Can model weighting improve probabilistic projections of climate change?
- 310 Downloads
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.
KeywordsClimate change Temperature change Climate projection Probability Weighting Cross-validation CMIP3
- 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
- Gneiting T, Raftery AE (2005) Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction and estimation. Technical Report 463R, Department of Statistics, University of Washington, pp 38Google Scholar
- Good IJ (1952) Rational decisions. J R Stat Soc B 14:107–114Google Scholar
- 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
- Räisänen J (2007) How reliable are climate models? Tellus 59A:2–29Google Scholar
- Tebaldi C, Knutti R (2007) The use of the multimodel ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 365A:2053–2075Google Scholar
- 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
- 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