Articles | Volume 15, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3183-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3183-2022
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
19 Apr 2022
Methods for assessment of models |  | 19 Apr 2022

An ensemble-based statistical methodology to detect differences in weather and climate model executables

Christian Zeman and Christoph Schär

Related authors

Reduced floating-point precision in regional climate simulations: an ensemble-based statistical verification
Hugo Banderier, Christian Zeman, David Leutwyler, Stefan Rüdisühli, and Christoph Schär
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5573–5586, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5573-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5573-2024, 2024
Short summary
Vortex streets to the lee of Madeira in a kilometre-resolution regional climate model
Qinggang Gao, Christian Zeman, Jesus Vergara-Temprado, Daniela C. A. Lima, Peter Molnar, and Christoph Schär
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 189–211, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-189-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-189-2023, 2023
Short summary
Model intercomparison of COSMO 5.0 and IFS 45r1 at kilometer-scale grid spacing
Christian Zeman, Nils P. Wedi, Peter D. Dueben, Nikolina Ban, and Christoph Schär
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4617–4639, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4617-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4617-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
The Year of Polar Prediction site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP) phase 1: project overview and Arctic winter forecast evaluation
Jonathan J. Day, Gunilla Svensson, Barbara Casati, Taneil Uttal, Siri-Jodha Khalsa, Eric Bazile, Elena Akish, Niramson Azouz, Lara Ferrighi, Helmut Frank, Michael Gallagher, Øystein Godøy, Leslie M. Hartten, Laura X. Huang, Jareth Holt, Massimo Di Stefano, Irene Suomi, Zen Mariani, Sara Morris, Ewan O'Connor, Roberta Pirazzini, Teresa Remes, Rostislav Fadeev, Amy Solomon, Johanna Tjernström, and Mikhail Tolstykh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5511–5543, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5511-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5511-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluating CHASER V4.0 global formaldehyde (HCHO) simulations using satellite, aircraft, and ground-based remote-sensing observations
Hossain Mohammed Syedul Hoque, Kengo Sudo, Hitoshi Irie, Yanfeng He, and Md Firoz Khan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5545–5571, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5545-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5545-2024, 2024
Short summary
Global variable-resolution simulations of extreme precipitation over Henan, China, in 2021 with MPAS-Atmosphere v7.3
Zijun Liu, Li Dong, Zongxu Qiu, Xingrong Li, Huiling Yuan, Dongmei Meng, Xiaobin Qiu, Dingyuan Liang, and Yafei Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5477–5496, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5477-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5477-2024, 2024
Short summary
The CHIMERE chemistry-transport model v2023r1
Laurent Menut, Arineh Cholakian, Romain Pennel, Guillaume Siour, Sylvain Mailler, Myrto Valari, Lya Lugon, and Yann Meurdesoif
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5431–5457, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5431-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5431-2024, 2024
Short summary
tobac v1.5: introducing fast 3D tracking, splits and mergers, and other enhancements for identifying and analysing meteorological phenomena
G. Alexander Sokolowsky, Sean W. Freeman, William K. Jones, Julia Kukulies, Fabian Senf, Peter J. Marinescu, Max Heikenfeld, Kelcy N. Brunner, Eric C. Bruning, Scott M. Collis, Robert C. Jackson, Gabrielle R. Leung, Nils Pfeifer, Bhupendra A. Raut, Stephen M. Saleeby, Philip Stier, and Susan C. van den Heever
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5309–5330, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5309-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5309-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Baker, A. H., Hammerling, D. M., Levy, M. N., Xu, H., Dennis, J. M., Eaton, B. E., Edwards, J., Hannay, C., Mickelson, S. A., Neale, R. B., Nychka, D., Shollenberger, J., Tribbia, J., Vertenstein, M., and Williamson, D.: A new ensemble-based consistency test for the Community Earth System Model (pyCECT v1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2829–2840, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2829-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Baker, A. H., Hu, Y., Hammerling, D. M., Tseng, Y.-H., Xu, H., Huang, X., Bryan, F. O., and Yang, G.: Evaluating statistical consistency in the ocean model component of the Community Earth System Model (pyCECT v2.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2391–2406, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2391-2016, 2016. a, b, c, d
Baldauf, M., Seifert, A., Förstner, J., Majewski, D., Raschendorfer, M., and Reinhardt, T.: Operational Convective-Scale Numerical Weather Prediction with the COSMO Model: Description and Sensitivities, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 3887–3905, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-10-05013.1, 2011. a
Bartlett, M. S.: The Effect of Non-Normality on the t Distribution, Math. Proc. Cambridge, 31, 223–231, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100013311, 1935. a
Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956, 2015. a
Download
Short summary
Our atmosphere is a chaotic system, where even a tiny change can have a big impact. This makes it difficult to assess if small changes, such as the move to a new hardware architecture, will significantly affect a weather and climate model. We present a methodology that allows to objectively verify this. The methodology is applied to several test cases, showing a high sensitivity. Results also show that a major system update of the underlying supercomputer did not significantly affect our model.