Tests of sunspot number sequences: 3. Effects of regression procedures on the calibration of historic sunspot data

We use sunspot group observations from the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) to investigate the effects of intercalibrating data from observers with different visual acuities. The tests are made by counting the number of groups RB above a variable cut-off threshold of observed total whole-spot area (uncorrected for foreshortening) to simulate what a lower acuity observer would have seen. The synthesised annual means of RB are then re-scaled to the full observed RGO group number RA using a variety of regression techniques. It is found that a very high correlation between RA and RB (rAB > 0.98) does not prevent large errors in the intercalibration (for example sunspot maximum values can be over 30 % too large even for such levels of rAB). In generating the backbone sunspot number (RBB), Svalgaard and Schatten (2015, this issue) force regression fits to pass through the scatter plot origin which generates unreliable fits (the residuals do not form a normal distribution) and causes sunspot cycle amplitudes to be exaggerated in the intercalibrated data. It is demonstrated that the use of Quantile-Quantile (“Q  Q”) plots to test for a normal distribution is a useful indicator of erroneous and misleading regression fits. Ordinary least squares linear fits, not forced to pass through the origin, are sometimes reliable (although the optimum method used is shown to be different when matching peak and average sunspot group numbers). However, other fits are only reliable if non-linear regression is used. From these results it is entirely possible that the inflation of solar cycle amplitudes in the backbone group sunspot number as one goes back in time, relative to related solar-terrestrial parameters, is entirely caused by the use of inappropriate and non-robust regression techniques to calibrate the sunspot data.

A global empirical system for probabilistic seasonal climate prediction

Preparing for episodes with risks of anomalous weather a month to a year ahead is an important challenge for governments, non-governmental organisations, and private companies and is dependent on the availability of reliable forecasts. The majority of operational seasonal forecasts are made using process-based dynamical models, which are complex, computationally challenging and prone to biases. Empirical forecast approaches built on statistical models to represent physical processes offer an alternative to dynamical systems and can provide either a benchmark for comparison or independent supplementary forecasts. Here, we present a simple empirical system based on multiple linear regression for producing probabilistic forecasts of seasonal surface air temperature and precipitation across the globe. The global CO2-equivalent concentration is taken as the primary predictor; subsequent predictors, including large-scale modes of variability in the climate system and local-scale information, are selected on the basis of their physical relationship with the predictand. The focus given to the climate change signal as a source of skill and the probabilistic nature of the forecasts produced constitute a novel approach to global empirical prediction. Hindcasts for the period 1961–2013 are validated against observations using deterministic (correlation of seasonal means) and probabilistic (continuous rank probability skill scores) metrics. Good skill is found in many regions, particularly for surface air temperature and most notably in much of Europe during the spring and summer seasons. For precipitation, skill is generally limited to regions with known El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) teleconnections. The system is used in a quasi-operational framework to generate empirical seasonal forecasts on a monthly basis.