Supermodeling: Synchronization of Alternative Dynamical Models of a Single Objective Process

  • Gregory S. DuaneEmail author
  • Wim Wiegerinck
  • Frank Selten
  • Mao-Lin Shen
  • Noel Keenlyside


Imperfect models of the same objective process give an improved representation of that process, from which they assimilate data, if they are also coupled to one another. Inter-model coupling, through nudging, or more strongly through averaging of dynamical tendencies, typically gives synchronization or partial synchronization of models and hence formation of consensus. Previous studies of supermodels of interest for weather and climate prediction are here reviewed. The scheme has been applied to a hierarchy of models, ranging from simple systems of ordinary differential equations, to models based on the quasigeostrophic approximation to geophysical fluid dynamics, to primitive-equation fluid dynamical models, and finally to state-of-the-art climate models. Evidence is reviewed to test the claim that, in nonlinear systems, the synchronized-model scheme surpasses the usual procedure of averaging model outputs.


Synchronization Data assimilation Supermodel 



Parts of the research reported here were performed under ERC Grant 648982, European Commission Grant 658602, and Dept. of Energy Grant DE-SC0005238


  1. Bak, P., C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld. 1987. Self-organized criticality: an explanation of 1/f noise. Physical Review Letters 59: 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duane, G.S. 2009. Synchronization of extended systems from internal coherence. Physical Review E 80: 015202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2013. Data assimilation as artificial perception and supermodeling as artificial consciousness. In Consensus and synchronization in complex networks, ed. Ljupco Kocarev. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2015a. Report on activities and findings under DOE grant “Collaborative research: an interactive multi-model for consensus on climate change” #DE-SC0005238.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2015b. Synchronicity from synchronized chaos. Entropy 17: 1701–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duane, G.S., and F. Selten. 2016. Supermodeling by synchronization of alternative SPEEDO models. Paper presented at EGU General Assembly, No. 15945, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  7. Duane, G.S., and J.J. Tribbia. 2004. Weak Atlantic-Pacific teleconnections as synchronized chaos. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 61: 2149–2168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duane, G.S., J. Tribbia, and B. Kirtman. 2009. Consensus on long-range prediction by adaptive synchronization of models. Paper presented at EGU General Assembly, No. 13324, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  9. Duane, G.S., J.J. Tribbia, and J.B. Weiss. 2006. Synchronicity in predictive modeling: a new view of data assimilation. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 13: 601–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duane, G.S., D.-C. Yu, and L. Kocarev. 2007. Identical synchronization, with translation invariance, implies parameter estimation. Physics Letters A 371: 416–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goosse, H., and T. Fichefet. 1999. Importance of ice-ocean interactions for the global ocean circulation: a model study. Journal of Geophysical Research 104: 23337–23355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jungclaus, J.H., N. Keenlyside, M. Botzet, H. Haak, J.-J. Luo, M. Latif, J. Marotzke, U. Mikolalewicz, and E. Roeckner. 2006. Ocean circulation and tropical variability in the coupled model ECHAM5/MPI-OM. Journal of Climate 19: 3952–3972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalnay, E. 2003. Atmospheric modeling, data assimilation, and predictability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, D., Y.-S. Yang, D.-H. Kim, Y.-H. Kim, M. Watanabe, F.-F. Jin, and J.-S. Kug. 2011. El Nino-southern oscillation sensitivity to cumulus entrainment in a coupled general circulation model. Journal of Geophysical Research 116: D22112.Google Scholar
  15. Kirtman, B.P., D. Min, P.S. Schopf, and E.K. Schneider. 2003. A new approach for coupled GCM sensitivity studies, COLA Technical Report No. 154.Google Scholar
  16. Klocke, D., R. Pincus, and J. Quaas. 2011. On constraining estimates of climate sensitivity with present-day observations through model weighting. Journal of Climate 24: 6092–6099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lorenz, E.N. 1963. Deterministic non-periodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20: 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mauritsen, T., et al. 2012. Tuning the climate of a global model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 4: M00A01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mirchev, M., G.S. Duane, W.S. Tang, and L. Kocarev. 2012. Improved modeling by coupling imperfect models. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 17: 2471–2751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelder, J.A., and R. Mead. 1965. A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal 7: 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordeng, T.-E. 1994. Extended versions of the convective parametrization scheme at ECMWF and their impact on the mean and transient activity of the model in the tropics, Technical Memorandum No. 206, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts.Google Scholar
  22. Reichler, T., and J. Kim. 2008. How well do coupled models simulate today’s climate? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89: 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Severijns, C., and W. Hazeleger. 2009. The efficient global primitive equation climate model Speedo. Geoscientific Model Development Discussion 2: 1115–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shen, M.-L., N. Keenlyside, F. Selten, W. Wiegerinck, and G.S. Duane. 2016. Dynamically combining climate models to “supermodel” the Tropical Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters 43: 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tebaldi, C., and R. Knutti. 2007. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 365: 2053–2075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tiedtke, M. 1989. A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in large-scale models. Monthly Weather Review 117: 1779–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van den Berge, L.A., F.M. Selten, W. Wiegerinck, and G.S. Duane. 2011. A multi-model ensemble method that combines imperfect models through learning. Earth System Dynamics 2: 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vautard, R., and B. Legras. 1988. On the source of mid-latitude low-frequency variability. Part II: nonlinear equilibration of weather regimes. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 45: 2845–2867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vautard, R., B. Legras, and M. Déqué. 1988. On the source of mid-latitude low frequency variability. Part I: a statistical approach to persistence. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 45: 2811–2843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wiegerinck, W., W. Burgers, and F. Selten. 2013. On the limit of large couplings and weighted averaged dynamics. In Consensus and synchronization in complex networks, ed. Ljupco Kocarev. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Yang, S.-C., D. Baker, K. Cordes, M. Huff, G. Nagpal, E. Okereke, J. Villafane, and G.S. Duane. 2004. Data assimilation as synchronization of truth and model: experiments with the three- variable Lorenz system. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 63: 2340–2354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory S. Duane
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Wim Wiegerinck
    • 3
    • 4
  • Frank Selten
    • 5
  • Mao-Lin Shen
    • 1
  • Noel Keenlyside
    • 1
  1. 1.Geophysical InstituteUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  3. 3.SNN Adaptive IntelligenceNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of BiophysicsDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)De BiltThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations