Seasonal predictions based on two dynamical models

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Two dynamical models are used to perform a series of seasonal predictions. One model, referred to as GCM2, was designed as a general circulation model for climate studies, while the second one, SEF, was designed for numerical weather prediction. The seasonal predictions cover the 26‐year period 1969–1994. For each of the four seasons, ensembles of six forecasts are produced with each model, the six runs starting from initial conditions six hours apart. The sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly for the month prior to the start of the forecast is persisted through the three‐month prediction period, and added to a monthly‐varying climatological SST field. The ensemble‐mean predictions for each of the models are verified independently, and the two ensembles are blended together in two different ways: as a simple average of the two models, denoted GCMSEF, and with weights statistically determined to minimize the mean‐square error (the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate (BLUE) method). The GCMSEF winter and spring predictions show a Pacific/North American (PNA) response to a warm tropical SST anomaly. The temporal anomaly correlation between the zero‐lead GCMSEF mean‐seasonal predictions and observations of the 500‐hPa height field (Z500) shows statistically significant forecast skill over parts of the PNA area for all seasons, but there is a notable seasonal variability in the distribution of the skill. The GCMSEF predictions are more skilful than those of either model in winter, and about as skilful as the better of the two models in the other seasons. The zero‐lead surface air temperature GCMSEF forecasts over Canada are found to be skilful (a) over the west coast in all seasons except fall, (b) over most of Canada in summer, and (c) over Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec in the fall. In winter the skill of the BLUE forecasts is substantially better than that of the GCMSEF predictions, while for the other seasons the difference in skill is not statistically significant. When the Z500 forecasts are averaged over months two and three of the seasons (one‐month lead predictions), they show skill in winter over the north‐eastern Pacific, western Canada and eastern North America, a skill that comes from those years with strong SST anomalies of the El Niño/La Niña type. For the other seasons, predictions averaged over months two and three show little skill in Z500 in the mid‐latitudes. In the tropics, predictive skill is found in Z500 in all seasons when a strong SST anomaly of the El Niño/La Niña type is observed. In the absence of SST anomalies of this type, tropical forecast skill is still found over much of the tropics in months two and three of the northern hemisphere spring and summer, but not in winter and fall.