Multi-Model Forecast Quality Assessment of CMIP6 Decadal Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decadal climate predictions are a relatively new source of climate information for interannual to decadal time scales, which is of increasing interest for users. Forecast quality assessment is essential to identify windows of opportunity (e.g., variables, regions, and forecast periods) with skill that can be used to develop climate services to inform users in several sectors and define benchmarks for improvements in forecast systems. This work evaluates the quality of multi-model forecasts of near-surface air temperature, precipitation, Atlantic multidecadal variability index (AMV), and global near-surface air temperature (GSAT) anomalies generated from all the available retrospective decadal predictions contributing to phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The predictions generally show high skill in predicting temperature, AMV, and GSAT, while the skill is more limited for precipitation. Different approaches for generating a multi-model forecast are compared, finding small differences between them. The multi-model ensemble is also compared to the individual forecast systems. The best system usually provides the highest skill. However, the multi-model ensemble is a reasonable choice for not having to select the best system for each particular variable, forecast period, and region. Furthermore, the decadal predictions are compared to the historical simulations to estimate the impact of initialization. An added value is found for several ocean and land regions for temperature, AMV, and GSAT, while it is more reduced for precipitation. Moreover, the full ensemble is compared to a subensemble to measure the impact of the ensemble size. Finally, the implications of these results in a climate services context, which requires predictions issued in near–real time, are discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".