On the Correspondence between Seasonal Forecast Biases and Long-Term Climate Biases in Sea Surface Temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The correspondence between mean sea surface temperature (SST) biases in retrospective seasonal forecasts (hindcasts) and long-term climate simulations from five global climate models is examined to diagnose the degree to which systematic SST biases develop on seasonal time scales. The hindcasts are from the North American Multimodel Ensemble, and the climate simulations are from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The analysis suggests that most robust climatological SST biases begin to form within 6 months of a realistically initialized integration, although the growth rate varies with location, time, and model. In regions with large biases, interannual variability and ensemble spread is much smaller than the climatological bias. Additional ensemble hindcasts of the Community Earth System Model with a different initialization method suggest that initial conditions do matter for the initial bias growth, but the overall global bias patterns are similar after 6 months. A hindcast approach is more suitable to study biases over the tropics and subtropics than over the extratropics because of smaller initial biases and faster bias growth. The rapid emergence of SST biases makes it likely that fast processes with time scales shorter than the seasonal time scales in the atmosphere and upper ocean are responsible for a substantial part of the climatological SST biases. Studying the growth of biases may provide important clues to the causes and ultimately the amelioration of these biases. Further, initialized seasonal hindcasts can profitably be used in the development of high-resolution coupled ocean–atmosphere models.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".