Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Assessing Future Wind Energy Potential under Climate Change: The Critical Role of Multi-Model Ensembles in Robustness Assessment

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using a 21-model EURO-CORDEX ensemble, this paper argues that no robust, continent-wide climate change signal exists for future European wind power potential, and that projections from small model subsets can reverse sign while still…

desk verdict Useful EURO-CORDEX wind assessment, but the sub-ensemble 'often diverges' claim rests on only two examples. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24463 v1 pith:LYU6LIXW submitted 2025-05-30 physics.ao-ph

Andrea Lira-Loarca , Francesco Ferrari , Andrea Mazzino This is my paper
classification physics.ao-ph
keywords windenergyresourceclimatechangeprojectionsmulti-modelensembleEURO-CORDEXIPCCAR6ApproachCrobustnessassessmentpersistenteventsRCP8.5
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 seeks to establish that a large and diverse set of climate simulations is required before any robust statement can be made about how climate change will affect wind power potential in Europe. Using 21 regional downscaling simulations from the EURO-CORDEX initiative under the RCP8.5 scenario, it applies the IPCC AR6 'Approach C' robustness criteria and finds no consistent, large-scale signal: only limited marine regions show robust changes, while most land areas are classified as having no robust change or conflicting signals. The authors also demonstrate that two different 5-model subsets of the same ensemble produce projections that, in some regions, are opposite in sign and still qualify as 'robust' under the same criteria. The message is that ensemble diversity is a methodological necessity, not a preference, and that energy planners who rely on small ensembles risk confident but wrong conclusions about future wind resources.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three pieces of machinery. First is the 21-member EURO-CORDEX ensemble of RCM-GCM combinations at 0.11-degree resolution, from which seasonal means, seasonal maxima, and wind power ($P = \tfrac{1}{2} \rho V^3$) are computed for historical (1979–2005), mid-century (2034–2060), and end-of-century (2074–2100) periods under RCP8.5. Second is the IPCC AR6 'Approach C' protocol, which assigns every grid cell to 'robust change', 'no robust change', or 'conflicting signal' using two thresholds: at least 80% model agreement on sign and at least 66% of models exceeding the internal-variability threshold $\gamma = \sqrt{2/20} \cdot 1.645 \cdot \sigma_{1yr}$, where $\sigma_{1yr}$ is the interannual standard deviation of the historical period. Third is the event-based framework, which defines persistent high-wind events $X_{\mathrm{over},d}$ and low-wind events $X_{\mathrm{under},d}$ using ERA5-derived 75th and 25th percentile thresholds, and tracks their annual number $NX$ and total duration $DX$ for runs of 4 and 8 days. The sub-ensemble demonstration in Section 4 uses two selected 5-member subsets to show that the sign of end-of-century change can reverse relative to the full ensemble in several regions.

What would settle it

Recompute the three robustness categories and the two sub-ensemble comparisons using an alternative internal-variability threshold derived directly from the ensemble, for instance the standard error of the ensemble mean or a bootstrap estimate of interannual variability over 1979–2005. If the large 'no robust change' areas shrink or the sign-reversal examples change status, the paper's central claim is falsified. A second check is to enumerate all 21-choose-5 subsets and count, grid cell by grid cell, how often the sign of the projected change differs from the full ensemble; if sign reversal is rare rather than common, the warning about under-sampling loses force.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the future of wind energy resources in Europe cannot be inferred from any single model or small group of models, because the answer depends strongly on how many models are included. For the full 21-member ensemble, the climate change signal in seasonal mean wind speed, seasonal maxima, and wind power is mostly non-robust: robust decreases appear over parts of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, a robust increase appears near Iberia in summer, and no robust signal covers the majority of land. The robustness classification follows IPCC AR6 Approach C, which labels a grid cell 'robust change' only if at least 80% of models agree on the sign and at least 66% exceed the variability threshold $\gamma = \sqrt{2/20} \cdot 1.645 \cdot \sigma_{1yr}$. The authors then extract two hand-picked 5-member sub-ensembles and show that for Winter and Spring seasonal maximum power and for persistent high-wind events ($X_{\mathrm{over},4}$), these subsets produce patterns with opposite signs—sometimes classified as robust—compared to the full ensemble. The event-based analysis further shows a projected decrease in the frequency and duration of events above the ERA5 75th percentile and an increase in events below the 25th percentile toward the end of the century, consistent with an overall weakening of wind resource reliability.

Load-bearing premise

The entire robustness classification, and therefore the claim that most of Europe has no robust wind-power signal, rests on the numerical threshold $\gamma$ in Eq. (2); the paper never explains where the factor $\sqrt{2/20}$ comes from, so if that factor is not the correct way to express internal variability for 27-year periods, the 'robust change' labels and the sign-reversal demonstrations built on them would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Energy planning that relies on a single model or a small set of models can be meaningfully wrong about whether wind power will increase or decrease in a given region, even when those models pass a standard robustness test.
  • The few regions where the full ensemble shows robust changes—declining wind resource over parts of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, increasing resource near Iberia in summer—are the places where adaptation and investment signals are currently most defensible under RCP8.5.
  • Persistent high-wind episodes are projected to become less frequent and shorter over large parts of the Atlantic and Mediterranean, while low-wind episodes become more frequent, implying a need for more storage and grid flexibility even where mean wind changes are not robust.
  • Robustness assessments of other climate impact variables should treat ensemble size as a core design constraint rather than a footnote, since the paper shows that classification labels can flip when the ensemble is under-sampled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The unexplained factor '20' in the gamma threshold means the absolute robustness maps could be sensitive to that choice; recomputing the classification with an independently derived threshold would test whether the 'no robust change' regions survive.
  • The sub-ensemble claim would be stronger with an exhaustive sweep of all 5-member subsets instead of two chosen examples; such a sweep would reveal how often sign reversals happen and under what conditions they are most likely to occur.
  • The same event-based framework could be applied with thresholds that vary in time (for example, percentile thresholds recomputed for the future period), which would test whether the projected weakening of high-wind events is an artifact of fixed historical cutoffs.
  • If this small-ensemble fragility generalizes beyond wind, similar caution may apply to multi-model projections of solar resource, crop yields, and hydrological drought, where available ensemble sizes are often smaller.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper assesses future wind energy potential over Europe using a 21-member EURO-CORDEX RCM-GCM ensemble under the RCP8.5 scenario. It computes ensemble-mean changes in seasonal mean wind speed and power, seasonal maxima, and event-based indices (frequency and duration of persistent low- and high-wind episodes defined via ERA5 percentile thresholds), and classifies projected changes using the IPCC AR6 Approach C robustness framework. The paper also compares the full-ensemble results with two hand-picked 5-member sub-ensembles to argue that small sub-ensembles can produce contradictory and even sign-reversing conclusions. The headline findings are that no clear, consistent, pan-European wind signal emerges, while some regionally robust changes appear in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, and that ensemble diversity is critical for reliable planning.

Significance. If the main claims are fully supported, the paper provides a useful cautionary message for wind-energy planning: single models or small model subsets cannot be trusted to represent the range of plausible future wind resource changes. The study has clear strengths: it uses a large high-resolution EURO-CORDEX ensemble, applies a formal IPCC-style robustness assessment, goes beyond mean changes to event-based metrics of operational relevance, and presents its results in spatially explicit maps. These features make the paper a potentially valuable reference for the wind-energy climate-impacts literature. However, the strongest policy-relevant claim, namely that small sub-ensembles 'often' diverge sharply or reverse sign, is not yet quantitatively established, and the variability threshold in Eq. (2) has a calibration inconsistency that affects the robustness classification. Both issues are fixable and should be addressed before the central claims are accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] The variability threshold gamma in Eq. (2) uses sqrt(2/20), but the historical and future periods analyzed in Section 3 are 27 years each (1979-2005, 2034-2060, 2074-2100). The sample size '20' is never defined or justified in the text. Because gamma determines whether a projected change is classified as 'significant' and therefore enters every robustness-map label (robust change / no robust change / conflicting signal), this is a load-bearing calibration issue. With N=20 instead of N=27 the threshold is about 16% too large, systematically under-reporting robust changes. The authors should either replace 20 by 27 (with a corresponding estimate of the interannual standard deviation) or explicitly cite the IPCC AR6 Atlas practice for 20-year reference periods and justify why it is applied to the 27-year periods used here.
  2. [Section 4, Table 2 and Figure 7] The central conclusion in Section 5, that 'results derived from small sub-ensembles often diverge sharply, even reversing sign,' is supported only by two hand-picked 5-member sub-ensembles per index. There are C(21,5)=20,349 possible 5-member sub-ensembles, and the paper does not state a selection rule for sub-ensembles A and B. Two examples demonstrate possibility but not frequency. For n=5 the two robustness criteria ('at least 80% agreement' and 'at least 66% exceedance') both reduce to 4-of-5 votes, so a single model can flip a pixel between robust increase and robust decrease; the probability of such flips over the ensemble of all 5-member subsets is not reported. To support the 'often' language, the authors should compute the distribution of classification outcomes and sign reversals across all random 5-member sub-ensembles (or a large random sample) and report, for example, the percentage of sub-ensembles whose robust classification differs from the full ensemble in the regions highlighted in Figure 7. Alternatively, the conclusions should be softened from 'often diverge' to 'can diverge or reverse sign.'
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 3, Figures 3-6] The event-based indices use fixed ERA5-derived percentile thresholds T25 and T75 as absolute wind-speed values applied to all RCM-GCM simulations. If individual models have systematic wind-speed biases relative to ERA5, the same thresholds correspond to different quantiles in each model, so the event frequency and duration indices may partly reflect model climatological bias rather than projected climate change. The paper acknowledges in the conclusions that bias correction is future work, but the event-based results are presented as a principal finding (e.g., 'a potential weakening of high-wind episodes and an increase in prolonged low-wind periods'). The authors should either justify the fixed-threshold choice operationally or provide a sensitivity test, for example by recomputing event indices with model-specific percentiles and showing that the qualitative conclusions are unchanged.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3] In the discussion of Figure 2, 'Winter (DLF)' appears to be a typo for 'DJF'; please correct.
  2. [Section 4, Table 2 caption] The word 'indeces' should be 'indices'.
  3. [Section 2.2] The definition of 'daily maximum wind speed' is not fully specified: the data are 6-hourly, so the paper should state how the daily maximum is derived (e.g., maximum of the four 6-hourly values) and whether missing values are handled.
  4. [Section 3] The statement 'For brevity, the results related to events lasting at least three and five days are not shown, but they reported similar results' would be more useful with a quantitative summary (e.g., spatial correlation of the change fields) so that the reader can assess the claim of similarity.
  5. [Highlights and Section 5] The Highlight 'No clear or consistent climate change signal is found across the full ensemble for future wind power potential' is in tension with the robust regional changes reported in Section 3 (e.g., North Atlantic and Mediterranean decreases, Iberian nearshore increases). The phrasing should clarify that the absence of a clear signal refers to a spatially uniform pan-European signal, not to an absence of all regionally robust changes.
  6. [Section 2.1 and Table 1] Table 1 is hard to parse as formatted; consider a clearer layout with row and column headers separating RCM and driving GCM so that the 21 ensemble members are immediately identifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: projected changes are computed directly from model outputs, with thresholds and variability criteria taken from independent reanalysis/IPCC methodology rather than fitted to the results.

full rationale

The paper's central results are ensemble-mean differences between future and historical periods computed directly from 21 EURO-CORDEX RCM-GCM simulations; no parameter is fitted to the projected changes. The ERA5-derived T25/T75 percentile thresholds are fixed operational definitions applied consistently to both periods, and the IPCC AR6 Approach C threshold gamma = sqrt(2/20) * 1.645 * sigma1yr is an externally prescribed robustness test using historical interannual variability, not a fit to the target signal. The 'robust change', 'no robust change', and 'conflicting signal' categories are definitional classifications based on agreement and exceedance thresholds, not predictions derived from those categories. The only self-citation (Ferrari et al., 2020) is used to motivate considering resource stability and does not supply any numerical result; it is not load-bearing. The sub-ensemble demonstration in Section 4 uses two hand-picked 5-member sets (Table 2, Figure 7), which supports an existence claim but does not by itself quantify how often small sub-ensembles reverse sign; the Section 5 statement that small sub-ensembles 'often diverge sharply' is therefore under-supported as a statistical generalization. That is an evidentiary or robustness concern, not a circularity: the A/B examples are not constructed from the full-ensemble outcome by an equation, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the stated data and IPCC criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central maps rest on standard public climate simulations (EURO-CORDEX, ERA5), so the ledger is short. The main hand-chosen elements are the event thresholds and durations, plus the unexplained 20 in Eq. (2). The latter directly controls which pixels are classified as robust change, making it a load-bearing choice.

free parameters (4)
  • Air density rho_air = not stated
    Equation (1) requires an air density value for absolute wind power, but no value is given. Relative changes are unaffected, so this mainly affects reproduction of the historical power maps.
  • ERA5 percentile thresholds T25/T75 for event definitions = 25th and 75th percentiles of ERA5 daily maximum 10 m wind speed
    Hand-chosen reference levels from a single reanalysis, applied to all RCM-GCM outputs without bias correction. Event frequency and duration statistics therefore inherit model wind biases.
  • Minimum event durations d = 3, 4, 5 and 8 days; 4 and 8 shown
    The choice of which minimum durations to analyze is not justified, and conclusions differ by duration: over-8 mid-century changes are not robust while over-4 changes are robust.
  • Sample size N=20 in variability threshold gamma = 20
    Eq. (2) uses sqrt(2/20) but all analysis periods (1979-2005, 2034-2060, 2074-2100) contain 27 years. No justification for 20 is given, and this shifts the significance threshold by about 16 percent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 10 m wind speed is a valid proxy for wind power potential at turbine hub heights via a neutral logarithmic extrapolation.
    Section 2.2 says power is calculated at 10 m and can be recalculated for rotor height with a log law. The paper does not apply this conversion, so the projected changes describe 10 m wind, not turbine-level wind.
  • domain assumption ERA5-derived fixed percentile thresholds remain valid for biased RCM-GCM future simulations.
    Event-based indices in Section 3 assume model winds can be compared with ERA5 thresholds without bias adjustment. The Conclusions list bias correction as future work, admitting this limitation.
  • domain assumption The 21 EURO-CORDEX members are treated as independent ensemble members for computing agreement percentages.
    Table 1 shows many shared GCMs (HadGEM2-ES, EC-EARTH, IPSL-CM5A-MR) and RCMs (RCA4, HIRHAM5), so members are not fully independent and the 80/66 percent agreement counts may overstate independence.
  • standard math Interannual variability is approximately Gaussian and uncorrelated, justifying gamma = sqrt(2/N)*1.645*sigma_1yr.
    Eq. (2) uses a normal quantile and a single interannual standard deviation. No autocorrelation or distributional check is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing Future Wind Energy Potential under Climate Change: The Critical Role of Multi-Model Ensembles in Robustness Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYU6LIXW

@misc{pith2026250524463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing Future Wind Energy Potential under Climate Change: The Critical Role of Multi-Model Ensembles in Robustness Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYU6LIXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24463}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate projections of wind energy potential under climate change are critical for effective long-term energy planning. While previous studies have highlighted the value of multi-model ensembles, they often fall short in capturing the full spectrum of uncertainties and temporal dynamics relevant to wind resource reliability. This paper presents one of the most comprehensive assessments to date, leveraging a large ensemble of 21 high-resolution RCM-GCM combinations from the EURO-CORDEX initiative to evaluate future wind energy conditions across Europe under the RCP8.5 scenario. Moving beyond mean values, we incorporate a novel event-based framework to analyze persistent high- and low-wind episodes using ERA5-derived percentile thresholds -- capturing operationally critical conditions that influence turbine performance and grid stability. To ensure statistical rigor, we apply the IPCC AR6 `Approach C' for robustness assessment, distinguishing climate signals from internal variability and quantifying model agreement. Crucially, we demonstrate that projections based on limited sub-ensembles can lead to contradictory or misleading conclusions, underscoring the essential role of ensemble diversity. The combination of spatial granularity, temporal detail, and formal uncertainty quantification makes this study a significant advancement in climate-informed wind energy research and a valuable tool for resilient energy system design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ensemble-mean of Vw (left) and Pwind (right) for the historical period (1979 − 2005, top-row) and projected changes between future RCP8.5 and historical, for mid￾century (2034 − 2060, middle-row) and end-of-century (2074 − 2100, bottom-row). Areas depicting a robust change are left without any overlay and areas depicting no robust change are represented with reverse-diagonal overlay. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ensemble-mean of max(Vw) (left) and max(Pwind) (right) for the historical period (1979−2005, top-row) and projected changes between future RCP8.5 and historical, for mid-century (2034 −2060, middle-row) and end-of-century (2074 −2100, bottom-row). Areas depicting a robust change are left without any overlay and areas depicting no robust change are represented with reverse-diagonal overlay. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ensemble-mean of NX (left) and DX (right) for Xover 4 events. Historical period (1979 − 2005, top-row) and projected changes between future RCP8.5 and historical, for mid-century (2034 − 2060, middle-row) and end-of-century (2074 − 2100, bottom-row). Areas depicting a robust change are left without any overlay and areas depicting no robust change are represented with reverse-diagonal overlay. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ensemble-mean of NX (left) and DX (right) for Xover 8 events. Historical period (1979 − 2005, top-row) and projected changes between future RCP8.5 and historical, for mid-century (2034 − 2060, middle-row) and end-of-century (2074 − 2100, bottom-row). Areas depicting a …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ensemble-mean of NX (left) and DX (right) for Xunder 4 events. Historical period (1979 − 2005, top-row) and projected changes between future RCP8.5 and historical, for mid-century (2034 − 2060, middle-row) and end-of-century (2074 − 2100, bottom-row). Areas depicting a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ensemble-mean of NX (left) and DX (right) for Xunder 8 events. Historical period (1979 − 2005, top-row) and projected changes between future RCP8.5 and historical, for mid-century (2034 − 2060, middle-row) and end-of-century (2074 − 2100, bottom-row). Areas depicting a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ensemble-mean of projected changes between end-of-century RCP8.5 and his [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Uncertainty in wind and solar projections depends on global and regional climate models

    physics.ao-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Over flat regions, projected wind changes are driven mostly by global climate models; solar changes are driven by regional models in summer and global models in winter, and mountains need both.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  4. [4]

    , author L \'o pez-Zurita, C.J

    author Blanusa, M.L. , author L \'o pez-Zurita, C.J. , author Rasp, S. , year 2023 . title The role of internal variability in global climate projections of extreme events . journal Climate Dynamics volume 61 , pages 1931--1945 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06664-3, :10.1007/s00382-023-06664-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00382-023-06664-3 2023

  5. [5]

    , author Ram, M

    author Bogdanov, D. , author Ram, M. , author Aghahosseini, A. , author Gulagi, A. , author Oyewo, A. , author Child, M. , author Caldera, U. , author Sadovskaia, K. , author Farf\'an, J. , author Simas Barbosa, L.d.S.N. , author Fasihi, M. , author Khalili, S. , author Traber, T. , author Breyer, C. , year 2021 . title Low-cost renewable electricity as t...

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    , author Britten, G.L

    author Cael, B.B. , author Britten, G.L. , author Mir Calafat, F. , author Bloch-Johnson, J. , author Stainforth, D.A. , author Goodwin, P. , year 2022 . title Climate nonlinearities: selection, uncertainty, projections, and damages . journal Environmental Research Letters volume 17 , pages 084025 . :10.1088/1748-9326/ac8238

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac8238 2022

  7. [7]

    , author Furrer, R

    author Cermak, J. , author Furrer, R. , author Knutti, R. , author Meehl, G.A. , author Tebaldi, C. , year 2010 . title Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models . journal Journal of Climate volume 23 , pages 2739--2758 . :10.1175/2009JCLI3361.1

    work page doi:10.1175/2009jcli3361.1 2010

  8. [8]

    , author Drews, M

    author Christensen, O. , author Drews, M. , author Christensen, J. , author Dethloff, K. , author Hebestadt, I. , author Ketelsen, K. , author Rinke, A. , year 2007 . title The HIRHAM regional climate model version 5 (beta) . journal DMI Technical Report 06-17

    work page 2007

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    , author Kucharski, F

    author Coppola, E. , author Kucharski, F. , author Giorgi, F. , author Molteni, F. , year 2005 . title Bimodality of the north atlantic oscillation in simulations with greenhouse gas forcing . journal Geophysical Research Letters volume 32

    2005

  2. [10]

    , author Knutti, R

    author Deser, C. , author Knutti, R. , author Solomon, S. , author Phillips, A.S. , year 2012 . title Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability . journal Climate Dynamics volume 38 , pages 527--546

    2012

  3. [11]

    , author Besio, G

    author Ferrari, F. , author Besio, G. , author Cassola, F. , author Mazzino, A. , year 2020 . title Optimized wind and wave energy resource assessment and offshore exploitability in the Mediterranean Sea . journal Energy volume 190 , pages 116447 . :https://doi.org/10.1016/j.e...

    2020

  4. [12]

    , author Coppola, E

    author Giorgi, F. , author Coppola, E. , year 2007 . title European climate-change oscillation (eco) . journal Geophysical Research Letters volume 34

    2007

  5. [13]

    , author Lionello, P

    author Giorgi, F. , author Lionello, P. , year 2008 . title Climate change projections for the mediterranean region . journal Global and planetary change volume 63 , pages 90--104

    2008

  6. [14]

    , author Zucker, A

    author Gonz\'alez-Aparicio, I. , author Zucker, A. , author Careri, F. , author Monforti-Ferrario, F. , author Huld, T. , author Badger, J. , year 2020 . title Climate change impacts on wind energy potential in E urope using a multimodel ensemble . journal Renewable Energy vol...

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    , author Jones, R

    author Gutiérrez, J. , author Jones, R. , author Narisma, G. , author Alves, L. , author Amjad, M. , author Gorodetskaya, I. , author Grose, M. , author Klutse, N. , author Krakovska, S. , author Li, J. , author Martínez-Castro, D. , author Mearns, L. , author Mernild, S. , au...

    2021

  8. [16]

    , author Sutton, R

    author Hawkins, E. , author Sutton, R. , year 2009 . title Potential predictability of sudden changes in the atlantic meridional overturning circulation . journal Geophysical Research Letters volume 36 . :10.1029/2009GL038997

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    , author John, A

    author Herrera-Lormendez, P. , author John, A. , author Douville, H. , author Matschullat, J. , year 2023 . title Projected changes in synoptic circulations over europe and their implications for summer precipitation: A cmip6 perspective . journal International Journal of Clim...

    2023

  10. [18]

    , author Bell, B

    author Hersbach, H. , author Bell, B. , author Berrisford, P. , author Hirahara, S. , author Horányi, A. , author Muñoz-Sabater, J. , author Nicolas, J. , author Peubey, C. , author Radu, R. , author Schepers, D. , author Simmons, A. , author Soci, C. , author Abdalla, S. , au...

    2020

  11. [19]

    title Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report

    author IPCC , year 2023 . title Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/, :10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    , author Petersen, J

    author Jacob, D. , author Petersen, J. , author Eggert, B. , author Alias, A. , author Christensen, O.B. , author Bouwer, L.M. , author Braun, A. , author Colette, A. , author D \'e qu \'e , M. , author Georgievski, G. , author Georgopoulou, E. , author Gobiet, A. , author Men...

    2014

  13. [21]

    , author Teichmann, C

    author Jacob, D. , author Teichmann, C. , author Sobolowski, S. , author Katragkou, E. , author Anders, I. , author Belda, M. , author Benestad, R. , author Boberg, F. , author Buonomo, E. , author Cardoso, R.M. , et al., year 2020 a. title Regional climate downscaling over Eu...

    2020

  14. [22]

    , author Teichmann, C

    author Jacob, D. , author Teichmann, C. , author Sobolowski, S. , author Katragkou, E. , author Anders, I. , et al., year 2020 b. title Regional climate downscaling over E urope: perspectives from the EURO - CORDEX community . journal Regional Environmental Change volume 20 , ...

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    , author Staffell, I

    author Jansen, M. , author Staffell, I. , author Kitzing, L. , author Quoilin, S. , author Wiggelinkhuizen, E. , author Bulder, B. , author Riepin, I. , author Müsgens, F. , year 2020 . title Offshore wind competitiveness in mature markets without subsidy . journal Nature Ener...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    , author Schindler, D

    author Jung, C. , author Schindler, D. , year 2022 . title A review of recent studies on wind resource projections under climate change . journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews volume 165 , pages 112596 . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032...

    2022

  17. [25]

    , author Lundquist, J.K

    author Karnauskas, K.B. , author Lundquist, J.K. , author Zhang, L. , year 2018 . title Observed and projected changes to the wind power resource across the contiguous U nited S tates . journal Nature Climate Change volume 8 , pages 748--752 . :10.1038/s41558-018-0261-1

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    , author Sinclair, V.A

    author Laurila, T.K. , author Sinclair, V.A. , author Gregow, H. , year 2021 . title Climatology, variability, and trends in near-surface wind speeds over the north atlantic and europe during 1979--2018 based on era5 . journal Int. J. Climatol volume 41 , pages 2253--2278

    2021

  19. [27]

    , author Deser, C

    author Lehner, F. , author Deser, C. , author Maher, N. , author Marotzke, J. , author Fischer, E.M. , author Knutti, R. , year 2020 . title Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP 5/6 . journal Earth System Dynamics volume 11 , pages...

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    , author Lüthi, D

    author Leutwyler, D. , author Lüthi, D. , author Ban, N. , author Fuhrer, O. , author Schär, C. , year 2017 . title Evaluation of the convection-resolving climate modeling approach on continental scales . journal Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres volume 122 , pages ...

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    , author Bodeker, G

    author Lewis, J. , author Bodeker, G. , author Kremser, S. , author Tait, A. , year 2017 . title A method to encapsulate model structural uncertainty in ensemble projections of future climate: EPIC v1.0 . journal Geoscientific Model Development volume 10 , pages 4563--4575 . :...

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    , author Wang, Q

    author Li, W. , author Wang, Q. , author Zhu, H. , author Tang, Z. , year 2022 . title Influence of internal variability on future changes in extreme wind speed over N orth A merica . journal Global and Planetary Change :10.1016/j.gloplacha.2022.103968

    2022

  23. [31]

    , author Lehner, F

    author Mankin, J.S. , author Lehner, F. , author Coats, S. , author McKinnon, K. , year 2020 . title The value of initial condition large ensembles to robust adaptation decision-making . journal Earth's Future volume 8 . :10.1029/2020EF001610

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    , author Van Ulft, L

    author van Meijgaard, E. , author Van Ulft, L. , author Van de Berg, W. , author Bosveld, F. , author Van den Hurk, B. , author Lenderink, G. , author Siebesma, A. , year 2008 . title The KNMI regional atmospheric climate model RACMO, version 2.1 . publisher KNMI De Bilt, The ...

    2008

  25. [33]

    , author Reyers, M

    author Moemken, J. , author Reyers, M. , author Feldmann, H. , author Pinto, J.G. , year 2018 . title Future changes of wind speed and wind energy potentials in EURO - CORDEX ensemble simulations . journal Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres volume 123 , pages 6373--6...

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    , year 2002

    author Oke, T.R. , year 2002 . title Boundary layer climates . publisher Routledge

    2002

  27. [35]

    , author Barthelmie, R.J

    author Pryor, S.C. , author Barthelmie, R.J. , author Bukovsky, M.S. , author Leung, L.R. , author Sakaguchi, K. , year 2020 . title Climate change impacts on wind power generation . journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 1 , pages 627--643 . :10.1038/s43017-020-0101-7

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    , author Behera, D.K

    author Sarkar, A. , author Behera, D.K. , year 2012 . title Wind turbine blade efficiency and power calculation with electrical analogy . journal International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications volume 2 , pages 1--5

    2012

  29. [37]

    , author Cerd\'a, E

    author Solaun, K. , author Cerd\'a, E. , year 2020 . title Impacts of climate change on wind energy power: F our wind farms in S pain . journal Renewable Energy volume 145 , pages 1306--1316 . :10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.129

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    , author Bärring, L

    author Strandberg, G. , author Bärring, L. , author Hansson, U. , author Jansson, C. , author Jones, C. , author Kjellström, E. , author Kolax, M. , author Kupiainen, M. , author Nikulin, G. , author Samuelsson, P. , author Ullerstig, A. , author Wang, S. , year 2014 . title C...

    2014

  31. [39]

    , author Knutti, R

    author Tebaldi, C. , author Knutti, R. , year 2007 . title The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections . journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences volume 365 , pages 2053--2075 . :htt...

    2007

  32. [40]

    , author Gregory, J

    author Tett, S. , author Gregory, J. , year 2022 . title Does model calibration reduce uncertainty in climate projections? journal Journal of Climate volume 35 , pages 2585--2602 . :10.1175/jcli-d-21-0434.1

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    , author Vautard, R

    author Tobin, I. , author Vautard, R. , author Balog, I. , author Bréon, F.M. , author Jerez, S. , author Ruti, P. , author Thais, F. , author Vrac, M. , author Yiou, P. , year 2014 . title Assessing climate change impacts on E uropean wind energy from ENSEMBLES high-resoluti...

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    , author Akhtar, N

    author Will, A. , author Akhtar, N. , author Brauch, J. , author Breil, M. , author Davin, E. , author Ho-Hagemann, H.T.M. , author Maisonnave, E. , author Th\"urkow, M. , author Weiher, S. , year 2017 . title The COSMO-CLM 4.8 regional climate model coupled to regional ocean,...

    2017

  35. [43]

    , author Yi, B.W

    author Yao, X. , author Yi, B.W. , author Yu, Y. , author Fan, Y. , author Zhu, L. , year 2020 . title Economic analysis of grid integration of variable solar and wind power with conventional power system . journal Applied Energy volume 264 , pages 114706 . :10.1016/j.apenergy...

    2020

  36. [44]

    , author Zhang, X

    author Yu, B. , author Zhang, X. , author Li, G. , author Yu, W. , year 2021 . title Interhemispheric asymmetry of climate change projections of boreal winter surface winds in C an ESM 5 large ensemble simulations . journal Climatic Change volume 170 . :10.1007/s10584-022-03313-2

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.