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 individual models. Generally, CMIP6 depicts improved performance in the simulation of MAM rainfall compared with CMIP5 models. However, the new model generation is still marred by uncertainty, thereby depicting unsatisfactory performance over the East Africa domain. This calls for further investigation into the sources of persistent systematic biases and a methodology for identifying individual models with robust features that can accurately simulate observed patterns for future usage.

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.

This paper presents an analysis of projected precipitation extremes over the East African region. The study employs six indices defined by the Expert Team on Climate Change Detection Indices to evaluate extreme precipitation. Observed datasets and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase six (CMIP6) simulations are employed to assess the changes during the two main rainfall seasons: March to May (MAM) and October to December (OND). The results show an increase in consecutive dry days (CDD) and decrease in consecutive wet days (CWD) towards the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to the baseline period (1995–2014) in both seasons. Moreover, simple daily intensity (SDII), very wet days (R95 p), very heavy precipitation >20 mm (R20 mm), and total wet-day precipitation (PRCPTOT) demonstrate significant changes during OND compared to the MAM season. The spatial variation for extreme incidences shows likely intensification over Uganda and most parts of Kenya, while a reduction is observed over the Tanzania region. The increase in projected extremes may pose a serious threat to the sustainability of societal infrastructure and ecosystem wellbeing. The results from these analyses present an opportunity to understand the emergence of extreme events and the capability of model outputs from CMIP6 in estimating the projected changes. More studies are recommended to examine the underlying physical features modulating the occurrence of extreme incidences projected for relevant policies.

This study employed 15 CMIP6 GCMs and evaluated their ability to simulate rainfall over Uganda during 1981–2014. The models and the ensemble mean were assessed based on the ability to reproduce the annual climatology, seasonal rainfall distribution and trend. Statistical metrics used include mean bias error, normalized 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) 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 inter‐annually. 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, CanESM5, CESM2‐WACCM, MRI‐ESM2‐0, NorESM2‐LM, UKESM1‐0‐LL, and CNRM‐CM6‐1. The models CNRM‐CM6‐1, and CNRM‐ESM2 underestimated rainfall throughout the annual cycle and mean climatology. However, these two models better reproduced the spatial trends of rainfall during both MAM and SON. Caution should be taken when employing the models in seasonal climate change studies as their performance varies from one season to another. The model spread in CMIP6 over the study area also calls for further investigation on the attributions and possible implementation of robust approaches of machine learning to minimize the biases.

This study uses the quantile mapping bias correction (QMBC) method to correct the bias in five regional climate models (RCMs) from the latest output of the Rossby Center Climate Regional Model (RCA4) over Kenya. The outputs were validated using various scalar metrics such as root-mean-square difference (RMSD), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean bias. The study found that the QMBC algorithm demonstrates varying performance among the models in the study domain. The results show that most of the models exhibit reasonable improvement after corrections at seasonal and annual timescales. Specifically, the European Community Earth-System (EC-EARTH) and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) models depict remarkable improvement as compared to other models. On the contrary, the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace Model CM5A-MR (IPSL-CM5A-MR) model shows little improvement across the rainfall seasons (i.e., March–May (MAM) and October–December (OND)). The projections forced with bias-corrected historical simulations tallied observed values demonstrate satisfactory simulations as compared to the uncorrected RCMs output models. This study has demonstrated that using QMBC on outputs from RCA4 is an important intermediate step to improve climate data before performing any regional impact analysis. The corrected models may be used in projections of drought and flood extreme events over the study area.