Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 68 references

Refined climatologies of future precipitation over High Mountain Asia using probabilistic ensemble learning

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A mixture-of-experts blend of 13 climate models beats equal-weight averaging by 32% and the best single model by 254%, making High Mountain Asia's projected summers wetter and its western Himalayan winters drier.

desk verdict A solid methodological contribution with honest validation, but the future projections rest on an untested stationarity assumption that should be flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15690 v3 pith:QMOT7K2W submitted 2025-01-26 physics.ao-ph cs.LGstat.ML

Kenza Tazi , Sun Woo P. Kim , Marc Girona-Mata , Richard E. Turner This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ao-phcs.LGstat.ML
keywords HighMountainAsiaprecipitationensemblelearningregionalclimatemodelsprobabilisticGaussianprocessCORDEX-WAS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that precipitation over High Mountain Asia is better estimated by a learned blend of regional climate models than by the standard equal-weight average. The blend is a mixture of experts: each of 13 CORDEX models is converted into a probabilistic surrogate, and the surrogates are weighted at every location and month by how closely each model's precipitation distribution matches the APHRODITE gridded observations, with a statistical temperature tuned on historical data. On held-out years the blend is 32% closer to observations than the equal-weight average and 254% closer than the single best model. Applied to RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, the refined blend projects wetter summers but drier winters over the western Himalayas and Karakoram and wetter winters over the Tibetan Plateau, Hengduan Shan, and South East Tibet, compared with previous estimates. The stakes are concrete: precipitation is the largest source of uncertainty in modelling the water resources of a region whose frozen stores feed more than 1.9 billion people.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the mixture of experts (MoE): at each month and location a convex combination $p(y)=\sum_{r=1}^{R} w_r\,p_r(y)$ of 13 surrogate distributions. Each surrogate $p_r$ is a Gaussian process fitted to one RCM's monthly precipitation and then transformed back to skew: a Box-Cox warp makes the GP's Gaussian output match the log-normal-like distribution of precipitation, chained Gaussian processes let the variance as well as the mean be learned spatial fields, and a Bayesian committee machine splits the data into per-month domains so training cost scales as $O(JM^3)$ instead of $O(N^3)$. The weight formula carries the argument: $w_r \propto \exp(-\ln W_r / T)$, where $W_r$ is the Wasserstein distance between the $r$-th surrogate and APHRODITE at that location and month, and $T$ is a statistical temperature fitted by maximum likelihood on the 1951–2005 training period; $T=0$ would pick only the closest model, $T\to\infty$ reproduces equal weighting, and the fitted temperature keeps the weights smooth across space and months while never letting any model's weight vanish.

What would settle it

Re-fit the mixture weights on two non-overlapping historical windows, such as 1951–1970 and 1971–1990, and compare the resulting weight maps: if the optimal weights shift substantially between windows, or if weights fit on one window fail to beat equal weighting on the other, the fixed-weight future projections rest on an unsupported assumption. A complementary check is to score the same learned weights against a second gridded precipitation product not used in training, since the reported 32% gain is measured only against APHRODITE.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a mixture of experts, a weighted sum of 13 regional climate model precipitation distributions, produces more faithful precipitation distributions over High Mountain Asia than equally weighted averaging or any single member of the CORDEX-WAS ensemble. Weights are computed from the Wasserstein distance between each model's surrogate distribution and the APHRODITE historical dataset, with a likelihood-optimised statistical temperature that interpolates between best-model selection and equal weighting; poorly performing models are down-weighted, never discarded. On the held-out period 1981–2005 the mixture improves the continuous rank probability score by 32% on average over equal weighting (the validation section reports 31%), and by 254% over the best individual surrogate, with the largest gains over the Karakoram and Himalayan arc where member skill differs most and near-zero gains where the learned weights revert to near-equal values. When those weights are applied unchanged to future scenarios, the mixture projects summer monsoon median precipitation increases of roughly 15% to 27% by 2066–2095 under RCP8.5 across the three study regions, and winter changes that are drier over the inner Himalayas and Karakoram (median differences down to −31% relative to the equal-weight estimate for the West Himalaya and Karakoram) but wetter over the Tibetan Plateau and Southeast Tibet (up to +62%).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that weights optimised on how well each model matched APHRODITE precipitation over 1951–2005 remain the correct weights for 2036–2095, because Section 5 fixes the weights once on the whole historical record and applies them unchanged to future projections without any test that a model's ranking by precipitation fidelity is stationary across climate states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The weighted blend reproduces historical precipitation more accurately than the equal-weight average, with annual average CRPS differences of about 0.34 mm per day over the West Himalaya and Karakoram, 0.24 mm per day over the Central and East Himalaya, and 0.14 mm per day over the Hengduan Shan and Southeast Tibet.
  • Under RCP8.5 in the far future (2066–2095), the mixture projects summer monsoon median precipitation increases of about 15% over the West Himalaya and Karakoram, 23% over the Central and East Himalaya, and 27% over the Hengduan Shan and Southeast Tibet.
  • For winter, the blend's projections diverge from the equal-weight baseline by up to −31% in median relative change over the inner Himalayas and Karakoram and up to +51% to +62% over the Tibetan Plateau and Southeast Tibet, implying different seasonal contributions to frozen water stores.
  • Differences between the blended and equal-weight projections reach tens of percent at the 95th percentile as well, which the paper reads as a higher possible probability of very high precipitation events, such as floods and landslides, than previously estimated.
  • The authors argue the framework transfers to other grids, model ensembles, and climate variables, because the Gaussian process surrogates can be evaluated at arbitrary points.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the mixture is a convex combination of the 13 member distributions, it cannot produce precipitation values its members never span; the heavy tail of the blended distribution is inherited, not generated, so updating flood and drought return levels would require an explicit extremes model on top of the mixture.
  • The paper fixes the weights once on 1951–2005 and applies them to 2036–2095 without checking that model skill rankings are stable; recomputing the optimal weights on separate historical decades would show whether the fixed weights are a liability for projections.
  • Training the weights on APHRODITE and validating the resulting blend against an independent observational product, or against station gauges, would separate genuine ensemble skill from adherence to one reference dataset's particular biases.
  • If the projected seasonal shift is correct, wetter summers and drier winters in the western Himalayas and Karakoram would alter glacier accumulation-season forcing and the timing of downstream river flow for the 1.9 billion people served by High Mountain Asia's rivers, consequences the paper flags but does not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a probabilistic mixture-of-experts (MoE) framework for combining monthly precipitation from 13 CORDEX-WAS regional climate models over High Mountain Asia. Each RCM is represented by a warped Gaussian process surrogate, aggregated via Bayesian committee machines, and the RCM surrogates are weighted by a softmax function of Wasserstein distances to the APHRODITE gridded observations, with a learned 'statistical temperature'. The method is validated on a held-out period (1981-2005) after training on 1951-1980, reporting a 31% average CRPS improvement over equal weighting and a 254% improvement over any single ensemble member. The authors then re-optimize the weights over the full historical period (1951-2005) and apply them unchanged to RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 projections for 2036-2065 and 2066-2095, producing seasonal median precipitation changes that differ regionally from the equally weighted baseline, including wetter summers and drier winters over the western Himalayas and Karakoram and wetter winters over the Tibetan Plateau, Hengduan Shan, and Southeast Tibet.

Significance. If the held-out validation is accepted, the paper offers a broadly applicable and reproducible method for combining RCM ensembles that improves upon both equal weighting and single-model selection without discarding outliers. The temporal train/validation split is an honest design, and the public release of code and data on Zenodo is a clear strength. The central historical claim is therefore credible. However, the future projection section rests on the untested assumption that weights learned from historical distributional fidelity transfer to a different climate state, and the headline improvements are reported without uncertainty quantification. These issues affect the paper's central claims rather than merely its presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (11)] The future projections assume that weights optimized for historical fidelity to APHRODITE remain optimal when applied unchanged to 2036-2095 RCP4.5/RCP8.5 simulations. Equation (11) defines the weights as a softmax over negative log Wasserstein distances between each RCM surrogate and APHRODITE, so the weights measure historical distributional agreement only; nothing conditions on the forced response of the models. The headline future signals (wetter summers/drier winters over HMA1 and wetter winters over HMA3, Fig. 8) therefore presuppose that a model closer to APHRODITE historically is also a better predictor of the change signal, which is testable but untested. I recommend an explicit sensitivity analysis, e.g., estimating weights on two disjoint historical periods and comparing the resulting projection maps, or a perfect-model experiment in which one RCM's future is withheld as a pseudo-observation. As written, the projection claims are not falsifiable within the manuscript.
  2. [§4] The headline improvements ('31% average improvement over EW' in the text, '32%' in the abstract; '254% improvement' over any single member) are reported as point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. Figure 5 shows large spatial heterogeneity, and Figure D2 indicates near-zero or positive differences in some months and locations. I request bootstrap confidence intervals over years or spatial blocks for the aggregate CRPS improvements, plus a statement of the fraction of grid points with statistically significant improvement. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the 31% and 254% figures are distinguishable from noise.
  3. [§5.1, Fig. 6] The historical REMP evaluation in Figure 6 is in-sample: the weights are optimized over the entire historical period (1951-2005) and then evaluated against APHRODITE for 1976-2005, a sub-period of the training window. The text should explicitly label these maps as diagnostics rather than validation, and the conclusion that 'the MoE makes large improvements over the EW' in Section 5.1 should be supported by the held-out CRPS result of Section 4, not by Figure 6. This does not invalidate the held-out validation, but the framing currently blurs the distinction.
  4. [§3.2.2, §4] The paper does not state which period is used to compute the 95th-percentile scaling of BCM outputs to APHRODITE before calculating Wasserstein distances. If this scaling is estimated on the same 1981-2005 validation period, the held-out CRPS partly measures the method's ability to match a bias-correction target defined from the validation data, not purely predictive skill. Please specify the period used for the scaling; if it includes the validation period, re-run the validation with the scaling estimated only from 1951-1980.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and §4] The abstract states a '32% improvement' while Section 4 reports a '31% average improvement' over the EW; please reconcile these numbers and state explicitly that the validation is on the held-out period 1981-2005.
  2. [§6] The second limitation paragraph contains a typo: 'uncertain..' should be 'uncertain.'.
  3. [Appendix F, Fig. F2 caption] The caption for Figure F2 says 'near future (2066-2095)', but the near-future period is 2036-2065; please correct.
  4. [References] In the Snelson et al. (2003) reference, 'Vacouver' should be 'Vancouver'.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] The third row label 'MOE EW REMP' has inconsistent capitalization; use 'MoE - EW' for clarity.
  6. [§4] Please define the '254% improvement' mathematically (e.g., as the relative reduction in CRPS compared with the best individual RCM) so that the claim is unambiguous.
  7. [Eq. (11)] With h(·) = ln(·), the weights in Eq. (11) become a power-law function of the Wasserstein distance; a sentence noting this functional form and its smoothness motivation would help the reader interpret the temperature parameter.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Held-out CRPS claim is independent; the Section 5.1 historical REMP maps are partly in-sample because the weights are optimised over the same APHRODITE period used for evaluation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5 and Section 5.1 (historical predictions, Figure 6)]
    "To generate refined historical and future climatologies, we optimise the weights over the entire historical period (1951–2005), maximising the data available for training. ... Figure 6 plots the relative error for median precipitation (REMP) of the MoE and EW with respect to APHRODITE for the historical period."

    The MoE weights are optimised to maximise likelihood on the APHRODITE dataset, and the displayed historical REMP improvement is measured against APHRODITE over 1976–2005, a period contained in the 1951–2005 optimisation window. The large reported REMP differences (e.g. 2.02 for HMA1 in summer) therefore restate, in part, the fitting objective rather than providing an out-of-sample check. This does not invalidate the held-out 1981–2005 CRPS result in Section 4, which is genuinely independent.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims are validated on a held-out period: Section 4 splits the historical experiment into training (1951–1980) and validation (1981–2005) and reports the 31–32% CRPS improvement over EW and 254% improvement over individual RCM surrogates on that validation period. Those weights and the statistical temperature are optimised only on the training period, so those figures are not circular. The one partial circularity is in Section 5.1: the refined historical REMP maps are produced with weights optimised over the full 1951–2005 APHRODITE record and then evaluated against APHRODITE over 1976–2005, making the displayed historical improvement partly in-sample. This is a minor issue because it is not the paper's main held-out evidence. The future projections under RCP4.5/RCP8.5 are not circular: they apply historically fitted weights to RCM future outputs, and the MoE-versus-EW differences in Figure 8 are weighted combinations of RCM change signals. Whether historical skill weights remain valid under changed forcing is an untested stationarity assumption and therefore a correctness risk, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling via self-citation was found; the method's components (GPs, BCM, Wasserstein weights) are drawn from external literature and the weighting form is explicitly acknowledged as arbitrary.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on five assumptions and five fitted parameter groups. Most fitted parameters are standard ML hyperparameters, but the statistical temperature and the quantile scaling are observation-fitted and directly shape the weights. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Statistical temperature T = Optimized by maximum likelihood on APHRODITE training years
    Controls how strongly the softmax weights in Eq. (11) concentrate on the best RCMs; fitted to historical observations and central to the weighting scheme.
  • Box-Cox warping parameter lambda_r per RCM = Optimized per RCM by maximizing Gaussian log-likelihood of transformed precipitation
    Affects the shape of each RCM surrogate distribution through Eq. (4); the paper treats it as learnt per RCM.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters and noise variance per temporal domain = Optimized via log-marginal likelihood in Eq. (1)
    Standard fitted GP hyperparameters for each RCM BCM surrogate; needed to define the expert distributions combined by the MoE.
  • 95th percentile scaling factor per grid point and month = Set to match APHRODITE 95th percentile before Wasserstein distance computation
    This quantile-matching rescaling is fitted to observations and directly changes the Wasserstein distances and therefore the weights; it is a form of bias correction embedded in the weighting.
  • BCM softmax variance temperature tau = 1/8
    Chosen hyperparameter in Eq. (A.1) controlling expert sparsity in the BCM combination; fixed following Cohen et al., not fitted to APHRODITE.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption APHRODITE gridded gauge-based precipitation is a faithful ground truth for HMA precipitation distributions
    Used as reference for Wasserstein distances, likelihood, and CRPS validation in Sections 3.2.2 and 4; high-altitude gauge coverage is sparse and interpolation may miss orographic precipitation.
  • domain assumption Historical RCM biases and optimal MoE weights are stationary into future RCP periods
    Weights optimized over 1951-2005 are applied unchanged to 2036-2095 in Section 5.2 without testing transferability under different forcing; not listed among limitations in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Each RCM surrogate precipitation distribution is effectively unimodal after Box-Cox warping
    Warped GP model in Section 3.1.2 assumes normality after Box-Cox; authors acknowledge in Section 6 that 'we assume that the RCM outputs are unimodal'.
  • domain assumption Driving CMIP5 GCM boundary forcing is accurate enough for downscaled precipitation
    Authors state this as first limitation in Section 6: driving GCM variables are assumed sufficiently well-modelled, citing large CMIP5 GCM spread over HMA.
  • standard math GP and BCM posterior formulas are valid
    Paper relies on standard Gaussian process, warped GP, chained GP, and robust BCM equations, Eqs. (1) through (8) and Eq. (A.1), without formal proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Refined climatologies of future precipitation over High Mountain Asia using probabilistic ensemble learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMOT7K2W

@misc{pith2026250115690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Refined climatologies of future precipitation over High Mountain Asia using probabilistic ensemble learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMOT7K2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15690}
}
read the original abstract

High Mountain Asia (HMA) holds the highest concentration of frozen water outside the polar regions, serving as a crucial water source for more than 1.9 billion people. Precipitation represents the largest source of uncertainty for future hydrological modelling in this area. In this study, we propose a probabilistic machine learning framework to combine monthly precipitation from 13 regional climate models developed under the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) over HMA via a mixture of experts (MoE). This approach accounts for seasonal and spatial biases within the models, enabling the prediction of more faithful precipitation distributions. The MoE is trained and validated against gridded historical precipitation data, yielding 32% improvement over an equally-weighted average and 254% improvement over choosing any single ensemble member. This approach is then used to generate precipitation projections for the near future (2036-2065) and far future (2066-2095) under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Compared to previous estimates, the MoE projects wetter summers but drier winters over the western Himalayas and Karakoram and wetter winters over the Tibetan Plateau, Hengduan Shan, and South East Tibet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15690 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Map of High Mountain Asia showing major rivers and lakes (Lehner and Grill, 2013), glaciers (RGI Consortium, 2017), permafrost (Westermann et al., 2024), the HKH boundary as defined by ICIMOD (2008), and three mountain subregions used for this study: the West Himalaya and Karakoram (HMA1), the Central and East Himalaya (HMA2), the Hengduan Shan and Southeast Tibet (HMA3). The map also includes the standardised names… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. APHRODITE precipitation medians between 1976 and 2005 for the summe monsoon (left) and winter (right). 2.3. APHRODITE The Asian Precipitation-Highly Resolved Observational Data Integration Towards Evaluation of Water Resources (APHRODITE) is a gridded precipitation dataset ranging from 1951 to 2015 with a spatial resolution of 0.25◦ (Yatagai et al., 2012) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ensemble learning method. For a given emission scenario and climatological period, each of the R RCMs outputs from CORDEX-WAS are split into J manageable spatiotemporal domains, D (j) r for the j th domain and r th RCM. A GP is fit to each domain and then combined using a BCM. The outputs of each RCM BCM are then combined using a weighted mixture model or mixture-of-experts (MoE) with weights {wr} R r=1. 3.1. RCM su… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CSIRO RegCM4 BCM distributions between 1951 and 2005 for the month of February. The figure shows the median of the surrogate distributions over HMA (left). The surrogate distributions (blue line) are compared with the empirical histograms (orange bars) for two example …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MoE and EW CRPS differences over the held-out validation period (1981– 2005). The MoE and EW outputs are generated from 105 RCM surrogate samples for each month and location. Negative values (blue) imply MoE matches APHRODITE more closely while positive values (red) re…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Historical MoE and EW relative error for median precipitation (REMP) with respect to APHRODITE over HMA. The MoE REMP (top), the EW REMP (middle), and the REMP difference between MoE and EW (bottom) are plotted for the historical reference period (1976–2005) for the su…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows far-future MoE projections with respect to the historical period. For RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, the monsoon season is projected to see an increase in median precipitation over most of HMA, with the exception of the north Hindu Kush mountains. The greatest changes occur …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MoE and EW relative prediction differences for the far future (2066–2095) under RCP8.5 across HMA with respect to their historical reference predictions. The plot shows the differences between the predicted relative changes for the 5th percentile (bottom), median (midd…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Amos, T. Pinder, and P. Young. Identifying latent climate signals using sparse hierarchical Gaussian processes. In NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning, online, 9 December 2022. URL https://www.climatechange.ai/papers/neurips2022/15. Accesssed 18 November 2024

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    S. R. Bajracharya and B. R. Shrestha. The status of glaciers in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), 2011. URL https://doi.org/10.53055/ICIMOD.551

    work page doi:10.53055/icimod.551 2011

  3. [3]

    G. E. Box and D. R. Cox. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26 0 (2): 0 211--243, 1964. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964.tb00553.x

    arXiv 1964

  4. [4]

    Chylek, J

    P. Chylek, J. Li, M. Dubey, M. Wang, and G. Lesins. Observed and model simulated 20th century Arctic temperature variability: Canadian earth system model CanESM2 . Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 11 0 (8): 0 22893--22907, 2011. URL https://doi.org/10.5194/acpd-11-22893-2011

    work page doi:10.5194/acpd-11-22893-2011 2011

  5. [5]

    Healing Products of Gaussian Processes

    S. Cohen, R. Mbuvha, T. Marwala, and M. Deisenroth. Healing products of G aussian process experts. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2068--2077, online, 07 2020. PMLR. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.07106

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.07106 2020

  6. [6]

    Deisenroth and J

    M. Deisenroth and J. W. Ng. Distributed Gaussian processes. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 37 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1481--1490, Lille, France, 07--09 Jul 2015. PMLR. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/deisenroth15.html. Accessed 24 January 2025

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    A. Dimri. Bias correction demonstration in two of the Indian Himalayan river basins. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 12 0 (4): 0 1297--1309, 2021. URL https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2020.119

    work page doi:10.2166/wcc.2020.119 2021

  8. [8]

    Dufresne, M.-A

    J.-L. Dufresne, M.-A. Foujols, S. Denvil, A. Caubel, O. Marti, O. Aumont, Y. Balkanski, S. Bekki, H. Bellenger, R. Benshila, S. Bony, L. Bopp, P. Braconnot, P. Brockmann, P. Cadule, F. Cheruy, F. Codron, A. Cozic, D. Cugnet, N. de Noblet, J.-P. Duvel, C. Ethé, L. Fairhead, T. Fichefet, S. Flavoni, P. Friedlingstein, J.-Y. Grandpeix, L. Guez, E. Guilyardi,...

    work page 2013

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. Dunne, J. G. John, A. J. Adcroft, S. M. Griffies, R. W. Hallberg, E. Shevliakova, R. J. Stouffer, W. Cooke, K. A. Dunne, M. J. Harrison, J. P. Krasting, S. L. Malyshev, P. C. D. Milly, P. J. Phillipps, L. T. Sentman, B. L. Samuels, M. J. Spelman, M. Winton, A. T. Wittenb...

    2012

  2. [10]

    Eyring, P

    V. Eyring, P. M. Cox, G. M. Flato, P. J. Gleckler, G. Abramowitz, P. Caldwell, W. D. Collins, B. K. Gier, A. D. Hall, F. M. Hoffman, G. C. Hurtt, A. Jahn, C. D. Jones, S. A. Klein, J. P. Krasting, L. Kwiatkowski, R. Lorenz, E. Maloney, G. A. Meehl, A. G. Pendergrass, R. Pincus...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Flato, J

    G. Flato, J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S. C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason, and M. Rummukainen. Evaluation of climate models. In Climate change 2013: the physical scie...

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Giorgi and W

    F. Giorgi and W. J. Gutowski Jr. Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative. Annual review of environment and resources, 40: 0 467--490, 2015. URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021217

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Giorgi, E

    F. Giorgi, E. Coppola, F. Solmon, L. Mariotti, M. Sylla, X. Bi, N. Elguindi, G. Diro, V. Nair, G. Giuliani, U. U. Turuncoglu, S. Cozzini, I. Güttler, T. A. O’Brien, A. B. Tawfik, A. Shalaby, A. S. Zakey, A. L. Steiner, F. Stordal, L. C. Sloan, and C. Brankovic. RegCM4 : model ...

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Girona-Mata, A

    M. Girona-Mata, A. Orr, M. Widmann, D. Bannister, G. H. Dars, S. Hosking, J. Norris, D. Ocio, T. Phillips, J. Steiner, and T. Richard E. Probabilistic precipitation downscaling for ungauged mountain sites: a pilot study for the Hindu Kush Karakoram Himalaya . EGUsphere, 2024: ...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    GTN-G glacier regions [ Data set]

    GTN-G. GTN-G glacier regions [ Data set]. Global Terrestrial Network for Glaciers, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.5904/gtng-glacreg-2023-07

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    G. R. Harris, D. M. Sexton, B. B. Booth, M. Collins, and J. M. Murphy. Probabilistic projections of transient climate change. Climate dynamics, 40: 0 2937--2972, 2013. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1647-y

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Hausfather, K

    Z. Hausfather, K. Marvel, G. A. Schmidt, J. W. Nielsen-Gammon, and M. Zelinka. Climate simulations: Recognize the ‘hot model’ problem. Nature, 605 0 (7908): 0 26--29, 2022. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Hazeleger, C

    W. Hazeleger, C. Severijns, T. Semmler, S. Ştefănescu, S. Yang, X. Wang, K. Wyser, E. Dutra, J. M. Baldasano, R. Bintanja, P. Bougeault, R. Caballero, A. M. L. Ekman, J. H. Christensen, B. van den Hurk, P. Jimenez, C. Jones, P. Kållberg, T. Koenigk, R. McGrath, P. Miranda, T. ...

    2010

  11. [19]

    Hersbach

    H. Hersbach. Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems. Weather and Forecasting, 15 0 (5): 0 559 -- 570, 2000. doi:10.1175/1520-0434(2000)015<0559:DOTCRP>2.0.CO;2. URL https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wefo/15/5/1520-0434...

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    Outline boundary of Hindu Kush Himalayan ( HKH ) region [data set]

    ICIMOD . Outline boundary of Hindu Kush Himalayan ( HKH ) region [data set]. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), 2008. URL https://doi.org/10.26066/RDS.3924

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    W. W. Immerzeel, A. F. Lutz, M. Andrade, A. Bahl, H. Biemans, T. Bolch, S. Hyde, S. P. Brumby, B. J. Davies, A. C. Elmore, A. Emmer, M. Feng, A. Fern \'a ndez, U. K. Haritashya, J. S. Kargel, M. N. Koppes, P. D. A. Kraaijenbrink, A. V. Kulkarni, P. A. Mayewski, S. Nepal, P. Pa...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Jeffrey, L

    S. Jeffrey, L. Rotstayn, M. Collier, S. Dravitzki, C. Hamalainen, C. Moeseneder, K. Wong, and J. Syktus. Australia ’s CMIP5 submission using the CSIRO-Mk3.6 model. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal, 63 0 (1): 0 1--13, 2013. URL https://doi.org/10.1071/ES13001

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Jiang, T

    J. Jiang, T. Zhou, Y. Qian, C. Li, F. Song, H. Li, X. Chen, W. Zhang, and Z. Chen. Precipitation regime changes in High Mountain Asia driven by cleaner air. Nature, 623 0 (7987): 0 544--549, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06619-y

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    J. H. Jungclaus, N. Fischer, H. Haak, K. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, D. Matei, U. Mikolajewicz, D. Notz, and J. Von Storch. Characteristics of the ocean simulations in the Max Planck Institute Ocean Model (MPIOM) the ocean component of the MPI-Earth system model. Journal of Advances...

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    V. V. Kharin and F. W. Zwiers. Climate predictions with multimodel ensembles. Journal of Climate, 15 0 (7): 0 793--799, 2002. URL https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0793:CPWME>2.0.CO;2

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    R. Knutti. The end of model democracy? an editorial comment. Climatic change, 102 0 (3): 0 395--404, 2010. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9800-2

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    J.-Y. Lee, J. Marotzke, G. Bala, L. Cao, S. Corti, J. P. Dunne, F. Engelbrecht, E. Fischer, J. C. Fyfe, C. Jones, A. Maycock, M. Joseph, O. Ndiaye, P. Swapna, and T. Zhou. Future global climate: scenario-based projections and near-term information. In Climate change 2021: The ...

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Lehner and G

    B. Lehner and G. Grill. Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world's large river systems. Hydrological Processes, 27 0 (15): 0 2171--2186, 2013. URL http://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9740

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Martinez-Villalobos and J

    C. Martinez-Villalobos and J. D. Neelin. Climate models capture key features of extreme precipitation probabilities across regions. Environmental Research Letters, 16 0 (2): 0 024017, 2021. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd351

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Masson and R

    D. Masson and R. Knutti. Climate model genealogy. Geophysical Research Letters, 38 0 (8), 2011. URL https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL046864

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    E. C. Massoud, H. K. Lee, A. Terando, and M. Wehner. Bayesian weighting of climate models based on climate sensitivity. Communications Earth & Environment, 4 0 (1): 0 365, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01009-8

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Maussion, D

    F. Maussion, D. Scherer, T. M \"o lg, E. Collier, J. Curio, and R. Finkelnburg. Precipitation seasonality and variability over the Tibetan Plateau as resolved by the High Asia Reanalysis . Journal of Climate, 27 0 (5): 0 1910--1927, 2014. URL https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00282.1

    1910 doi

  25. [33]

    S.-K. Min, D. Simonis, and A. Hense. Probabilistic climate change predictions applying Bayesian model averaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 365 0 (1857): 0 2103--2116, 2007. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rs...

    2007

  26. [34]

    Y. Nie, H. D. Pritchard, Q. Liu, T. Hennig, W. Wang, X. Wang, S. Liu, S. Nepal, D. Samyn, K. Hewitt, et al. Glacial change and hydrological implications in the Himalaya and Karakoram . Nature reviews earth & environment, 2 0 (2): 0 91--106, 2021. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s4...

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Norris, L

    J. Norris, L. M. Carvalho, C. Jones, F. Cannon, B. Bookhagen, E. Palazzi, and A. A. Tahir. The spatiotemporal variability of precipitation over the Himalaya : evaluation of one-year WRF model simulation. Climate Dynamics, 49: 0 2179--2204, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00...

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Norris, L

    J. Norris, L. M. Carvalho, C. Jones, and F. Cannon. Deciphering the contrasting climatic trends between the central Himalaya and Karakoram with 36 years of WRF simulations. Climate Dynamics, 52: 0 159--180, 2019. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4133-3

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Norris, L

    J. Norris, L. M. Carvalho, C. Jones, and F. Cannon. Warming and drying over the central Himalaya caused by an amplification of local mountain circulation. NPJ Climate and Atmospheric Science, 3 0 (1): 0 1, 2020. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0105-5

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Olson, Y

    R. Olson, Y. Fan, and J. P. Evans. A simple method for Bayesian model averaging of regional climate model projections: Application to southeast Australian temperatures. Geophysical Research Letters, 43 0 (14): 0 7661--7669, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069704

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    A. Orr, C. Listowski, M. Couttet, E. Collier, W. Immerzeel, P. Deb, and D. Bannister. Sensitivity of simulated summer monsoonal precipitation in Langtang Valley , Himalaya , to cloud microphysics schemes in WRF . Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122 0 (12): 0 6298...

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    A. Orr, B. Ahmad, U. Alam, A. Appadurai, Z. P. Bharucha, H. Biemans, T. Bolch, N. P. Chaulagain, S. Dhaubanjar, A. P. Dimri, H. Dixon, H. J. Fowler, G. Gioli, S. J. Halvorson, A. Hussain, G. Jeelani, S. Kamal, I. S. Khalid, S. Liu, A. Lutz, M. K. Mehra, E. Miles, A. Momblanch,...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Palazzi, J

    E. Palazzi, J. von Hardenberg, S. Terzago, and A. Provenzale. Precipitation in the Karakoram-Himalaya : a CMIP5 view. Climate Dynamics, 45: 0 21--45, 2015. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2341-z

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Palmer, F

    T. Palmer, F. Doblas-Reyes, R. Hagedorn, and A. Weisheimer. Probabilistic prediction of climate using multi-model ensembles: from basics to applications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360 0 (1463): 0 1991--1998, 2005. URL https://doi.o...

    1991

  35. [43]

    V. M. Panaretos and Y. Zemel. Statistical aspects of Wasserstein distances. Annual review of statistics and its application, 6 0 (1): 0 405--431, 2019. URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-104938

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    P. K. Panday, J. Thibeault, and K. E. Frey. Changing temperature and precipitation extremes in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region: an analysis of CMIP3 and CMIP5 simulations and projections. International Journal of Climatology, 35 0 (10): 0 3058--3077, 2015. doi:https://doi.org/...

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. Williams. Gaussian processes for machine learning , volume 1. MIT Press, 2006. URL https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    Randolph Glacier Inventory --a dataset of global glacier outlines: Version 6.0 [data set]

    RGI Consortium . Randolph Glacier Inventory --a dataset of global glacier outlines: Version 6.0 [data set]. National Snow and Ice Data Center, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.7265/4m1f-gd79

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Samuelsson, S

    P. Samuelsson, S. Gollvik, M. Kupiainen, E. Kourzeneva, and W. J. van de Berg. The surface processes of the Rossby Centre regional atmospheric climate model ( RCA4 ). Technical report, SMHI, 2015. URL https://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.89799!/Menu/general/extGroup/attachmentCol...

    2015

  40. [48]

    B. M. Sanderson and R. Knutti. On the interpretation of constrained climate model ensembles. Geophysical Research Letters, 39 0 (16), 2012. URL https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052665

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    Sanjay, R

    J. Sanjay, R. Krishnan, A. B. Shrestha, R. Rajbhandari, and G.-Y. Ren. Downscaled climate change projections for the Hindu Kush Himalayan region using CORDEX South Asia regional climate models. Advances in Climate Change Research, 8 0 (3): 0 185--198, 2017. URL https://doi.org...

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Centre for climate change research at indian institute of tropical meteorology

    Sanjay Jayanarayanan, Scientist . Centre for climate change research at indian institute of tropical meteorology. Personal correspondence, May 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    A. D. Saul, J. Hensman, A. Vehtari, and N. D. Lawrence. Chained Gaussian processes. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1431--1440, 09--11 May 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Snelson, Z

    E. Snelson, Z. Ghahramani, and C. Rasmussen. Warped Gaussian processes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 16, Vacouver, BC, Canada, 8--13 December 2003. URL https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2003/file/6b5754d737784b51ec5075c0dc437bf0-Paper.pdf...

    2003

  45. [53]

    D. A. Stainforth, T. E. Downing, R. Washington, A. Lopez, and M. New. Issues in the interpretation of climate model ensembles to inform decisions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 365 0 (1857): 0 2163--2177, 20...

    2007

  46. [54]

    K. E. Taylor, R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American meteorological Society, 93 0 (4): 0 485--498, 2012. URL https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    K. Tazi, A. O. Orr, J. Hernandez-González, S. Hosking, and R. E. Turner. Downscaling precipitation over High-mountain Asia using multi-fidelity Gaussian processes: improved estimates from ERA5 . Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 28 0 (22): 0 4903--4925, 2024. URL https://do...

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    K. Tazi, A. O. Orr, S. Hosking, and R. E. Turner. Precipitation prediction from large-scale climatic features over the Upper Indus Basin using non-stationary Gaussian processes. Environmental Data Science, 2025. Accepted

    2025

  49. [57]

    Tebaldi and R

    C. Tebaldi and R. Knutti. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, 365 0 (1857): 0 2053--2075, 2007. URL https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2076

    2007

  50. [58]

    Teichmann, B

    C. Teichmann, B. Eggert, A. Elizalde, A. Haensler, D. Jacob, P. Kumar, C. Moseley, S. Pfeifer, D. Rechid, A. R. Remedio, H. Ries, J. Petersen, S. Preuschmann, T. Raub, F. Saeed, K. Sieck, and T. Weber. How does a regional climate model modify the projected climate change signa...

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    T \'e l, T

    T. T \'e l, T. B \'o dai, G. Dr \'o tos, T. Haszpra, M. Herein, B. Kasz \'a s, and M. Vincze. The theory of parallel climate realizations: A new framework of ensemble methods in a changing climate: An overview. Journal of Statistical Physics, 179: 0 1496--1530, 2020. URL https...

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    M. Titsias. Variational learning of inducing variables in sparse Gaussian processes. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 5, pages 567--574, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 16--18 Apr 2009. PMLR. URL http://proceed...

    2009

  53. [61]

    V. Tresp. A Bayesian committee machine. Neural computation, 12 0 (11): 0 2719--2741, 2000. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/089976600300014908

    2000 doi

  54. [62]

    Voldoire, E

    A. Voldoire, E. Sanchez-Gomez, D. Salas y M \'e lia, B. Decharme, C. Cassou, S. S \'e n \'e si, S. Valcke, I. Beau, A. Alias, M. Chevallier, M. Déqué, J. Deshayes, H. Douville, E. Fernandez, G. Madec, E. Maisonnave, M.-P. Moine, S. Planton, D. Saint-Martin, S. Szopa, S. Tyteca...

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    Watanabe, T

    M. Watanabe, T. Suzuki, R. O’ishi, Y. Komuro, S. Watanabe, S. Emori, T. Takemura, M. Chikira, T. Ogura, M. Sekiguchi, K. Takata, D. Yamazaki, T. Yokohata, T. Nozawa, H. Hasumi, H. Tatebe, and M. Kimoto. Improved climate simulation by MIROC5 : mean states, variability, and clim...

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    Wester, S

    P. Wester, S. Chaudhary, N. Chettri, A. Maharjan, S. Nepal, and J. Steiner. Water, ice, society, and ecosystems in the Hindu Kush Himalaya : an outlook . International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2023. URL https//doi.org/10.53055/ICIMOD.1028

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    Westermann, C

    S. Westermann, C. Barboux, A. Bartsch, R. Delaloye, G. Grosse, B. Heim, G. Hugelius, A. Irrgang, A. Kääb, H. Matthes, I. Nitze, C. Pellet, F. Seifert, T. Strozzi, U. Wegmüller, M. Wieczorek, and A. Wiesmann. ESA Permafrost Climate Change Initiative : Permafrost version 4 data ...

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    L. J. Wilcox, Z. Liu, B. H. Samset, E. Hawkins, M. T. Lund, K. Nordling, S. Undorf, M. Bollasina, A. M. Ekman, S. Krishnan, et al. Accelerated increases in global and Asian summer monsoon precipitation from future aerosol reductions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20 0 (20...

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Yatagai, K

    A. Yatagai, K. Kamiguchi, O. Arakawa, A. Hamada, N. Yasutomi, and A. Kitoh. APHRODITE : Constructing a long-term daily gridded precipitation dataset for Asia based on a dense network of rain gauges. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93 0 (9): 0 1401--1415, 2012....

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    M. D. Zelinka, T. A. Myers, D. T. McCoy, S. Po-Chedley, P. M. Caldwell, P. Ceppi, S. A. Klein, and K. E. Taylor. Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophysical Research Letters, 47 0 (1): 0 e2019GL085782, 2020. URL https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.