Seasonal forecast skill of Arctic sea ice area in a dynamical forecast system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We assess the seasonal forecast skill of pan‐Arctic sea ice area in a dynamical forecast system that includes interactive atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice components. Forecast skill is quantified by the correlation skill score computed from 12 month ensemble forecasts initialized in each month between January 1979 to December 2009. We find that forecast skill is substantial for all lead times and predicted seasons except spring but is mainly due to the strong downward trend in observations for lead times of about 4 months and longer. Skill is higher when evaluated against an observation‐based dataset with larger trends. The forecast skill when linear trends are removed from the forecasts and verifying observations is small and generally not statistically significant at lead times greater than 2 to 3 months, except for January/February when forecast skill is moderately high up to an 11 month lead time. For short lead times, high trend‐independent forecast skill is found for October, while low skill is found for November/December. This is consistent with the seasonal variation of observed lag correlations. For most predicted months and lead times, trend‐independent forecast skill exceeds that of an anomaly persistence forecast, highlighting the potential for dynamical forecast systems to provide valuable seasonal predictions of Arctic sea ice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".