Abstract
Model selection over a region known with data scarcity is crucial to get a substitute to study trends, variability and projections. This study was concerned with the comparison of 12 General Circulation Models (GCMs) under CMIP5 and CMIP6 relative to Climate Research Unit (CRU) precipitation in Ethiopia from 1966 to 2005. The comparison between GCMs was made using correlation, root mean squared error (RMSE), bias, skill score, Kling Gupta efficiency (KGE) and Taylor diagram. Comparison revealed that BCC, INM and CanESM during the boreal spring season from March to May (MAM), and CanESM, FGOALS, GFDL and BCC during the boreal summer season from June to August (JJA) under CMIP6 and INM, BCC and FGOALS during MAM and MPI-LR, CMCC and MPI-LR during the boreal autumn season from September to November (SON) under CMIP5 exhibited significantly equal mean value at 5% (p < 0.05) significant level with CRU precipitation. The maximum and minimum deviations were 134.9 mm (positive) from MIROC (CMIP5) and 70.37 mm (negative) from CMCC (CMIP5), respectively. Moreover, the lowest and highest deviations were also observed in JJA. GCMs namely: INM, GFDL, BCC, CMCC, IPSL, MRI and MIROC during MAM, BCC, CMCC, FGOALS, GFDL, INM, IPSL, MIROC and MRI during JJA and ACCESS, FGOALS, INM, MIROC and MPI-LR during SON were best GCMs from CMIP6 in reproducing CRU precipitation in Ethiopia. As a result, INM, MIROC, FGOALS, IPSL and CMCC were models that revealed better performance from CMIP6 compared to CMIP5 in Ethiopia. More number of GCMs from CMIP6 were better than GCMs from CMIP5 in capturing observed precipitation during MAM and JJA. Comparable performance of GCMs from both projects were observed during SON. The study indicated that further analysis need to be carried out to identify the improvement in capturing observed SON and annual precipitation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/ or https://esgfnode.ipsl.upmc.fr/search/cmip6-ipsl/ or https://esgf-data.dkrz.de/search/cmip6-dkrz/ or https://esgf-index1.ceda.ac.uk/search/cmip6-ceda/.
References
Abdulahi SD, Abate B, Harka AE, Husen SB (2022) Response of climate change impact on streamflow: the case of the Upper Awash sub-basin, Ethiopia. J Water Climate Change 13(2):607–628. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.251
Ahmed K, Sachindra DA, Shahid S, Demirel MC, Chung ES (2019) Selection of multimodel ensemble of general circulation models for the simulation of precipitation and maximum and minimum temperature based on spatial assessment metrics. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23(11):4803–4824. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4803-2019
Akinsanola AA, Ongoma V, Kooperman GJ (2021) Evaluation of CMIP6 models in simulating the statistics of extreme precipitation over Eastern Africa. Atmos Res 254:105509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105509
Ayugi B, Tan G, Gnitou GT, Ojara M, Ongoma V (2019) Jo u rn al Pr. Atmos Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104705
Ayugi B, Ngoma H, Babaousmail H, Karim R, Iyakaremye V, Sian LK (2021) Evaluation and projection of mean surface temperature using CMIP6 models over East Africa. J Afr Earth Sc 181:104226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2021.104226
Babaousmail H, Hou R, Ayugi B, Ojara M, Ngoma H, Karim R, Rajasekar A, Ongoma V (2021) Evaluation of the performance of cmip6 models in reproducing rainfall patterns over north africa. Atmosphere 12(4):1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12040475
Camberlin P, Okoola RE (2003) The onset and cessation of the “long rains” in eastern Africa and their interannual variability. Theoret Appl Climatol 75(1–2):43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-002-0721-5
Chakilu GG, Sándor S, Zoltán T, Phinzi K (2022) Climate change and the response of streamflow of watersheds under the high emission scenario in Lake Tana sub-basin, upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. J Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101175
Climate S, Outputs M, Balcha YA, Malcherek A, Alamirew T (2022). Understanding Future Climate in the Upper Awash Basin. 1–28.
Debebe A, Gizaw A, Tsidu M (2020). The performance of regional climate models driven by various general circulation models in reproducing observed rainfall over East Africa.
Dyer E, Washington R, Teferi Taye M (2020) Evaluating the CMIP5 ensemble in Ethiopia: Creating a reduced ensemble for rainfall and temperature in Northwest Ethiopia and the Awash basin. Int J Climatol 40(6):2964–2985. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6377
Emori S, Taylor K, Hewitson B, Zermoglio F, Juckes M, Lautenschlager M, Stockhause M, Emori S, Taylor K, Hewitson B, Zermoglio F, Juckes M, Lautenschlager M, Stockhause M (2016). CMIP5 data provided at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre. September, 1–8. http://www.ipcc-data.org/docs/factsheets/TGICA_Fact_Sheet_CMIP5_data_provided_at_the_IPCC_DDC_Ver_1_2016.pdf
Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl GA, Senior CA, Stevens B, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2016) Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Develop 9(5):1937–1958. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016
Feyissa TA, Demissie TA, Saathoff F, Gebissa A (2023) Evaluation of general circulation models CMIP6 performance and future climate change over the omo river basin Ethiopia. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086507
Gupta HV, Kling H, Yilmaz KK, Martinez GF (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 377(1–2):80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003
Gusain A, Ghosh S, Karmakar S (2020) Added value of CMIP6 over CMIP5 models in simulating Indian summer monsoon rainfall. Atmos Res 232:104680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104680
Hailesilassie WT, Goel NK, Ayenew T, Tekleab S (2022) Future precipitation changes in the Central Ethiopian Main Rift under CMIP5 GCMs. J Water Climate Change 13(4):1830–1841. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.440
Hamed MM, Nashwan MS, Shahid S (2022) A novel selection method of CMIP6 GCMs for robust climate projection. Int J Climatol 42(8):4258–4272. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7461
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Science, October 2009, 1009.
Johnson F, Westra S, Sharma A, Pitman AJ (2011) An assessment of GCM skill in simulating persistence across multiple time scales. J Clim 24(14):3609–3623. https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3732.1
Juckes M, Taylor KE, Durack P, Lawrence B, Mizielinski M, Pamment A, Peterschmitt J, Rixen M, Sénésis S (2019). The CMIP6 Data Request ( version 01.00.31). August, 1–35.
Khan N, Shahid S, Ahmed K, Ismail T, Nawaz N, Son M (2018) Performance assessment of general circulation model in simulating daily precipitation and temperature using multiple gridded datasets. Water (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121793
Koch J, Demirel MC, Stisen S (2018) The SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF): Multiple-component evaluation of spatial patterns for optimization of hydrological models. Geosci Model Develop 11(5):1873–1886. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1873-2018
Liu J, Lu Y (2022) How well do CMIP6 models simulate the greening of the tibetan plateau? Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14184633
Manatsa D, Chingombe W, Matarira CH (2008) The impact of the positive Indian Ocean dipole on Zimbabwe droughts Tropical climate is understood to be dominated by. Int J Climatol 2029:2011–2029. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc
Mesgari E, Hosseini SA, Partoo LG, Hemmesy MS, Houshyar M (2022) Assessment of CMIP6 models’ performances and projection of precipitation based on SSP scenarios over the MENAP region. J Water Climate Change 13(10):3607–3619. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.195
Mitchell TD, Jones PD (2005) An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int J Climatol 25(6):693–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1181
Ogata T, Ueda H, Inoue T, Hayasaki M, Yoshida A, Watanabe S, Kira M, Ooshiro M, Kumai A (2014) Projected future changes in the Asian monsoon: A comparison of CMIP3 and CMIP5 model results. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 92(3):207–225. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2014-302
Palmer PI, Wainwright CM, Dong B, Maidment RI, Wheeler KG, Gedney N, Hickman JE, Madani N, Folwell SS, Abdo G, Allan RP, Black ECL, Feng L, Gudoshava M, Haines K, Huntingford C, Kilavi M, Lunt MF, Shaaban A, Turner AG (2023) Drivers and impacts of Eastern African rainfall variability. Nature Rev Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00397-x
Rivera JA, Arnould G (2020) Evaluation of the ability of CMIP6 models to simulate precipitation over Southwestern South America: Climatic features and long-term trends (1901–2014). Atmos Res 241:104953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.104953
Salman SA, Shahid S, Ismail T, Ahmed K, Wang XJ (2018) Selection of climate models for projection of spatiotemporal changes in temperature of Iraq with uncertainties. Atmos Res 213(July):509–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.07.008
Sillmann J, Kharin VV, Zhang X, Zwiers FW, Bronaugh D (2013) Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: Part 1. Model evaluation in the present climate. J Geophys Res Atmos 118(4):1716–1733. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50203
Sun Q, Miao C, Duan Q, Ashouri H, Sorooshian S, Hsu KL (2018) A review of global precipitation data sets: data sources, estimation, and intercomparisons. Rev Geophys 56(1):79–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000574
Suomi J (2018) Extreme temperature differences in the city of Lahti, southern Finland: Intensity, seasonality and environmental drivers. Weather Climate Extremes 19:20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.12.001
Taylor K, Ronald S, Meehl G (2011) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteor Soc 93:485–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1
Taylor KE (2001). in a Single Diagram. 106, 7183–7192.
van Vuuren DP, Riahi K (2011) The relationship between short-term emissions and long-term concentration targets. Clim Change 104(3–4):793–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0004-6
Voldoire A, Saint-Martin D, Sénési S, Decharme B, Alias A, Chevallier M, Colin J, Guérémy JF, Michou M, Moine MP, Nabat P, Roehrig R (2019) Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM-CM6-1. J Adv Model Earth Syst 11(7):2177–2213. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683
Weng X, Zhu J, Wang D, Wang S, Qiu J (2022). Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6 high-resolution simulations for soil erosion response to climate and land use changes over China.
Yang W, Seager R, Cane MA, Lyon B (2015) The rainfall annual cycle bias over East Africa in CMIP5 coupled climate models. J Clim 28(24):9789–9802. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0323.1
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge CRU, CMIP5, and CMIP6 data providers greatly.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors retrieved historical data, designed and wrote the analysis procedure, and produced the figures presented in this paper. All authors have equally contributed to the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gobie, B.G., Assamnew, A.D., Habtemicheal, B.A. et al. Comparison of GCMs Under CMIP5 and CMIP6 in Reproducing Observed Precipitation in Ethiopia During Rainy Seasons. Earth Syst Environ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-024-00394-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-024-00394-0