| description abstract | Multimodel combination is a pragmatic approach to estimating model uncertainties and to making climate projections more reliable. The simplest way of constructing a multimodel is to give one vote to each model (?equal weighting?), while more sophisticated approaches suggest applying model weights according to some measure of performance (?optimum weighting?). In this study, a simple conceptual model of climate change projections is introduced and applied to discuss the effects of model weighting in more generic terms. The results confirm that equally weighted multimodels on average outperform the single models, and that projection errors can in principle be further reduced by optimum weighting. However, this not only requires accurate knowledge of the single model skill, but the relative contributions of the joint model error and unpredictable noise also need to be known to avoid biased weights. If weights are applied that do not appropriately represent the true underlying uncertainties, weighted multimodels perform on average worse than equally weighted ones, which is a scenario that is not unlikely, given that at present there is no consensus on how skill-based weights can be obtained. Particularly when internal variability is large, more information may be lost by inappropriate weighting than could potentially be gained by optimum weighting. These results indicate that for many applications equal weighting may be the safer and more transparent way to combine models. However, also within the presented framework eliminating models from an ensemble can be justified if they are known to lack key mechanisms that are indispensable for meaningful climate projections. | |
