the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Seamless seasonal to multi-annual predictions of temperature and standardized precipitation index by constraining transient climate model simulations
Abstract. Seamless climate predictions integrate forecasts across various timescales to provide actionable information in sectors such as agriculture, energy, and public health. While significant progress has been made, there is still a gap in the continuous provision of operational forecasts, particularly from seasonal to multi-annual time scales. We demonstrate that filling this gap is possible using an established climate model analog method to constrain variability in CMIP6 climate simulations. The analog method yields predictive skill for surface air temperature forecasts across timescales, ranging from seasons to several years, consistently outperforming the unconstrained CMIP6 ensemble. Similar to operational climate prediction systems, standardized precipitation index forecasts are less skillful than surface air temperature forecasts, but still systematically better than the CMIP6 unconstrained simulations. The analog-based seamless prediction system is competitive compared to state-of-the art initialised climate prediction systems that currently provide forecasts for specific time scales, such as seasonal and multi-annual. While the current prediction systems provide only 1–2 initialisations per year, the analog-based system can easily provide seamless predictions with monthly initialisations, delivering seamless climate information throughout the year currently not available from traditional seasonal or decadal prediction systems. Furthermore, due to analog-based predictions being computationally inexpensive, we argue that these methods are a valuable and viable complement to existing operational prediction systems.
- Preprint
(3541 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(493 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 29 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-319', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Feb 2025
reply
MAJOR
L21: Given the lower skill of the analogs (e.g. Fig.1 and 2) but that they are potentially very useful as a tool for making seamless predictions, I think the abstract should make it clear that the skill is lower rather than ‘competititve’.
L120: This presumably results in all members having the same trend? If so, this needs a little discussion in the text with pros and cons as you are losing the individual model response to forcing and replacing it with the multimodel mean. Does this also reduce the variance in the ensemble?
L146: Also on trends. The reference forecast R is stated to be a trivial climatological forecast but what does this mean? Is it a constant climatological value for each variable? Why not use a linear trend for Ts? This would seem like a fairer test.
L160: Is it fair to compare ensembles of different sizes? There is plenty of literature on this point and all scores should either be calculated for the same ensemble size or corrected for ensemble size to make them equivalent. Even if large ensembles of analog forecasts are easy to generate this is important for the comparison and understanding the relative merits of the methods.
L170-175, Fig2 and 3, L375: While I am sure readers will be open-minded to this method of forecasting this passage feels somewhat biased in favour of the analog method. The dynamical seasonal forecasts have a better correlation. This discussion needs to be rephrased and a panel of the difference in correlation scores is also needed, perhaps in place of the current panel 1b and panel 3b.
Fig.4 and Fig.11: I think it is important that these metrics are changed to the average correlation skill over land where it is significant, rather than just the area that is significant because the current metric does not reflect the higher skill of SEAS5 in many regions and this is important for the value of the forecasts.
L250: in fact all the indices are of weak amplitude (even Nino3.4) so this needs to be stated with some comments about the ability to recalibrate the amplitude.
Fig.6: The analogs are clearly more competitive on this longer timescale and the striking similarity with the dynamical model is impressive, at least with EC-EARTH. However, I am not convinced EC EARTH is the best decadal prediction system. Does this result hold for other models? Either way, I think the abstract should reflect the benefit of analogs may be greater for the longer timescales.
Fig.8e: Presumably this result comes from the fact that the analogs can be selected from any year? Does it improve if the analogues have to be selected e.g. from the same decade as the target? Or is this already accounted for by the removal and replacement of the forced trend?
MINOR
L52: ‘is meant to constitute a pool…’ of course it does not always achieve this
L55: the number is not very small as it is now over 10 on subseasonal, seasonal and decadal scales. See for example Kumar et al, 2024, BAMS. Suggest to say “limited number”
L64: ‘…of a more sophisticated’
L64: it is stated earlier that models drift to their own climatology and that this reduces skill. However L64 states that the analog method is not subject to drift because the model is in its own climate. This seems very one sided in favour of the analog approach and so it needs to be rephrased.
L70 Kushnir et al., 2019, Nat. C.C. is an important missing reference on the operationalisation of decadal predictions.
L80-85: please state the total sample size (in years), is it really greater than the decadal hindcast size?
L104: constraint
L215: there is a long literature on Sahel forecasts so please add some references here.
Fig.10: please reduce the vertical scale to better show the variability.
L340: Smith et al 2018 specifically examined the ability of GCMs to predict global temperature: Smith et al, 2018. Predicted chance that global warming will temporarily exceed 1.5C. Geophys. Res. Lett.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-319-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
96 | 30 | 6 | 132 | 14 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 96
- PDF: 30
- XML: 6
- Total: 132
- Supplement: 14
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 52 | 39 |
China | 2 | 17 | 12 |
Germany | 3 | 10 | 7 |
Spain | 4 | 10 | 7 |
Italy | 5 | 8 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 52