Characterizing the Relative Importance Assigned to Physical Variables by Climate Scientists when Assessing Atmospheric Climate Model Fidelity.
Saved in:
| Title: | Characterizing the Relative Importance Assigned to Physical Variables by Climate Scientists when Assessing Atmospheric Climate Model Fidelity. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Burrows, Susannah M.1 susannah.burrows@pnnl.gov, Dasgupta, Aritra1, Reehl, Sarah1, Bramer, Lisa1, Ma, Po-Lun1, Rasch, Philip J.1, Qian, Yun1 |
| Source: | Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. Sep2018, Vol. 35 Issue 9, p1101-1113. 13p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Modes of variability (Climatology), *Hydrologic cycle, *Atmospheric aerosols, *Watersheds |
| Geographic Terms: | Antarctic Ocean |
| Abstract: | Evaluating a climate model’s fidelity (ability to simulate observed climate) is a critical step in establishing confidence in the model’s suitability for future climate projections, and in tuning climate model parameters. Model developers use their judgement in determining which trade-offs between different aspects of model fidelity are acceptable. However, little is known about the degree of consensus in these evaluations, and whether experts use the same criteria when different scientific objectives are defined. Here, we report on results from a broad community survey studying expert assessments of the relative importance of different output variables when evaluating a global atmospheric model’s mean climate. We find that experts adjust their ratings of variable importance in response to the scientific objective, for instance, scientists rate surface wind stress as significantly more important for Southern Ocean climate than for the water cycle in the Asian watershed. There is greater consensus on the importance of certain variables (e.g., shortwave cloud forcing) than others (e.g., aerosol optical depth). We find few differences in expert consensus between respondents with greater or less climate modeling experience, and no statistically significant differences between the responses of climate model developers and users. The concise variable lists and community ratings reported here provide baseline descriptive data on current expert understanding of certain aspects of model evaluation, and can serve as a starting point for further investigation, as well as developing more sophisticated evaluation and scoring criteria with respect to specific scientific objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Database: | Energy & Power Source |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: enr DbLabel: Energy & Power Source An: 130300187 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Characterizing the Relative Importance Assigned to Physical Variables by Climate Scientists when Assessing Atmospheric Climate Model Fidelity. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrows%2C+Susannah+M%2E%22">Burrows, Susannah M.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> susannah.burrows@pnnl.gov</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dasgupta%2C+Aritra%22">Dasgupta, Aritra</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reehl%2C+Sarah%22">Reehl, Sarah</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bramer%2C+Lisa%22">Bramer, Lisa</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ma%2C+Po-Lun%22">Ma, Po-Lun</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rasch%2C+Philip+J%2E%22">Rasch, Philip J.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qian%2C+Yun%22">Qian, Yun</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Advances+in+Atmospheric+Sciences%22">Advances in Atmospheric Sciences</searchLink>. Sep2018, Vol. 35 Issue 9, p1101-1113. 13p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Modes+of+variability+%28Climatology%29%22">Modes of variability (Climatology)</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hydrologic+cycle%22">Hydrologic cycle</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Atmospheric+aerosols%22">Atmospheric aerosols</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Watersheds%22">Watersheds</searchLink> – Name: SubjectGeographic Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Antarctic+Ocean%22">Antarctic Ocean</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Evaluating a climate model’s fidelity (ability to simulate observed climate) is a critical step in establishing confidence in the model’s suitability for future climate projections, and in tuning climate model parameters. Model developers use their judgement in determining which trade-offs between different aspects of model fidelity are acceptable. However, little is known about the degree of consensus in these evaluations, and whether experts use the same criteria when different scientific objectives are defined. Here, we report on results from a broad community survey studying expert assessments of the relative importance of different output variables when evaluating a global atmospheric model’s mean climate. We find that experts adjust their ratings of variable importance in response to the scientific objective, for instance, scientists rate surface wind stress as significantly more important for Southern Ocean climate than for the water cycle in the Asian watershed. There is greater consensus on the importance of certain variables (e.g., shortwave cloud forcing) than others (e.g., aerosol optical depth). We find few differences in expert consensus between respondents with greater or less climate modeling experience, and no statistically significant differences between the responses of climate model developers and users. The concise variable lists and community ratings reported here provide baseline descriptive data on current expert understanding of certain aspects of model evaluation, and can serve as a starting point for further investigation, as well as developing more sophisticated evaluation and scoring criteria with respect to specific scientific objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=enr&AN=130300187 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s00376-018-7300-x Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 13 StartPage: 1101 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Modes of variability (Climatology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Hydrologic cycle Type: general – SubjectFull: Atmospheric aerosols Type: general – SubjectFull: Watersheds Type: general – SubjectFull: Antarctic Ocean Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Characterizing the Relative Importance Assigned to Physical Variables by Climate Scientists when Assessing Atmospheric Climate Model Fidelity. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Burrows, Susannah M. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dasgupta, Aritra – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Reehl, Sarah – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bramer, Lisa – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ma, Po-Lun – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Rasch, Philip J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Qian, Yun IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Text: Sep2018 Type: published Y: 2018 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 02561530 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 35 – Type: issue Value: 9 Titles: – TitleFull: Advances in Atmospheric Sciences Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
