IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/wirecc/v1y2010i4p556-564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Skill and uncertainty in climate models

Author

Listed:
  • Julia C. Hargreaves

Abstract

Analyses of skill are widely used for assessing weather predictions, but the time scale and lack of validation data mean that it is not generally possible to investigate the predictive skill of today's climate models on the multidecadal time scale. The predictions made with early climate models can, however, be analyzed, and here we show that one such forecast did have skill. It seems reasonable to expect that predictions based on today's more advanced models will be at least as skillful. In general, assessments of predictions based on today's climate models should use Bayesian methods, in which the inevitable subjective decisions are made explicit. For the AR4, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended the Bayesian paradigm for making estimates of uncertainty and probabilistic statements, and here we analyze the way in which uncertainty was actually addressed in the report. Analysis of the ensemble of general circulation models (GCMs) used in the last IPCC report suggests there is little evidence to support the popular notion that the multimodel ensemble is underdispersive, which would imply that the spread of the ensemble may be a reasonable starting point for estimating uncertainty. It is important that the field of uncertainty estimation is developed in order that the best use is made of current scientific knowledge in making predictions of future climate. At the same time, it is only by better understanding the processes and inclusion of these processes in the models, the best estimates of future climate will be closer to the truth. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This article is categorized under: Climate Models and Modeling > Knowledge Generation with Models

Suggested Citation

  • Julia C. Hargreaves, 2010. "Skill and uncertainty in climate models," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 556-564, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:1:y:2010:i:4:p:556-564
    DOI: 10.1002/wcc.58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.58
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wcc.58?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Frank, 2015. "Negligence, Non-Science, and Consensus Climatology," Energy & Environment, , vol. 26(3), pages 391-415, April.
    2. M. Bermúdez & L. Cea & E. Van Uytven & P. Willems & J.F. Farfán & J. Puertas, 2020. "A Robust Method to Update Local River Inundation Maps Using Global Climate Model Output and Weather Typing Based Statistical Downscaling," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(14), pages 4345-4362, November.
    3. Rattana Chhin & Chantha Oeurng & Shigeo Yoden, 2020. "Drought projection in the Indochina Region based on the optimal ensemble subset of CMIP5 models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 687-705, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:1:y:2010:i:4:p:556-564. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1757-7799 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.