Regression is often used to calibrate climate model forecasts with observations. Reliability is an aspect of forecast quality that refers to the degree of correspondence between forecast probabilities and observed frequencies of occurrence. While regression-corrected climate forecasts are reliable in principle, the estimated regression parameters used in practice are affected by sampling error. The low skill and small sample sizes typically encountered in climate prediction imply substantial sampling error in the estimated regression parameters. Here the reliability of regression-corrected climate forecasts is analyzed for the case of joint-Gaussian distributed ensemble forecasts and observations with regression parameters estimated by least squares. Hypothesis testing of the regression parameters provides direct information about the skill and reliability of the uncorrected ensemble-based probability forecasts. However, the regression-corrected probability forecasts with estimated parameters are systematically “overconfident” because sampling error causes a positive bias in the regression forecast signal variance, despite the fact that the estimates of the regression parameters are themselves unbiased. An analytical description of the reliability diagram of a generic regression-corrected climate forecast is derived and is shown to depend on sample size and population correlation skill, with small sample size and low skill being factors that increase overconfidence. The analytical reliability estimate is shown to capture the effect of sampling error in synthetic data experiments and in a 29-yr dataset of NOAA Climate Forecast System version 2 predictions of seasonal precipitation totals over the Americas. The impact of sampling error on the reliability of regression-corrected forecast has been previously unrecognized and affects all regression-based forecasts. The use of regression parameters estimated by shrinkage methods such as ridge regression substantially reduces overconfidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tippett et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: