Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence.
Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Updated EC-Earth results
In the computation of the EC-Earth results, we accidentally included all grid boxes and not only the land points as we intended. We redid the calculations using the land points only. This implies an update to figure 6 (given below), but it makes only a slight differences to the EC-Earth results. The comparison with the observed fit for the model evaluation is somewhat better in the dispersion parameter σ/μ and now good in the shape parameter, although the model now requires a bias correction of 18%. The increase in intensity for land points only is ΔI = 17% (11% ... 23%), compared to the ΔI = 17% (10% ... 23%) for all points. The risk ratio is a bit higher, 2.5 (1.8 ... 6.7) instead of the 2.2 (1.5 ... 4.1) reported in the article.
Figure 6. The same as figure 4, but for (a)–(c) the four EC-Earth T799 experiments and (b)–(d) the four static forcing HiFLOR experiments. For EC-Earth, the fit of the annual and spatial maximum three-day average precipitation on the US Gulf Coast to a GEV that scales with the RCP4.5 equivalent CO2 concentration. For HiFLOR, the fit is to a GEV that scales with the modelled GMST.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image
Figure 7. Synthesis of the results. (a) Intensity changes 1880–2017 for local and regional extreme three-day precipitation events along the US Gulf Coast (%). Observations are shown in blue, models in red. The magenta line is the average of the three estimates from local observations (with smaller uncertainties) and the two regional model analyses (that can only reproduce these more extreme events reliably). (b) Same for the risk ratios (changes in probability).
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image
Updated synthesis and conclusions
This changes figure 7 slightly as well, but does not affect the conclusions. The change in increase remains 15% with an uncertainty range 8%–19%. The change in risk ratio stays the same, a factor of three, but with a slightly higher uncertainty range, 1.6–6 rather than 1.5–5. This strengthens our conclusions by a negligible factor.