Boundary-Induced Biases in Climate Networks of Extreme Precipitation and Temperature

TL;DR

This study compares two boundary correction methods in climate network analysis of extreme precipitation and temperature, revealing significant differences in network measures and seasonal spatial patterns across the CONUS.

Contribution

It is the first to statistically compare subtraction and division correction methods in climate networks, highlighting their impact on network metrics and spatial interpretations.

Findings

Network measures differ significantly between correction methods.

Seasonal shifts in EPE network hubs reflect atmospheric drivers.

CC and MGD are more sensitive to correction methods than other metrics.

Abstract

To address spatial boundary effects in climate networks, two surrogate-based correction methods, (1) subtraction and (2) division, have been widely applied in the literature. In the subtraction method, an original network measure is adjusted by subtracting the expected value obtained from a surrogate ensemble, whereas in the division method, it is normalized by dividing by this expected value. However, to the best of our knowledge, no prior study has assessed whether these two correction approaches yield statistically different results. In this study, we constructed complex networks of extreme precipitation and temperature events (EPEs and ETEs) across the CONUS for both summer (June-August, JJA) and winter (December-February, DJF) seasons. We computed key network metrics degree centrality (DC), clustering coefficient (CC), mean geographic distance (MGD), and betweenness centrality (BC) and applied both correction methods. Although the corrected spatial patterns generally appeared visually similar, statistical analyses revealed that the network measures derived from the subtraction and division methods were significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level. Across the CONUS, network hubs of EPEs were primarily concentrated in the northwestern United States during summer and shifted toward the east during winter, reflecting seasonal differences in the dominant atmospheric drivers. In contrast, the ETE networks showed strong spatial coherence and pronounced regional teleconnections in both seasons, with higher connectivity and longer synchronization distances in winter, consistent with large-scale circulation patterns such as the Pacific-North American and North Atlantic Oscillation modes. Our results indicated that the network metrics CC and MGD were more sensitive to the correction methods than the DC and BC, particularly in the EPE networks.