Climate Dynamics

, Volume 50, Issue 7–8, pp 2719–2738 | Cite as

Grand European and Asian-Pacific multi-model seasonal forecasts: maximization of skill and of potential economical value to end-users

  • Andrea Alessandri
  • Matteo De Felice
  • Franco Catalano
  • June-Yi Lee
  • Bin Wang
  • Doo Young Lee
  • Jin-Ho Yoo
  • Antije Weisheimer
Article

Abstract

Multi-model ensembles (MMEs) are powerful tools in dynamical climate prediction as they account for the overconfidence and the uncertainties related to single-model ensembles. Previous works suggested that the potential benefit that can be expected by using a MME amplifies with the increase of the independence of the contributing Seasonal Prediction Systems. In this work we combine the two MME Seasonal Prediction Systems (SPSs) independently developed by the European (ENSEMBLES) and by the Asian-Pacific (APCC/CliPAS) communities. To this aim, all the possible multi-model combinations obtained by putting together the 5 models from ENSEMBLES and the 11 models from APCC/CliPAS have been evaluated. The grand ENSEMBLES-APCC/CliPAS MME enhances significantly the skill in predicting 2m temperature and precipitation compared to previous estimates from the contributing MMEs. Our results show that, in general, the better combinations of SPSs are obtained by mixing ENSEMBLES and APCC/CliPAS models and that only a limited number of SPSs is required to obtain the maximum performance. The number and selection of models that perform better is usually different depending on the region/phenomenon under consideration so that all models are useful in some cases. It is shown that the incremental performance contribution tends to be higher when adding one model from ENSEMBLES to APCC/CliPAS MMEs and vice versa, confirming that the benefit of using MMEs amplifies with the increase of the independence the contributing models. To verify the above results for a real world application, the Grand ENSEMBLES-APCC/CliPAS MME is used to predict retrospective energy demand over Italy as provided by TERNA (Italian Transmission System Operator) for the period 1990–2007. The results demonstrate the useful application of MME seasonal predictions for energy demand forecasting over Italy. It is shown a significant enhancement of the potential economic value of forecasting energy demand when using the better combinations from the Grand MME by comparison to the maximum value obtained from the better combinations of each of the two contributing MMEs. The above results demonstrate for the first time the potential of the Grand MME to significantly contribute in obtaining useful predictions at the seasonal time-scale.

Keywords

Seasonal climate prediction Multi-model ensembles Coupled general circulation models Energy application 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–13) under Grant 308378 (SPECS Project; http://specs-fp7.eu/) and under Grant Agreement No. 303208 (CLIMITS Project). Further support was provided to this work by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 641816 (CRESCENDO project; http://crescendoproject.eu/) and under Grant Agreement No. 704585 (PROCEED project).

References

  1. Adler RF et al (2003) The version-2 global precipitation climatology project (gpcp) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present). J Hydrometeorol 4(6):1147–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn J-B, Kim H-J (2014) Improvement of 1-month lead predictability of the wintertime ao using a realistically varying solar constant for a cgcm. Meteorol Appl 21(2):415–418. doi: 10.1002/met.1372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alessandri A, Borrelli A, Masina S, Cherchi A, Gualdi S, Navarra A, Di Pietro P, Carril AF (2010) The ingv-cmcc seasonal prediction system: improved ocean initial conditions. Mon Weather Rev 138(7):2930–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alessandri A, Borrelli A, Navarra A, Arribas A, Déqué M, Rogel P, Weisheimer A (2011a) Evaluation of probabilistic quality and value of the ENSEMBLES multi-model seasonal forecasts: comparison with DEMETER. Mon Weather Rev 139(2):581–607. doi: 10.1175/2010MWR3417.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alessandri A, Borrelli A, Navarra A, Arribas A, Déqué M, Rogel P, Weisheimer A (2011b) Evaluation of probabilistic quality and value of the ENSEMBLES multimodel seasonal forecasts: comparison with DEMETER. Mon Weather Rev 139(2):581–607. doi: 10.1175/2010MWR3417.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balmaseda M, Vidard A, Anderson D (2008) The ecmwf ora-s3 ocean analysis system. Mon Weather Rev 136(8):3018–3034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berrisford P, Dee D, Fielding K, Fuentes M, Kallberg P, Kobayashi S, Uppala S (2009) The ERA-Interim archive. ERA report series 1. Technical Report. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Shinfield Park, Reading, pp 16Google Scholar
  8. Collins W et al (2008) Evaluation of the hadgem2 model. Hadley Cent. Tech, Note, p 74Google Scholar
  9. Daget N, Weaver A, Balmaseda M (2009) Ensemble estimation of background-error variances in a three-dimensional variational data assimilation system for the global ocean. Q J R Meteorol Soc 135(641):1071–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Felice M, Alessandri A, Catalano F (2015) Seasonal climate forecasts for medium-term electricity demand forecasting. Appl Energy 137:435–444. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubus L (2010) Practices, needs and impediments in the use of weather/climate information in the electricity sector. In: Troccoli A (ed) Management of weather and climate risk in the energy industry. NATO science for peace and security series C: environmental security. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fu X, Wang B (2004) The boreal-summer intraseasonal oscillations simulated in a hybrid coupled atmosphere-ocean model. Mon Weather Rev 132(11):2628–2649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagedorn R, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Palmer TN (2005a) The rationale behind the success of multi-model ensembles in seasonal forecasting—I Basic concept. Tellus 57A:219–233Google Scholar
  14. Hagedorn R, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Palmer TN (2005) The rationale behind the success of multi-model ensembles in seasonal forecasting—I. Basic concept. Tellus Ser A Dyn Meteorol Oceanogr 57(3):219–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0870.2005.00103.x Google Scholar
  15. Jeong HI, Ashok K, Song BG, Min YM (2008) Experimental 6-month hindcast and forecast simulation using ccsm3. APCC 2008 Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeong H-I et al (2012) Assessment of the APCC coupled MME suite in predicting the distinctive climate impacts of two flavors of enso during boreal winter. Clim Dyn 39(1):475–493. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1359-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jin EK et al (2008) Current status of enso prediction skill in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. Clim Dyn 31:647. doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0397-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keenlyside N, Latif M, Botzet M, Jungclaus J, Schulzweida U (2005) A coupled method for initializing el nino southern oscillation forecasts using sea surface temperature. Tellus A 57(3):340–356Google Scholar
  19. Kirtman BP et al (2014) The north american multimodel ensemble: phase-1 seasonal-to-interannual prediction; phase-2 toward developing intraseasonal prediction. Bull Am Meteor Soc 95:585–601. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00050.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kug J-S, Kang I-S, Choi D-H (2008) Seasonal climate predictability with tier-one and tier-two prediction systems. Clim Dyn 31(4):403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee DY, Ahn J-B, Yoo J-H (2015) Enhancement of seasonal prediction of east asian summer rainfall related to western tropical pacific convection. Clim Dyn 45(3):1025–1042. doi: 10.1007/s00382-014-2343-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee J-Y, Wang B, Ding Q, Ha K-J, Ahn J-B, Kumar A, Stern B, Alves O (2011) How predictable is the northern hemisphere summer upper-tropospheric circulation? Clim Dyn 37(5):1189–1203. doi: 10.1007/s00382-010-0909-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee J-Y et al (2010) How are seasonal prediction skills related to models’ performance on mean state and annual cycle? Clim Dyn 35:267–283. doi: 10.1007/s00382-010-0857-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luo J-J, Masson S, Behera S, Shingu S, Yamagata T (2005) Seasonal climate predictability in a coupled oagcm using a different approach for ensemble forecasts. J Clim 18(21):4474–4497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mélia DS (2002) A global coupled sea ice-ocean model. Ocean Model 4(2):137–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merryfield WJ et al (2013) The Canadian seasonal to interannual prediction system. Part I: Models and initialization. Mon Weather Rev 141(8):2910–2945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Min Y-M, Kryjov VN, Oh SM (2014) Assessment of apcc multimodel ensemble prediction in seasonal climate forecasting: retrospective (19832003) and real-time forecasts (2008–2013). J Geophys Res Atmos 119(21):12132–12150. doi: 10.1002/2014JD022230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Min Y-M, Kryjov VN, Oh SM (2017) Skill of real-time operational forecasts with the apcc multi-model ensemble prediction system during the period 2008–2015. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-017-3576-2 Google Scholar
  29. Palmer T et al (2004) Development of a European Multimodel Ensemble System for Seasonal to interannual prediction (DEMETER). Bull Am Meteor Soc 85:853–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson D (2006) Predictability and economic value. In: Palmer I, Hagedorn R (eds) Predictability of weather and climate. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, pp 628–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richardson DS (2011) Economic value and skill. In: Joliffe IT, Stephenson DB (eds) Forecast verification: a practitioner’s guide in atmospheric science. Wiley, Chichester, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781119960003.ch9 Google Scholar
  32. Roebber PJ, Bosart LF (1996) The complex relationship between forecast skill and forecast value: a real-world analysis. Weather Forecast 11(4):544–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothstein B, Halbig G (2010) Weather sensitivity of electricity supply and data services of the German Met Office. In: Troccoli A (ed) Management of weather and climate risk in the energy industry. NATO science for peace and security series C: environmental security. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saha S et al (2006) The ncep climate forecast system. J Clim 19(15):3483–3517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thornes JE, Stephenson DB (2001) How to judge the quality and value of weather forecast products. Meteorol Appl 8(03):307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vintzileos A, Rienecker MM, Suarez MJ, Miller SK, Pegion PJ, Bacmeister JT (2003) Simulation of the El Nino–Southern oscillation phenomenon with NASAs seasonal-to-interannual prediction project coupled general circulation model. CLIVAR Exch 8:25–27Google Scholar
  37. Vitart F et al (2007) Dynamically-based seasonal forecasts of Atlantic tropical storm activity issued in June by eurosip. Geophys Res Lett 34(L16):815. doi: 10.1029/2007GL030740 Google Scholar
  38. Wang B et al (2008) How accurately do coupled climate models predict the leading modes of Asian-Australian monsoon interannual variability? Clim Dyn 30(6):605–619. doi: 10.1007/s00382-007-0310-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang B et al (2009) Advance and prospectus of seasonal prediction: assessment of the APCC/CLIPAS 14-model ensemble retrospective seasonal prediction (1980–2004). Clim Dyn 33(1):93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weigel A, Liniger M, Appenzeller C (2008) Can multi-model combination really enhance the prediction skill of probabilistic ensemble forecasts? QJRMS 134:241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weisheimer A et al (2009) Ensembles: a new multi-model ensemble for seasonal-to-annual predictions—-skill and progress beyond demeter in forecasting tropical pacific SSTS. Geophys Res Lett 6(21):L21711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilks DS (2011) Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences, vol 100. Academic, Burlington, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Yoo JH, Kang I-S (2005) Theoretical examination of a multi model composite. Geophys Res Lett 32(L18):707. doi: 10.1029/2005GL023513 Google Scholar
  44. Zhang S, Harrison M, Rosati A, Wittenberg A (2007) System design and evaluation of coupled ensemble data assimilation for global oceanic climate studies. Mon Weather Rev 135(10):3541–3564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhong A, Hendon HH, Alves O (2005) Indian ocean variability and its association with enso in a global coupled model. J Clim 18(17):3634–3649CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Netherlands Meteorological InstituteDe BiltThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Agenzia Nazionale per le nuove Tecnologiel’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibileRomeItaly
  3. 3.Interdisciplinary Program of Climate Sciences and IBS Center for Climate PhysicsPusan National UniversityBusanSouth Korea
  4. 4.International Pacific Research CenterHonoluluUSA
  5. 5.Barcelona Supercomputing Center-Centro Nacional de Supercomputación (BSC-CNS)BarcelonaSpain
  6. 6.Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Climate Center (APCC)BusanSouth Korea
  7. 7.European Center For Medium Range Weather ForecastsShinfieldUK

Personalised recommendations