Abstract
AbstractParameterization and parameter tuning are central aspects of climate modeling, and there is widespread consensus that these procedures involve certain subjective elements. Even if the use of these subjective elements is not necessarily epistemically problematic, there is an intuitive appeal for replacing them with more objective (automated) methods, such as machine learning. Relying on several case studies, we argue that, while machine learning techniques may help to improve climate model parameterization in several ways, they still require expert judgment that involves subjective elements not so different from the ones arising in standard parameterization and tuning. The use of machine learning in parameterizations is an art as well as a science and requires careful supervision.
Funder
Swiss National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Atmospheric Science,Global and Planetary Change
Reference49 articles.
1. Beisbart C, Räz T (2022) Philosophy of science at sea: clarifying the interpretability of machine learning. Philosophy Compass, e12830
2. Beucler T, Pritchard M, Gentine P, Rasp S (2020) Towards physically-consistent, data-driven models of convection. In IGARSS 2020-2020 IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium. IEEE, pp 3987–3990
3. Beucler T, Pritchard M, Rasp S, Ott J, Baldi P, Gentine P (2021) Enforcing analytic constraints in neural networks emulating physical systems. Phys Rev Lett 126(9):098302
4. Beucler T, Rasp S, Pritchard M, Gentine P (2019) Achieving conservation of energy in neural network emulators for climate modeling. arXiv:http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.066221906.06622
5. Bony et al (2015) Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity. Nature Geosc 8:261–268
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献