CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 710Climate variability and modelsMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsForecasting Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The rationale behind the success of multi-model ensembles in seasonal forecasting - I. Basic concept

Open access
Hagedorn, Renate, Doblas-Reyes, Francisco J., Palmer, T. N.·2005·Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography
DOI 10.3402/tellusa.v57i3.14657
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The DEMETER multi-model ensemble system is used to investigate the rationale behind the multi-model concept. A comprehensive documentation of the differences in the single and multi-model performance in the DEMETER hindcast data set is given. Both deterministic and probabilistic diagnostics are used and a variety of analyses demonstrate the improvements achieved by using multi-model instead of single-model ensembles. In order to understand the reason behind the multi-model superiority, basic scenarios describing how the multi-model approach can improve over singlemodel skill are discussed. It is demonstrated that multi-model superiority is caused not only by error compensation but in particular by its greater consistency and reliability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3402/tellusa.v57i3.14657

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hagedorn et al. (2005) showed with the ECMWF model that increasing single-model ensemble size raised skill, but the multimodel ensemble still had a slight advantage.

    “Using the ECMWF model, Hagedorn et al. (2005) demonstrated that while increasing the ensemble size of a single model did increase skill, the multimodel ensemble retained a slight advantage over the single model ensemble.”

    From Skill of Multimodel ENSO Probability Forecasts (2008) · cites this paper as Hagedorn et al. (2005)

    The passage labeled Abstract in our indexed copy says the DEMETER analyses found improvements from multi-model over single-model ensembles. It does not establish the claimed ECMWF-specific comparison, that increasing the single-model ensemble size raised skill, or that the remaining multi-model advantage was slight; searches for those details returned no relevant results passage. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Other studies have directly shown that multimodel ensemble skill improvement exceeds that from increasing single-model ensemble size.

    “Other studies have directly shown that the skill improvement of the multimodel ensemble is greater than that achieved by increasing the ensemble size of a single model (Hagedorn et al. 2005).”

    From Skill of Multimodel ENSO Probability Forecasts (2008) · cites this paper as Hagedorn et al. 2005

    The passage labeled References (page unavailable) contains text describing improved skill from multi-model rather than single-model ensembles. It does not report a direct comparison with the skill gained by increasing a single model’s ensemble size, so the claim’s specific comparison is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Equally weighted multimodel combination on average improves the reliability of climate projections.

    “The least surprising conclusion to be drawn is probably that equally weighted multimodel combination on average improves the reliability of climate projectionsa conclusion that is fully consistent with what is known from many verification studies in weather and seasonal forecasting (e.g., Hagedorn et al. 2005;Palmer et al. 2004;Weigel et al. 2008b).”

    From Risks of Model Weighting in Multimodel Climate Projections (2010) · cites this paper as Hagedorn et al. 2005

    The copy’s Abstract (indexed under References; no page given) reports improved multimodel performance in seasonal hindcasts and attributes the advantage in part to greater reliability. It does not establish that the combination was equally weighted. The sentence presents the climate-projection conclusion as the citing authors’ own; this source is cited for consistency with seasonal-forecast verification, not as a direct test of climate projections. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Differing biases among models may cancel in multimodel forecasts.

    “Conceptually, three reasons for the enhanced skill of multimodel forecasts are: (i) differing biases may cancel, (ii) the ensemble size is increased so that sampling error is reduced, and (iii) while the multimodel ensemble may have less skill than the “best” model for a particular forecast, it may not be possible to identify the best model a priori (Hagedorn et al. 2005).”

    From Skill of Multimodel ENSO Probability Forecasts (2008) · cites this paper as Hagedorn et al. 2005

    The available passage labelled References contains a cut-off description of multimodel improvements but does not reach an explanation involving bias cancellation. Searches for differing biases, systematic errors, and ensemble size returned no further substantive passages, so our copy cannot verify this specific rationale. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The best model for a particular forecast may not be identifiable a priori.

    “Conceptually, three reasons for the enhanced skill of multimodel forecasts are: (i) differing biases may cancel, (ii) the ensemble size is increased so that sampling error is reduced, and (iii) while the multimodel ensemble may have less skill than the “best” model for a particular forecast, it may not be possible to identify the best model a priori (Hagedorn et al. 2005).”

    From Skill of Multimodel ENSO Probability Forecasts (2008) · cites this paper as Hagedorn et al. 2005

    The available text discusses multimodel superiority and its consistency and reliability (Abstract, page not given), but does not address whether the best model for a particular forecast can be identified beforehand. Searches for “best model a priori,” model selection, and equivalent wording found no relevant passage; the indexed copy appears to contain only the abstract rather than the article’s main text. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Balmaseda M. A., 1995, J. Climate, 8, 2705, 10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<2705:DASDOE>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  2. Bosart L. F., 1975, Mon. Wea. Rev, 103, 1013, 10.1175/1520-0493(1975)103<1013:SERIFD>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  3. Clemen R. T., 1986, Wea. Forecasting, 1, 213, 10.1175/1520-0434(1986)001<0213:OASPPF>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  4. Doblas-Reyes F. J., 2000, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc, 126, 2069, 10.1256/smsqj.56704 · DOI
  5. Fraedrich K., 1987, Mon. Wea. Rev, 115, 1640, 10.1175/1520-0493(1987)115<1640:CPSIST>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  6. Gigerenzer, G. and Todd, P. M. 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  7. Gyalcum J. R., 1986, Wea. Forecasting, 1, 77, 10.1175/1520-0434(1986)001<0077:EITAPF>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  8. Heideman K. F., 1993, Wea. Forecasting, 8, 25, 10.1175/1520-0434(1993)008<0025:TWIASE>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  9. Jolliffe, I. T. and Stephenson, D. B. 2003. Forecast Verification: A Practitioner’s Guide in Atmospheric Science. Wiley, New York.
  10. Kharin V. V., 2002, J. Climate, 15, 793, 10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0793:CPWME>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  11. Krishnamurti T. N., 1999, Science, 285, 1548, 10.1126/science.285.5433.1548 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Kumar A., 2001, J. Climate, 14, 1671, 10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<1671:SPPVAE>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  13. Molteni F., 1996, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc, 122, 73, 10.1002/qj.49712252905 · DOI
  14. Palmer T. N., 1994, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc, 120, 755
  15. Palmer T. N., 2000, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc, 126, 1989, 10.1002/qj.49712656701 · DOI
  16. Palmer T. N., 2004, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc, 85, 853, 10.1175/BAMS-85-6-853 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Pavan V., 2000, Climate Dyn, 16, 611, 10.1007/s003820000063 · DOI
  18. Rajagopalan B., 2002, Mon. Wea. Rev, 130, 1792, 10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<1792:CCFTRA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  19. Richardson D. S., 2000, Q. J. R. MeteoroL Soc, 126, 649, 10.1002/qj.49712656313 · DOI
  20. Sanders E, 1963, J. AppL Meteorol, 2, 191, 10.1175/1520-0450(1963)002<0191:OSPF>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  21. Sanders F., 1973, Bull. Am. MeteoroL Soc, 54, 1171, 10.1175/1520-0477(1973)054<1171:SIFDTA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  22. Thompson P. D., 1977, Mon. Wea. Rev, 105, 228, 10.1175/1520-0493(1977)105<0228:HTIABC>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  23. Tracton M. S., 1993, Wea. Forecasting, 8, 379, 10.1175/1520-0434(1993)008<0379:OEPATN>2.0.CO;2 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hagedorn, R., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., & Palmer, T. N.
Affiliations
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography
Publisher
Stockholm University Press
Published
2005-01-01
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
219
ISSN
  • 0280-6495 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0870
DOI
10.3402/tellusa.v57i3.14657
OpenAlex
W2048855290
Cited by
710
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 36
FWCI
19.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Tellus A Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography (publishedVersion)
  • Tellus A Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
Keywords
multi-model ensemble, seasonal forecasting, Demeter, ensemble hindcasts, error compensation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review