Seasonal Forecasting with a Simple General Circulation Model: Predictive Skill in the AO and PNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A primitive equation dry atmospheric model is used to perform ensemble seasonal predictions. The predictions are done for 51 winter seasons [December–January–February (DJF)] from 1948 to 1998. Ensembles of 24 forecasts are produced, with initial conditions of 1 December plus small perturbations. The model uses a forcing field that is calculated empirically from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP–NCAR) reanalyses. The forcing used to forecast a given winter is the sum of its winter climatological forcing plus an anomaly. The anomalous forcing is obtained as that of the month prior to the start of the forecast (November), which is also calculated from NCEP data. The predictions are thus made without using any information about the season to be predicted. The ensemble-mean predictions for the 51 winters are verified against the NCEP–NCAR reanalyses. Comparisons are made with the results obtained with a full GCM. It is found that the skill of the simple GCM is comparable in many ways to that of the full GCM. The skill in predicting the amplitude of the main patterns of Northern Hemisphere mean-seasonal variability, the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the Pacific–North American (PNA) pattern is also discussed. The simple GCM has skill not only in predicting the PNA pattern during winters with strong ENSO forcing, but it also has skill in predicting the AO in winters without appreciable ENSO forcing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".