Calibration of subseasonal sea‐ice forecasts using ensemble model output statistics and observational uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In response to a growing demand for improved sea‐ice forecast guidance at shorter timescales and higher spatial resolutions, this study investigates the predictive skill of daily subseasonal sea‐ice forecasts from two state‐of‐the‐art prediction systems: SEAS5 from the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and the Global Ensemble Prediction System (GEPS) of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). Based on hindcast records from 1998–2017, we find that probabilistic forecasts of sea‐ice concentration (SIC) throughout the marginal ice zone of the Canadian Arctic in June and November are no more skillful than simple benchmark forecasts based on climatology and damped persistence. At short lead times, the lack of skill arises from overconfident ensemble spread and errors in forecast initial conditions. At longer lead times, the development of model drift also plays a role. To improve the forecasts, we develop the nonhomogeneous censored Gaussian regression for SIC (NCGR‐sic) calibration procedure, which uses the forecast ensemble mean and ensemble standard deviation (both locally and from neighboring locations) as predictors in an ensemble model output statistics framework. Importantly, NCGR‐sic incorporates observational uncertainty directly during model parameter fitting, leading to enhanced calibration. NCGR‐sic improves the spatial probability score by , on average, half of which we infer results from the removal of climatological bias and half from the improvement of forecast uncertainty. Calibrated forecasts from SEAS5 (GEPS) exceed the skill of climatology throughout the marginal ice zone over at least the first 33 (26) days in June and the first 32 (15) days in November. Generally, better skill occurs outside the Canadian Archipelago and for low‐ to mid‐range SIC compared with high SIC. While calibrated forecasts also outperform damped persistence after the first 3–10 days, we postulate that initial condition inconsistencies must be resolved in order to obtain skill at shorter timescales. Finally, the robustness of NCGR‐sic is demonstrated by effectively improving an operational forecast from June 2020.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".