Interactive Ensembles of Imperfect Models: Lorenz 96 System

  • Lasko BasnarkovEmail author
  • Ljupčo Kocarev
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)


Contemporary numerical weather prediction schemes are based on ensemble forecasting. Ensemble members are obtained by taking different (perturbed) models started with different initial conditions. We introduce one type of improved model that represents interactive ensemble of individual models. The improved model’s performance is tested with the Lorenz 96 toy model. One complex model is considered as reality, while its imperfect models are taken to be structurally simpler and with lower resolution. The improved model is defined as one with tendency that is weighted average of the tendencies of individual models. The weights are calculated from past observations by minimizing the average difference between the improved model’s tendency and that of the reality. It is numerically verified that the improved model has better ability for short term prediction than any of the individual models.


Diffusive Coupling Atmospheric Model Individual Model Climate Projection Numerical Weather Prediction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was partially supported by project ERC Grant # 266722 (SUMO project).


  1. 1.
    N.A. Allgaier, K.D. Harris, C.M. Danforth, Phys. Rev. E 85, 026201 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, 2nd edn. (Springer, Heidelberg, 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Bjerknes, Dynamic Meteorology and Hydrography, Part II. Kinematics (Carnegie Institute, Gibson Bros, New York, 1911)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Bougeault et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91, 1059 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Judd, C.A. Reynolds, T.E. Rosmond, L.E. Smith, J. Atmos. Sci. 65, 1749 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.M. Lewis, Mon. Wea. Rev. 133, 1865 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.N. Lorenz, J. Atmos. Sci. 20, 130 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.N. Lorenz, in Proceedings of Seminar on Predictability, Reading, Berkshire, UK, ECMWF, 1996, p. 1Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E.N. Lorenz, J. Atmos. Sci. 62, 1574 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Mirchev, G. Duane, W. Tang, L. Kocarev, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 17, 2741–2751 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Orrell, L. Smith, J. Barkmeijer, T.N. Palmer, Nolinear Proc. Geoph. 8(6), 357 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Orrell, J. Atmos. Sci. 60, 2219 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Ott et al., Tellus A 56, 415 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Palmer, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 71 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, J. Kurths, Synchronization: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L.A. Smith, Past and present variability in the solar-terrestial system: measurement, data analysis and theoretical models, in International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, ed. by C.G. Castagnoli, A. Provenzale (Il Nuovo Cimento, Bologna, 1997), p. 177Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L.A. Smith, C. Ziehmann, K. Fraedrich, Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 125, 2855 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.A. Stainforth et al., Nature 433, 403 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L.A. van den Berge, F.M. Selten, W. Wiegerinck, G.S. Duane, Earth Syst. Dyn. 2, 161 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Wiegerinck, W. Burgers, F.M. Selten, SUMO—Supermodeling by Imperfect Models. Technical Report, Workpackage 2 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and EngineeringSaints Cyril and Methodius UniversitySkopjeMacedonia
  2. 2.Macedonian Academy of Sciences and ArtsSkopjeMacedonia

Personalised recommendations