The effects of bias, drift, and trends in calculating anomalies for evaluating skill of seasonal-to-decadal initialized climate predictions

被引:12
|
作者
Meehl, Gerald A. [1 ]
Teng, Haiyan [2 ]
Smith, Doug [3 ]
Yeager, Stephen [1 ,7 ]
Merryfield, William [4 ]
Doblas-Reyes, Francisco [5 ,6 ]
Glanville, Anne A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Ctr Atmospher Res, Boulder, CO 80305 USA
[2] Pacific Northwest Natl Lab, Richland, WA 99352 USA
[3] Hadley Ctr, Exeter, Devon, England
[4] Environm & Climate Change Canada, Canadian Ctr Climate Modelling & Anal, Victoria, BC, Canada
[5] Inst Catalana Recerca & Estudis Avancats ICREA, Barcelona, Spain
[6] Barcelona Supercomp Ctr BSC, Barcelona, Spain
[7] Int Lab High Resolut Earth Syst Predict iHESP, College Stn, TX USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Decadal prediction; Anomaly calculation; Prediction skill; Model error; MODEL; VARIABILITY;
D O I
10.1007/s00382-022-06272-7
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
In initialized seasonal to decadal (S2D) predictions, model hindcasts rapidly drift away from the initial observed state and converge toward a preferred state characterized by systematic error, or bias. Bias and drift are among the greatest challenges facing initialized prediction today. Differences in trends between initial states and drifted states, combined with bias and drift, introduce complexities in calculating anomalies to assess skill of initialized predictions. We examine several methods of calculating anomalies using the Decadal Prediction Large Ensemble (DPLE) using the Community Earth System Model (CESM) initialized hindcasts and focus on Pacific and Atlantic SSTs to illustrate issues with anomaly calculations. Three methods of computing anomalies, one as differences from a long term model climatology, another as bias-adjusted differences from the previous 15 year average from observations, and a third as differences from the previous 15 year average from the model, are contrasted and each is shown to have limitations. For the first, trends in bias and drift introduce higher skill estimates earlier and later in the hindcast period due to the trends that contribute to skill. For the second, higher skill can be introduced in situations where low frequency variability in the observations is large compared to the hindcasts on timescales greater than 15 years, while lower skill can result if the predicted signal is small and the bias-correction itself produces a transition of SST anomalies to the opposite sign of those that are observed. The third method has somewhat lower skill compared to each of the others, but has less difficulties with not only the long term trends in the model climatology, but also with the unrealistic situational skill from using observations as a reference. However, the first 15 years of the hindcast period cannot be evaluated due to having to wait to accumulate the previous 15 year model climatology before the method can be applied. The IPO transition in the 2014-2016 time frame from negative to positive (predicted by Meehl et al. in in Nat Commun, 10.1038/NCOMMS11718, 2016) did indeed verify using all three methods, though each provides somewhat different skill values as a result of the respective limitations. There is no clear best method, as all are roughly comparable, and each has its own set of limitations and caveats. However, all three methods show generally higher overall skill in the AMO region compared to the IPO region.
引用
收藏
页码:3373 / 3389
页数:17
相关论文
共 8 条
  • [1] The effects of bias, drift, and trends in calculating anomalies for evaluating skill of seasonal-to-decadal initialized climate predictions
    Gerald A. Meehl
    Haiyan Teng
    Doug Smith
    Stephen Yeager
    William Merryfield
    Francisco Doblas-Reyes
    Anne A. Glanville
    Climate Dynamics, 2022, 59 : 3373 - 3389
  • [2] Enhancing Skill of Initialized Decadal Predictions Using a Dynamic Model of Drift
    Nadiga, Balasubramanya T.
    Verma, Tarun
    Weijer, Wilbert
    Urban, Nathan M.
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2019, 46 (16) : 9991 - 9999
  • [3] Intercomparison of initialization methods for seasonal-to-decadal climate predictions with the NorCPM
    Garcia-Oliva, Lilian
    Counillon, Francois
    Bethke, Ingo
    Keenlyside, Noel
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2024, 62 (06) : 5425 - 5444
  • [4] Do seasonal-to-decadal climate predictions underestimate the predictability of the real world?
    Eade, Rosie
    Smith, Doug
    Scaife, Adam
    Wallace, Emily
    Dunstone, Nick
    Hermanson, Leon
    Robinson, Niall
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2014, 41 (15) : 5620 - 5628
  • [5] Evaluating the Effects of Climate Change and Human Activities on the Seasonal Trends and Spatial Heterogeneity of Soil Moisture
    Zhang, Ermei
    Liu, Yujie
    Pan, Tao
    Tan, Qinghua
    Ma, Zhiang
    REMOTE SENSING, 2022, 14 (19)
  • [6] Effects of large-scale climate anomalies on trends in seasonal precipitation over the Loess Plateau of China from 1961 to 2016
    Wang, Xuhu
    Wang, Baitian
    Xu, Xianying
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2019, 107
  • [7] Evaluating skill in predicting the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation in initialized decadal climate prediction hindcasts in E3SMv1 and CESM1 using two different initialization methods and a small set of start years
    Gerald A. Meehl
    Ben Kirtman
    Anne A. Glanville
    Jadwiga Richter
    Nan Rosenbloom
    Stephen Yeager
    Climate Dynamics, 2024, 62 (2) : 1179 - 1190
  • [8] Evaluating skill in predicting the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation in initialized decadal climate prediction hindcasts in E3SMv1 and CESM1 using two different initialization methods and a small set of start years
    Meehl, Gerald A.
    Kirtman, Ben
    Glanville, Anne A.
    Richter, Jadwiga
    Rosenbloom, Nan
    Yeager, Stephen
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2024, 62 (02) : 1179 - 1190