Climate Dynamics

, Volume 39, Issue 7–8, pp 1981–1998 | Cite as

Can model weighting improve probabilistic projections of climate change?

Article

Abstract

Recently, Räisänen and co-authors proposed a weighting scheme in which the relationship between observable climate and climate change within a multi-model ensemble determines to what extent agreement with observations affects model weights in climate change projection. Within the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) dataset, this scheme slightly improved the cross-validated accuracy of deterministic projections of temperature change. Here the same scheme is applied to probabilistic temperature change projection, under the strong limiting assumption that the CMIP3 ensemble spans the actual modeling uncertainty. Cross-validation suggests that probabilistic temperature change projections may also be improved by this weighting scheme. However, the improvement relative to uniform weighting is smaller in the tail-sensitive logarithmic score than in the continuous ranked probability score. The impact of the weighting on projection of real-world twenty-first century temperature change is modest in most parts of the world. However, in some areas mainly over the high-latitude oceans, the mean of the distribution is substantially changed and/or the distribution is considerably narrowed. The weights of individual models vary strongly with location, so that a model that receives nearly zero weight in some area may still get a large weight elsewhere. Although the details of this variation are method-specific, it suggests that the relative strengths of different models may be difficult to harness by weighting schemes that use spatially uniform model weights.

Keywords

Climate change Temperature change Climate projection Probability Weighting Cross-validation CMIP3 

Supplementary material

382_2011_1217_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1.48 mb)

References

  1. Abe M, Shiogama H, Hargreaves JC, Annan JD, Nozawa T, Emori S (2009) Correlation between inter-model similarities in spatial pattern for present and projected future mean climate. SOLA 5:133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler RF, Huffman GJ, Chang A, Ferraro R, Xie P, Janowiak J, Rudolf B, Schneider U, Curtis S, Bolvin D, Gruber A, Susskind J, Arkin P (2003) The version 2 global precipitation climatology project (gpcp) monthly precipitation analysis (1979-present). J Hydrometeor 4:1147–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Candille G, Talagrand O (2005) Evaluation of probabilistic prediction systems for a scalar variable. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:2131–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dee DP, Uppala SM, Simmons AJ, Berrisford P, Poli P, Kobayashi S, Andrae U, Balmaseda MA, Balsamo G, Bauer P, Bechtold P, Beljaars ACM, van de Berg L, Bidlot J, Bormann N, Delsol C, Dragani R, Fuentes M, Geer AJ, Haimberger L, Healy SB, Hersbach H, Hólm EV, Isaksen L, Kållberg P, Köhler M, Matricardi M, McNally AP, Monge-Sanz BM, Morcrette J-J, Park B-K, Peubey C, de Rosnay P, Tavolato C, Thépaut J-N, Vitart F (2011) The ERA-interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DelSole T, Shukla J (2009) Artificial skill due to predictor sceening. J Clim 22:331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giorgi F, Mearns LO (2002) Calculation of average, uncertainty range, and reliability of regional climate changes from AOGCM simulations via the “reliability ensemble averaging” (REA) method. J Clim 15:1141–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giorgi F, Mearns LO (2003) Probability of regional climate change based on the reliability ensemble averaging (REA) method. Geophys Res Lett 30:L1629. doi:10.1029/2003GL017130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C (2008) Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res 113:D06104. doi:10.1029/2007JD008972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gneiting T, Raftery AE (2005) Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction and estimation. Technical Report 463R, Department of Statistics, University of Washington, pp 38Google Scholar
  10. Good IJ (1952) Rational decisions. J R Stat Soc B 14:107–114Google Scholar
  11. Hersbach H (2000) Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems. Weather Forecasting 15:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kistler R, Kalnay E, Collins W, Saha S, White G, Woollen J, Chelliah M, Ebisuzaki W, Kanamitsu M, Kousky V, van den Dool H, Jenne R, Fiorino M (2001) The NCEP-NCAR 50-year reanalysis: monthly means CD-ROM and documentation. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82:247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lambert SJ, Boer GJ (2001) CMIP1 evaluation and intercomparison of coupled climate models. Clim Dyn 17:83–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2007) The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: a new era in climate change research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1383–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakićenović N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Jung TY, Kram T, La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Raihi K, Roehrl A, Rogner H-H, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dadi Z (2000) Emissions scenarios. A special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 599Google Scholar
  17. Räisänen J (2007) How reliable are climate models? Tellus 59A:2–29Google Scholar
  18. Räisänen J, Palmer TN (2001) A probability and decision-model analysis of a multi-model ensemble of climate change simulations. J Clim 14:3212–3226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Räisänen J, Ruokolainen L, Ylhäisi J (2010) Weighting of model results for improving best estimates of climate change. Clim Dyn 35:407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rossow WB, Schiffer RA (1999) Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP. Bull Am Meteor Soc 80:2261–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tebaldi C, Knutti R (2007) The use of the multimodel ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 365A:2053–2075Google Scholar
  22. Uppala SM, Kållberg PW, Simmons AJ, Andrae U, da Costa Bechtold V, Fiorino M, Gibson JK, Haseler J, Hernandez A, Kelly GA, Li X, Onogi K, Saarinen S, Sokka N, Allan RP, Andersson E, Arpe K, Balmaseda MA, Beljaars ACM, van de Berg L, Bidlot J, Bormann N, Caires S, Chevallier F, Dethof A, Dragosavac M, Fisher M, Fuentes M, Hagemann S, Hólm E, Hoskins BJ, Isaksen L, Janssen PAEM, Jenne R, McNally AP, Mahfouf JF, Morcrette JJ, Rayner NA, Saunders RW, Simon P, Sterl A, Trenberth KE, Untch A, Vasiljevic D, Viterbo P, Woollen J (2005) The ERA-40 re-analysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:2961–3012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watterson IG (2008) Calculation of probability density functions for temperature and precipitation change under global warming. J Geophys Res 113:D12106. doi:10.1029/2007JD009254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Watterson IG, Whetton PH (2011) Distributions of decadal means of temperature and precipitation change under global warming. J Geophys Res 116:D07101. doi:10.1029/2010JD014502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weigel AP, Knutti R, Liniger MA, Appenzeller C (2010) Risks of model weighting in multimodel climate projections. J Clim 23:4175–4191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whetton P, Macadam I, Batholds I, O’Grady J (2007) Assessment of the use of current climate patterns to evaluate regional enhanced greenhouse response patterns of climate models. Geophys Res Lett 34:L14701. doi:10.1029/2007GL030025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu Y, Gao X, Giorgi F (2010) Upgrades to the reliability ensemble averaging method for producing probabilistic climate-change projections. Clim Change 41:61–81Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations