Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Relationships between potential, attainable, and actual skill in a decadal prediction experiment

  • Published:
Climate Dynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A sequence of ensemble forecasts permits the estimation of the “predictable” and “unpredictable” components of the forecasts and hence the predictability of the system. Predictability is a feature of a physical and/or mathematical system which characterizes its “ability to be predicted” as measured, for instance, by the rate at which initially close states separate. Modern climate models may be used to predict climate evolution on seasonal to decadal timescales and they may also be used to estimate predictability. The predictability in this case measures the model’s ability to predict its own evolution and, for a well behaved climate model, this may be a useful measure of the predictability of the climate system itself. Forecast skill, where forecasts are compared to observations, indicates a forecast system’s “ability to predict” the evolution of the climate system. Common measures of skill include correlation, mean square error and mean square skill score. When the model is used to predict its own evolution, rather than the evolution of the actual climate system, the same measures of skill may be used but are then predictability measures and termed measures of “potential skill”. The expectation is that the model’s skill in predicting its own evolution will be greater than its ability to predict the actual evolution of the system in the face of observational uncertainty and model deficiencies. The further expectation is that the differences between potential and actual skill can give an indication of where and to what extent there is the potential for improvement in forecast skill. Predictability studies may be undertaken with available models but it may not be immediately obvious which statistical conditions are necessary if potential skill is to be a reasonable estimate of attainable skill. The purpose of this paper is to investigate and illustrate the spatial and temporal behaviour of the predictable and unpredictable components of surface air temperature in a decadal prediction experiment and to discuss some of the implications for predictability studies and for analyzing model behaviour. Formal relationships between potential, actual, and attainable skill are developed which, however, provide only modest constraints on model results if they are to be used to infer predictability. The results of various scalings of the forecasts on potential and actual skill and their relationship are also considered. Differences in the actual and potential forecast skill between models and/or model versions can be partitioned into components associated with known statistics as a guide to forecast improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boer GJ, Kharin VV, Merryfield WJ (2018) Differences in potential and actual skill in a decadal prediction experiment. Clim Dyn (accepted for publication)

  • Boer GJ, Lambert SJ (2008) Multi-model decadal potential predictability of precipitation and temperature. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033234

  • Boer GJ (2004) Long time-scale potential predictability in an ensemble of coupled climate models. Clim Dyn 23:29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer GJ (2009) Climate trends in a seasonal forecasting system. Atmos Ocean 47:123–138. https://doi.org/10.3137/AO1002.2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer GJ et al (2016) The decadal climate prediction project (DCPP) contribution to CMIP6. Geosci Model Dev 9:3751–3777. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer GJ, Kharin VV, Merryfield WJ (2013) Decadal predictability and forecast skill. Clim Dyn 41:1817–1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1705-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deque M (2003) Continuous variables. In: Jolliffe I, Stephenson D (eds) Forecast verification: a practitioner’s guide in atmospheric science. Wiley, Chichester, pp 97–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Doblas-Reyes FJ, Hagedorn R, Palmer TN, Morcrette JJ (2005) Impact of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in seasonal ensemble forecasts. Geophys Res Lett 33:L07708. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025061

    Google Scholar 

  • Eade R, Smith D, Scaife A, Wallace E, Dunstone N, Hermanson L, Robinson N (2014) Do seasonal-to- decadal climate predictions under- estimate the predictability of the real world? Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061146

  • Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl G, Senior C, Stevens B, Stouffer R, Taylor K (2016) Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev 9:1937–1958. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng X, DelSole T, Houser P (2013) Comparison of statistical estimates of potential seasonal predictability. J Geophys Res Atmos. 118:6002–6016. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flato G et al (2013) Evaluation of climate models. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climatechange. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann DL et al (2013) Observations: Atmosphere and Surface. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolliffe I, Stephenson D (eds) (2003) Forecast verification: a practitioner’s guide in atmospheric science. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Kharin VV, Teng Q, Zwiers FW, Boer GJ, Derome J, Fontecilla JF (2009) Skill assessment of seasonal hindcasts from the Canadian historical forecast project. Atmos Ocean 47:204–223. https://doi.org/10.3137/AO1101.2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kharin VV, Merryfield WJ, Boer GJ, Lee WS (2017) A post-processing method for seasonal forecasts using temporally and spatially smoothed statistics. Mon Weather Rev 145:3545–3561. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0337.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Peng P, Chen M (2014) Is there a relationship between potential and actual skill? Mon Weather Rev 142:2220–2227. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00287.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mailier PJ, Jolliffe IT, Stephenson DB (2006) Quality of weather forecasts: review and recommendations. Royal Meteorological Society Project Report, p 89

  • Merryfield WJ et al (2013) The Canadian seasonal to interannual prediction system. Part I: models and initialization. Mon Weather Rev 141:2910–2945. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00216.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (U.S.) (2010) Assessment of intraseasonal to interannual climate prediction and predictability. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer TN, Buizza R, Hagedorn R, Lawrence A, Leutbecher M, Smith L (2006) Ensemble prediction: a pedagogical perspective. ECMWF Newslett 106:10–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohlmann H, Botzet M, Latif M, Rioesch A, Wild M, Schuck P (2004) Estimating the decadal predictability of a coupled AOGCM. J Clim 17:4463–4472. https://doi.org/10.1175/3209.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaife AA et al (2014) Skillful long-range prediction of European and North American winters. Geophys Res Lett 41:2514–2519. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale TN, Molteni F, Ferranti L (2015) Atmospheric initial conditions and the predictability of the Arctic Oscillation. Geophys Res Lett 42:1173–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch vH, Zwiers FW (1999) Statistical analysis in climate research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Toth Z, Talagrand O, Candille G, Zhu Y, (2003) Chapter 7, Probability and ensemble forecasts. In: Forecast verification: a practitioner’s guide in atmospheric science. Wiley, Chichester, p 240

  • Weisheimer A, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Palmer TN, Alessandri A, Arribas A, Deque M, Keenlyside N, MacVean M, Navarra A, Rogel P (2009) ENSEMBLES—a new multi-model ensemble for seasonal-to-annual predictions: skill and progress beyond DEMETER in forecasting tropical Pacific SST. Geophys Res Lett 36:L21711. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040896

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are pleased to acknowledge the important contributions of many members of the CCCma team in the development of the model and the forecasting system that has led to this investigation and to Woo-Sung Lee for her contribution in producing the forecasts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. J. Boer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boer, G.J., Merryfield, W.J. & Kharin, V.V. Relationships between potential, attainable, and actual skill in a decadal prediction experiment. Clim Dyn 52, 4813–4831 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4417-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4417-7

Keywords

Navigation