 0.64 °C, especially in the central region. Besides, rainfall in most parts of MENA would increase; however, it might decrease by 50 mm in the coastal regions. The study revealed the better ability of CMIP6 GCMs for a wide range of climatic studies.
Comparison between CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models over MENA Region Using Historical Simulations and Future Projections
Mohammed Magdy Hamed (author) / Mohamed Salem Nashwan (author) / Mohammed Sanusi Shiru (author) / Shamsuddin Shahid (author)
2022
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Historical evolution and future trend of Northern Hemisphere snow cover in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
| DOAJ | 2021
Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6 GCM performance for flood projections in the Mekong River Basin
| DOAJ | 2022
Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6 GCM performance for flood projections in the Mekong River Basin
| Elsevier | 2022