Articles | Volume 16, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2899-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2899-2023
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
26 May 2023
Methods for assessment of models |  | 26 May 2023

Various ways of using empirical orthogonal functions for climate model evaluation

Rasmus E. Benestad, Abdelkader Mezghani, Julia Lutz, Andreas Dobler, Kajsa M. Parding, and Oskar A. Landgren

Related authors

Downscaling the probability of heavy rainfall over the Nordic countries
Rasmus E. Benestad, Kajsa M. Parding, and Andreas Dobler
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 45–65, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-45-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-45-2025, 2025
Short summary
A Norwegian Approach to Downscaling
Rasmus E. Benestad
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-176,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-176, 2021
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Downscaling probability of long heatwaves based on seasonal mean daily maximum temperatures
Rasmus E. Benestad, Bob van Oort, Flavio Justino, Frode Stordal, Kajsa M. Parding, Abdelkader Mezghani, Helene B. Erlandsen, Jana Sillmann, and Milton E. Pereira-Flores
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 4, 37–52, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-4-37-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-4-37-2018, 2018
Short summary
Simple and approximate estimations of future precipitation return values
Rasmus E. Benestad, Kajsa M. Parding, Abdelkader Mezghani, and Anita V. Dyrrdal
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 993–1001, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-993-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-993-2017, 2017
Short summary
The use of regression for assessing a seasonal forecast model experiment
Rasmus E. Benestad, Retish Senan, and Yvan Orsolini
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 851–861, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-851-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-851-2016, 2016
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Improving the representation of major Indian crops in the Community Land Model version 5.0 (CLM5) using site-scale crop data
Kangari Narender Reddy, Somnath Baidya Roy, Sam S. Rabin, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma, Ruchira Biswas, and Devavat Chiru Naik
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 763–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, 2025
Short summary
Evaluation of CORDEX ERA5-forced NARCliM2.0 regional climate models over Australia using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.1.2
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jason P. Evans, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Yue Li, and Matthew L. Riley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 703–724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, 2025
Short summary
Design, evaluation, and future projections of the NARCliM2.0 CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia regional climate ensemble
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Jason P. Evans, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Stephen White, Yue Li, Moutassem El Rafei, Rishav Goyal, Matthew L. Riley, and Jyothi Lingala
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 671–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Amending the algorithm of aerosol–radiation interactions in WRF-Chem (v4.4)
Jiawang Feng, Chun Zhao, Qiuyan Du, Zining Yang, and Chen Jin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, 2025
Short summary
The very-high-resolution configuration of the EC-Earth global model for HighResMIP
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Ambaum, M. H. P., Hoskins, B. J., and Stephenson, D. B.: Arctic Oscillation or North Atlantic Oscillation?, J. Climate, 14, 3495–3507, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<3495:AOONAO>2.0.CO;2, 2001. a
Barnett, T. P.: Comparison of Near-Surface Air Temperature Variability in 11 Coupled Global Climate Models, J. Climate, 12, 511–518, 1999. a, b, c
Becker, R. A., Chambers, J. M., and Wilks, A. R.: The new S language: a programming environment for data analysis and graphics, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole computer science series, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Pacific Grove, Calif., ISBN 9780534091927, 9780534091934, 053409192X, 0534091938; OCLC Number (WorldCat Unique Identifier): 17677647, 1988. a
Benestad, R.: Common EOFs for model evaluation, Figshare [data set], https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.21641756.V3, 2022. a, b, c, d
Benestad, R.: Common EOFs for evaluation of geophysical data and global climate models, Youtube [video], https://youtu.be/32mtHHAoq6k, last access: 25 May 2023a. a
Download
Short summary
A mathematical method known as common EOFs is not widely used within the climate research community, but it offers innovative ways of evaluating climate models. We show how common EOFs can be used to evaluate large ensembles of global climate model simulations and distill information about their ability to reproduce salient features of the regional climate. We can say that they represent a kind of machine learning (ML) for dealing with big data.
Share