MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304128255 · doi:10.3390/meteorology1040027

The Future of Climate Modelling: Weather Details, Macroweather Stochastics—Or Both?

2022· article· en· W4304128255 on OpenAlexaff
S. Lovejoy

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteorology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownscalingClimate modelStochastic modellingGeneralizationClimate changeExploitGeneral Circulation ModelScale (ratio)Computer scienceStatistical mechanicsEconometricsMeteorologyStatistical physicsMathematicsGeographyPhysicsStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the first climate models in the 1970s, algorithms and computer speeds have increased by a factor of ≈1017 allowing the simulation of more and more processes at finer and finer resolutions. Yet, the spread of the members of the multi-model ensemble (MME) of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) used in last year’s 6th IPCC Assessment Report was larger than ever: model uncertainty, in the sense of MME uncertainty, has increased. Even if the holy grail is still kilometric scale models, bigger may not be better. Why model structures that live for ≈15 min only to average them over factors of several hundred thousand in order to produce decadal climate projections? In this commentary, I argue that alongside the development of “seamless” (unique) weather-climate models that chase ever smaller—and mostly irrelevant—details, the community should seriously invest in the development of stochastic macroweather models. Such models exploit the statistical laws that are obeyed at scales longer than the lifetimes of planetary scale structures, beyond the deterministic prediction limit (≈10 days). I argue that the conventional General Circulation Models and these new macroweather models are complementary in the same way that statistical mechanics and continuum mechanics are equally valid with the method of choice determined by the application. Candidates for stochastic macroweather models are now emerging, those based on the Fractional Energy Balance Equation (FEBE) are particularly promising. The FEBE is an update and generalization of the classical Budyko–Sellers energy balance models, it respects the symmetries of scaling and energy conservation and it already allows for both state-of-the-art monthly and seasonal, interannual temperature forecasts and multidecadal projections. I demonstrate this with 21st century FEBE climate projections for global mean temperatures. Overall, the projections agree with the CMIP5 and CMIP6 multi-model ensembles and the FEBE parametric uncertainty is about half of the MME structural uncertainty. Without the FEBE, uncertainties are so large that climate policies (mitigation) are largely decoupled from climate consequences (warming) allowing policy makers too much “wiggle room”. The lower FEBE uncertainties will help overcome the current “uncertainty crisis”. Both model types are complementary, a fact demonstrated by showing that CMIP global mean temperatures can be accurately projected using such stochastic macroweather models (validating both approaches). Unsurprisingly, they can therefore be combined to produce an optimum hybrid model in which the two model types are used as copredictors: when combined, the various uncertainties are reduced even further.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteorologySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207