This study examines the improvement in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase Six (CMIP6) models against the predecessor CMIP5 in simulating mean and extreme precipitation over the East Africa region. The study compares the climatology of the precipitation indices simulated by the CMIP models with the CHIRPS data set using robust statistical techniques for 1981-2005. The results display the varying performance of the general circulation models (GCMs) in the simulation of annual and seasonal precipitation climatology over the study domain. CMIP6 multi-model ensemble mean (hereafter MME) shows improved performance in the local annual mean cycle simulation with a better representation of the rainfall within the two peaks, especially the MAM rainfall relative to their predecessor. Moreover, simulation of extreme indices is well captured in CMIP6 models relative to CMIP5. The CMIP6-MME performed better than the CMIP5-MME with lesser biases in simulating Simple Daily Intensity Index (SDII), consecutive dry days (CDD), and very heavy precipitation days >20 mm (R20mm) over East Africa. Remarkably, most CMIP6 models are unable to simulate extremely wet days (R95p). Some CMIP6 models (e.g., NorESM2-MM and CNRM-CM6-1) depict robust performance in reproducing the observed indices across all analyses. OND season shows wet biases for some indices (i.e., R95p, PRCPTOT), except for SDII, CDD, and R20mm in CMIP6 models. Consistent with other studies, the mean ensemble performance for both CMIP5/6 shows better performance as compared with individual models due to the cancellation of some systematic errors in the

This study employed 15 CMIP6 GCMs and evaluated their ability to simulate rainfall over Uganda during 1981-2019. The models and the ensemble mean were assessed based on the ability to reproduce the annual climatologyseasonal rainfall distribution, trend, and statistical metrics, including mean bias error, root mean square error, and pattern correlation coefficient.The Taylor diagram and Taylor skill score (TSS) were used in ranking the models. The models performance varies greatly from one season to the other. The models reproduced the observed bimodal rainfall pattern of March to May (MAM) and September to November (SON) rains occurring over the region. Some models slightly overestimated, while some slightly underestimated, the MAM rainfall. However, there was a high rainfall overestimation during SON by most models. The models showed a positive spatial correlation with observed dataset, whereas a low correlation was shown interannually. Some models could not capture the rainfall patterns around local-scale features, for example, around the Lake Victoria basin and mountainous areas. The best performing models identified in the study include GFDL-ESM4, BCC-CMC-MR, IPSL-CM6A-LR, CanESM5, GDFL-CM4-gr1, and GFDL-CM4-gr2. The models CNRM-CM6-1 and CNRM-ESM2 underestimated rainfall throughout the annual cycle

This study examines the improvement in coupled intercomparison project phase six (CMIP6) models against the predecessor CMIP5 in simulating mean and extreme precipitation over the East Africa region. The study compares the climatology of the precipitation indices simulated by the CMIP models with the CHIRPS dataset using robust statistical techniques for 1981 – 2005. The results display the varying performance of the general circulation models (GCMs) in the simulation of annual and seasonal precipitation climatology over the study domain. CMIP6-MME shows improved performance in the local annual mean cycle simulation with a better representation of two peaks, especially the MAM rainfall relative to its predecessor. Moreover, simulation of extreme indices is well captured in CMIP6 models relative to its predecessor. The CMIP6-MME performed better than the CMIP5-MME with lesser biases in simulating SDII, CDD, and R20mm over East Africa. Remarkably, most CMIP6 models are unable to simulate extremely wet days (R95p). A few CMIP6 models (e.g., NorESM2-MM and CNRM-CM6-1) depicts robust performance in reproducing the observed indices across all analyses. Conversely, OND season shows the overestimation of some indices (i.e., R95p, PRCPTOT), except for SDII, CDD, and R20mm. Consistent with other studies, the mean ensemble performance for both CMIP5/6 shows better performance due to the cancellation of some systematic errors in the individual models. Generally, the CMIP6 depicts improved performance in the simulation of MAM season akin CMIP5 models. However, the new model generation is still marred with uncertainty, thereby depicting substandard performance over the East Africa domain. This calls for further investigation of attribution studies into the sources of persistent systematic biases and a prerequisite for identifying individual models with robust features that can accurately simulate observed patterns for future usage.

This study evaluates the historical mean surface temperature (hereafter T2m) and examines how T2m changes over East Africa (EA) in the 21 st century using CMIP6 models. An evaluation was conducted based on mean state, trends, and statistical metrics (Bias, Correlation Coefficient, Root Mean Square Difference, and Taylor skill score). For future projections over EA, five best performing CMIP6 models (based on their performance ranking in historical mean temperature

This study assesses the performance of historical rainfall data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) in reproducing the spatial and temporal rainfall variability over North Africa. Datasets from Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) are used as proxy to observational datasets to examine the capability of 15 CMIP6 models’ and their ensemble in simulating rainfall during 1951–2014. In addition, robust statistical metrics, empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF), Taylor diagram (TD), and Taylor skill score (TSS) are utilized to assess models’ performance in reproducing annual and seasonal and monthly rainfall over the study domain. Results show that CMIP6 models satisfactorily reproduce mean annual climatology of dry/wet months. However, some models show a slight over/under estimation across dry/wet months. The models’ overall top ranking from all the performance analyses ranging from mean cycle simulation, trend analysis, inter-annual variability, ECDFs, and statistical metrics are as follows: EC-Earth3-Veg, UKESM1-0-LL, GFDL-CM4, NorESM2-LM, IPSL-CM6A-LR, and GFDL-ESM4. The mean model ensemble outperformed the individual CMIP6 models resulting in a TSS ratio (0.79). For future impact studies over the study domain, it is advisable to employ the multi-model ensemble of the best performing models.