Criteria to evaluate the validity of multi-model ensemble methods

被引:6
|
作者
Zhang, Xianliang [1 ]
Yan, Xiaodong [2 ]
机构
[1] Shenyang Agr Univ, Coll Forestry, Shenyang, Liaoning, Peoples R China
[2] Beijing Normal Univ, State Key Lab Earth Surface Proc & Resource Ecol, Beijing, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Bayesian model averaging; boundary preservation criterion; multi-model ensemble; multiple linear regression; order preservation criterion; PRECIPITATION FORECASTS; PREDICTION SKILL; CLIMATE; SIMULATIONS; COMBINATION; PROJECTIONS; RATIONALE; SUCCESS; WEATHER;
D O I
10.1002/joc.5486
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
Multi-model ensemble (MME) methods have been developed to improve upon the simulations of individual general circulation models. Their performances can be evaluated using metrics such as correlation and root-mean-square error, between the simulations and observations. However, most metrics change with the length of the calibration period, meaning the skill of MME methods in simulating future climate change is poorly known. In the present work, an order preservation criterion and a boundary preservation criterion are proposed to guarantee the reliability of MME simulations in the future. The order preservation criterion makes every model contribute a positive value to the MME simulations, while the boundary preservation criterion restricts the range of variation in the MME simulations. Four commonly used MME methods are evaluated based on these two criteria. The results show that the multiple linear regression method and singular value decomposition method are unsuitable MME methods in most situations. However, the arithmetic ensemble mean and Bayesian model averaging can be used to combine model simulations. The two criteria proposed in this study provide a simple way to evaluate the validity of MME methods.
引用
收藏
页码:3432 / 3438
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Research on multi-model ensemble machine learning methods for temperature forecasting
    Beijing Meteorological Service Centre, Beijing, China
    [J]. Proc. - Int. Conf. Comput., Inf. Process. Adv. Educ., CIPAE, (428-433):
  • [2] Model independence in multi-model ensemble prediction
    Abramowitz, Gab
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC JOURNAL, 2010, 59 : 3 - 6
  • [3] Multi-model ensemble: technique and validation
    Rozante, J. R.
    Moreira, D. S.
    Godoy, R. C. M.
    Fernandes, A. A.
    [J]. GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2014, 7 (05) : 2333 - 2343
  • [4] Multi-model ensemble wake vortex prediction
    Koerner, Stephan
    Holzaepfel, Frank
    [J]. AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING AND AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 88 (02): : 331 - 340
  • [5] Evolution of the North American Multi-Model Ensemble
    Becker, Emily
    Kirtman, Ben P.
    Pegion, Kathy
    [J]. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (09)
  • [6] Detecting anthropogenic influence with a multi-model ensemble
    Gillett, NP
    Zwiers, FW
    Weaver, AJ
    Hegerl, GC
    Allen, MR
    Stott, PA
    [J]. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2002, 29 (20)
  • [7] Performance dependence of multi-model combination methods on hydrological model calibration strategy and ensemble size
    Wan, Yongjing
    Chen, Jie
    Xu, Chong-Yu
    Xie, Ping
    Qi, Wenyan
    Li, Daiyuan
    Zhang, Shaobo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2021, 603
  • [8] Decadal prediction skill in a multi-model ensemble
    Geert Jan van Oldenborgh
    Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes
    Bert Wouters
    Wilco Hazeleger
    [J]. Climate Dynamics, 2012, 38 : 1263 - 1280
  • [9] Multi-model ensemble predictions of aviation turbulence
    Storer, Luke N.
    Gill, Philip G.
    Williams, Paul D.
    [J]. METEOROLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2019, 26 (03) : 416 - 428
  • [10] Decadal prediction skill in a multi-model ensemble
    van Oldenborgh, Geert Jan
    Doblas-Reyes, Francisco J.
    Wouters, Bert
    Hazeleger, Wilco
    [J]. CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2012, 38 (7-8) : 1263 - 1280