Framework ranks Global Climate Models and downscales results for five Köppen-Geiger climate zones, indicating the potential for improved climate assessments.
Accurate regional climate projection calls for high-resolution downscaling of Global Climate Models (GCMs). This work presents a deep-learning-based multi-model evaluation and downscaling framework ranking 32 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models using a Deep Learning-TOPSIS (DL-TOPSIS) mechanism and refines outputs using advanced deep-learning models. Using nine performance criteria, five Köppen-Geiger climate zones-Tropical, Arid, Temperate, Continental, and Polar-are investigated over four seasons. While TaiESM1 and CMCC-CM2-SR5 show notable biases, ranking results show that NorESM2-LM, GISS-E2-1-G, and HadGEM3-GC31-LL outperform other models. Four models contribute to downscaling the top-ranked GCMs to 0.1 ∘ resolution (Vision Transformer (ViT), Geospatial Spatiotemporal Transformer with Attention and Imbalance-Aware Network (GeoSTANet), CNN-LSTM, CNN-Long Short-Term Memory (ConvLSTM)). Effectively capturing temperature extremes (TXx, TNn), GeoSTANet achieves the highest accuracy (Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) = 1.57 ∘ C, Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) = 0.89, Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) = 0.85, Correlation (r) = 0.92), so reducing RMSE by 20% over ConvLSTM. CNN-LSTM and ConvLSTM do well in Continental and Temperate zones; ViT finds fine-scale temperature fluctuations difficult. These results confirm that multi-criteria ranking improves GCM selection for regional climate studies and transformer-based downscaling exceeds conventional deep-learning methods. This framework offers a scalable method to enhance high-resolution climate projections, benefiting impact assessments and adaptation plans. The present study has the following limitations, which will be addressed in future works: (i) temperature-only focus, (ii) unquantified scenario uncertainty, and (iii) higher computational cost of transformer models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loganathan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: