-
Towards reliable projections of global mean surface temperature
Authors:
Philip G. Sansom,
Donald Cummins,
Stephan Siegert,
David B. Stephenson
Abstract:
Quantifying the risk of global warming exceeding critical targets such as 2.0 K requires reliable projections of uncertainty as well as best estimates of Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST). However, uncertainty bands on GMST projections are often calculated heuristically and have several potential shortcomings. In particular, the uncertainty bands shown in IPCC plume projections of GMST are ba…
▽ More
Quantifying the risk of global warming exceeding critical targets such as 2.0 K requires reliable projections of uncertainty as well as best estimates of Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST). However, uncertainty bands on GMST projections are often calculated heuristically and have several potential shortcomings. In particular, the uncertainty bands shown in IPCC plume projections of GMST are based on the distribution of GMST anomalies from climate model runs and so are strongly determined by model characteristics with little influence from observations of the real-world. Physically motivated time-series approaches are proposed based on fitting energy balance models (EBMs) to climate model outputs and observations in order to constrain future projections. It is shown that EBMs fitted to one forcing scenario will not produce reliable projections when different forcing scenarios are applied. The errors in the EBM projections can be interpreted as arising due to a discrepancy in the effective forcing felt by the model. A simple time-series approach to correcting the projections is proposed based on learning the evolution of the forcing discrepancy so that it can be projected into the future. These approaches give reliable projections of GMST when tested in a perfect model setting, and when applied to observations lead to well constrained projections with lower mean warming and narrower projection bands than previous estimates. Despite the reduced uncertainty, the lower warming leads to a greatly reduced probability of exceeding the 2.0 K warming target.
△ Less
Submitted 20 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
-
How are emergent constraints quantifying uncertainty and what do they leave behind?
Authors:
Daniel B. Williamson,
Philip G. Sansom
Abstract:
The use of emergent constraints to quantify uncertainty for key policy relevant quantities such as Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) has become increasingly widespread in recent years. Many researchers, however, claim that emergent constraints are inappropriate or even under-report uncertainty. In this paper we contribute to this discussion by examining the emergent constraints methodology in…
▽ More
The use of emergent constraints to quantify uncertainty for key policy relevant quantities such as Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) has become increasingly widespread in recent years. Many researchers, however, claim that emergent constraints are inappropriate or even under-report uncertainty. In this paper we contribute to this discussion by examining the emergent constraints methodology in terms of its underpinning statistical assumptions. We argue that the existing frameworks are based on indefensible assumptions, then show how weakening them leads to a more transparent Bayesian framework wherein hitherto ignored sources of uncertainty, such as how reality might differ from models, can be quantified. We present a guided framework for the quantification of additional uncertainties that is linked to the confidence we can have in the underpinning physical arguments for using linear constraints. We provide a software tool for implementing our general framework for emergent constraints and use it to illustrate the framework on a number of recent emergent constraints for ECS. We find that the robustness of any constraint to additional uncertainties depends strongly on the confidence we can have in the underpinning physics, allowing a future framing of the debate over the validity of a particular constraint around the underlying physical arguments, rather than statistical assumptions.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
-
State-space modeling of intra-seasonal persistence in daily climate indices: a data-driven approach for seasonal forecasting
Authors:
Philip G. Sansom,
David B. Stephenson,
Daniel B. Williamson
Abstract:
Existing methods for diagnosing predictability in climate indices often make a number of unjustified assumptions about the climate system that can lead to misleading conclusions. We present a flexible family of state-space models capable of separating the effects of external forcing on inter-annual time scales, from long-term trends and decadal variability, short term weather noise, observational…
▽ More
Existing methods for diagnosing predictability in climate indices often make a number of unjustified assumptions about the climate system that can lead to misleading conclusions. We present a flexible family of state-space models capable of separating the effects of external forcing on inter-annual time scales, from long-term trends and decadal variability, short term weather noise, observational errors and changes in autocorrelation. Standard potential predictability models only estimate the fraction of the total variance in the index attributable to external forcing. In addition, our methodology allows us to partition individual seasonal means into forced, slow, fast and error components. Changes in the predictable signal within the season can also be estimated. The model can also be used in forecast mode to assess both intra- and inter-seasonal predictability.
We apply the proposed methodology to a North Atlantic Oscillation index for the years 1948-2017. Around 60% of the inter-annual variance in the December-January-February mean North Atlantic Oscillation is attributable to external forcing, and 8% to trends on longer time-scales. In some years, the external forcing remains relatively constant throughout the winter season, in others it changes during the season. Skillful statistical forecasts of the December-January-February mean North Atlantic Oscillation are possible from the end of November onward and predictability extends into March. Statistical forecasts of the December-January-February mean achieve a correlation with the observations of 0.48.
△ Less
Submitted 7 July, 2018;
originally announced July 2018.
-
On constraining projections of future climate using observations and simulations from multiple climate models
Authors:
Philip G. Sansom,
David B. Stephenson,
Thomas J. Bracegirdle
Abstract:
Numerical climate models are used to project future climate change due to both anthropogenic and natural causes. Differences between projections from different climate models are a major source of uncertainty about future climate. Emergent relationships shared by multiple climate models have the potential to constrain our uncertainty when combined with historical observations. We combine projectio…
▽ More
Numerical climate models are used to project future climate change due to both anthropogenic and natural causes. Differences between projections from different climate models are a major source of uncertainty about future climate. Emergent relationships shared by multiple climate models have the potential to constrain our uncertainty when combined with historical observations. We combine projections from 13 climate models with observational data to quantify the impact of emergent relationships on projections of future warming in the Arctic at the end of the 21st century. We propose a hierarchical Bayesian framework based on a coexchangeable representation of the relationship between climate models and the Earth system. We show how emergent constraints fit into the coexchangeable representation, and extend it to account for internal variability simulated by the models and natural variability in the Earth system. Our analysis shows that projected warming in some regions of the Arctic may be more than 2C lower and our uncertainty reduced by up to 30% when constrained by historical observations. A detailed theoretical comparison with existing multi-model projection frameworks is also provided. In particular, we show that projections may be biased if we do not account for internal variability in climate model predictions.
△ Less
Submitted 5 February, 2020; v1 submitted 11 November, 2017;
originally announced November 2017.
-
State space models for non-stationary intermittently coupled systems: an application to the North Atlantic Oscillation
Authors:
Philip G. Sansom,
Daniel B. Williamson,
David B. Stephenson
Abstract:
We develop Bayesian state space methods for modelling changes to the mean level or temporal correlation structure of an observed time series due to intermittent coupling with an unobserved process. Novel intervention methods are proposed to model the effect of repeated coupling as a single dynamic process. Latent time-varying autoregressive components are developed to model changes in the temporal…
▽ More
We develop Bayesian state space methods for modelling changes to the mean level or temporal correlation structure of an observed time series due to intermittent coupling with an unobserved process. Novel intervention methods are proposed to model the effect of repeated coupling as a single dynamic process. Latent time-varying autoregressive components are developed to model changes in the temporal correlation structure. Efficient filtering and smoothing methods are derived for the resulting class of models. We propose methods for quantifying the component of variance attributable to an unobserved process, the effect during individual coupling events, and the potential for skilful forecasts.
The proposed methodology is applied to the study of winter-time variability in the dominant pattern of climate variation in the northern hemisphere, the North Atlantic Oscillation. Around 70% of the inter-annual variance in the winter (Dec-Jan-Feb) mean level is attributable to an unobserved process. Skilful forecasts for winter (Dec-Jan-Feb) mean are possible from the beginning of December.
△ Less
Submitted 6 February, 2019; v1 submitted 11 November, 2017;
originally announced November 2017.
-
Parameter uncertainty in forecast recalibration
Authors:
Stefan Siegert,
Philip G. Sansom,
Robin Williams
Abstract:
Ensemble forecasts of weather and climate are subject to systematic biases in the ensemble mean and variance, leading to inaccurate estimates of the forecast mean and variance. To address these biases, ensemble forecasts are post-processed using statistical recalibration frameworks. These frameworks often specify parametric probability distributions for the verifying observations. A common choice…
▽ More
Ensemble forecasts of weather and climate are subject to systematic biases in the ensemble mean and variance, leading to inaccurate estimates of the forecast mean and variance. To address these biases, ensemble forecasts are post-processed using statistical recalibration frameworks. These frameworks often specify parametric probability distributions for the verifying observations. A common choice is the Normal distribution with mean and variance specified by linear functions of the ensemble mean and variance. The parameters of the recalibration framework are estimated from historical archives of forecasts and verifying observations. Often there are relatively few forecasts and observations available for parameter estimation, and so the fitted parameters are also subject to uncertainty. This artefact is usually ignored. This study reviews analytic results that account for parameter uncertainty in the widely used Model Output Statistics recalibration framework. The predictive bootstrap is used to approximate the parameter uncertainty by resampling in more general frameworks such as Non-homogeneous Gaussian Regression. Forecasts on daily, seasonal and annual time scales are used to demonstrate that accounting for parameter uncertainty in the recalibrated predictive distributions leads to probability forecasts that are more skilful and reliable than those in which parameter uncertainty is ignored. The improvements are attributed to more reliable tail probabilities of the recalibrated forecast distributions.
△ Less
Submitted 23 November, 2015; v1 submitted 23 September, 2015;
originally announced September 2015.
-
A Bayesian framework for verification and recalibration of ensemble forecasts: How uncertain is NAO predictability?
Authors:
Stefan Siegert,
David B. Stephenson,
Philip G. Sansom,
Adam A. Scaife,
Rosie Eade,
Alberto Arribas
Abstract:
Predictability estimates of ensemble prediction systems are uncertain due to limited numbers of past forecasts and observations. To account for such uncertainty, this paper proposes a Bayesian inferential framework that provides a simple 6-parameter representation of ensemble forecasting systems and the corresponding observations. The framework is probabilistic, and thus allows for quantifying unc…
▽ More
Predictability estimates of ensemble prediction systems are uncertain due to limited numbers of past forecasts and observations. To account for such uncertainty, this paper proposes a Bayesian inferential framework that provides a simple 6-parameter representation of ensemble forecasting systems and the corresponding observations. The framework is probabilistic, and thus allows for quantifying uncertainty in predictability measures such as correlation skill and signal-to-noise ratios. It also provides a natural way to produce recalibrated probabilistic predictions from uncalibrated ensembles forecasts. The framework is used to address important questions concerning the skill of winter hindcasts of the North Atlantic Oscillation for 1992-2011 issued by the Met Office GloSea5 climate prediction system. Although there is much uncertainty in the correlation between ensemble mean and observations, there is strong evidence of skill: the 95% credible interval of the correlation coefficient of [0.19,0.68] does not overlap zero. There is also strong evidence that the forecasts are not exchangeable with the observations: With over 99% certainty, the signal-to-noise ratio of the forecasts is smaller than the signal-to-noise ratio of the observations, which suggests that raw forecasts should not be taken as representative scenarios of the observations. Forecast recalibration is thus required, which can be coherently addressed within the proposed framework.
△ Less
Submitted 22 September, 2015; v1 submitted 8 April, 2015;
originally announced April 2015.
