The sample Taylor diagram shown in Figure 1^[15] provides a summary of the relative skill with which several global climate models simulate the spatial pattern of annual mean precipitation. Eight models, each represented by a different letter on the diagram, are compared, and the distance between each model and the point labeled “observed” is a measure of how realistically each model reproduces observations. For each model, three statistics are plotted: the Pearson correlation coefficient (gauging similarity in pattern between the simulated and observed fields) is related to the azimuthal angle (blue contours); the centered RMS error in the simulated field is proportional to the distance from the point on the x-axis identified as “observed” (green contours); and the standard deviation of the simulated pattern is proportional to the radial distance from the origin (black contours). It is evident from this diagram, for example, that for Model F the correlation coefficient is about 0.65, the RMS error is about 2.6 mm/day and the standard deviation is about 3.3 mm/day. Model F's standard deviation is clearly greater than the standard deviation of the observed field (indicated by the dashed contour at radial distance 2.9 mm/day).

The relative merits of various models can be inferred from Figure 1. Simulated patterns that agree well with observations will lie nearest the point marked "observed" on the x-axis. These models have relatively high correlation and low RMS errors. Models lying on the dashed arc have the correct standard deviation (which indicates that the pattern variations are of the right amplitude). In Figure 1 it can be seen that models A and C generally agree best with observations, each with about the same RMS error. Model A, however, has a slightly higher correlation with observations and has the same standard deviation as the observed, whereas model C has too little spatial variability (with a standard deviation of 2.3 mm/day compared to the observed value of 2.9 mm/day). Of the poorer performing models, model E has a low pattern correlation, while model D has variations that are much larger than observed, in both cases resulting in a relatively large (~3 mm/day) centered RMS error in the precipitation fields. Although models D and B have about the same correlation with observations, model B simulates the amplitude of the variations (i.e., the standard deviation) much better than model D, resulting in a smaller RMS error.

Taylor diagrams display statistics useful for assessing the similarity of a variable simulated by a model (more generally, the “test” field) to its observed counterpart (more generally, the “reference” field). Mathematically, the three statistics displayed on a Taylor diagram are related by the error propagation formula (which can be derived directly from the definition of the statistics appearing in it):

${\displaystyle E^{\prime 2}=\sigma _{\Delta }^{2}=\sigma _{r}^{2}+\sigma _{t}^{2}-2\sigma _{r}\sigma _{t}\rho }$ ,

where ρ is the correlation coefficient between the test and reference fields, E′ is the centered RMS difference between the fields (with any difference in the means first removed), and ${\displaystyle \sigma _{r}}$  and ${\displaystyle \sigma _{t}}$  are the standard deviations of the reference and test fields, respectively. The law of cosines,

${\displaystyle c^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}-2ab\cos \phi ,}$ 

(where a, b, and c are the length of the sides of the triangle, and ${\displaystyle \phi }$  is the angle between sides a and b) provides the key to forming the geometrical relationship between the four quantities that underlie the Taylor diagram (shown in Figure 2).

The standard deviation of the observed field ${\displaystyle (\sigma _{r})}$  is side a, the standard deviation of the test field ${\displaystyle (\sigma _{t})}$  is side b, the centered RMS difference between the two fields (E′) is side c, and the cosine of the angle between sides a and b is the correlation coefficient (ρ).

The means of the fields are subtracted out before computing their second-order statistics, so the diagram does not provide information about overall biases (mean error), but solely characterizes the centered pattern error.

Among the several minor variations on the diagram that have been suggested are (see, Taylor, 2001^[1]):

• extension to a second "quadrant" (to the left of the quadrant shown in Figure 1) to accommodate negative correlations;
• normalization of dimensional quantities (dividing both the RMS difference and the standard deviation of the "test" field by the standard deviation of the observations) so that the "observed" point is plotted at unit distance from the origin along the x-axis, and statistics for different fields (with different units) can be shown in a single plot;
• omission of the isolines on the diagram to make it easier to see the plotted points;
• use of an arrow to connect two related points on the diagram. For example, an arrow can be drawn from the point representing an older version of a model to a newer version, which makes it easier to indicate more clearly whether or not the model is moving toward "truth," as defined by observations.

One of the main limitation of the Taylor diagram is the absence of explicit information about the prediction bias. A variant of the Taylor diagram that accounts for the prediction bias is provided by the solar diagram (see, Wadoux et al., 2022^[16]).