Cited by 419Meteorological Phenomena and SimulationsClimate variability and modelsAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Using Machine Learning to Parameterize Moist Convection: Potential for Modeling of Climate, Climate Change, and Extreme Events

Open access
O'Gorman, Paul A., Dwyer, John G.·2018·Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems

Abstract

The parameterization of moist convection contributes to uncertainty in climate modeling and numerical weather prediction. Machine learning (ML) can be used to learn new parameterizations directly from high‐resolution model output, but it remains poorly understood how such parameterizations behave when fully coupled in a general circulation model (GCM) and whether they are useful for simulations of climate change or extreme events. Here we focus on these issues using idealized tests in which an ML‐based parameterization is trained on output from a conventional parameterization and its performance is assessed in simulations with a GCM. We use an ensemble of decision trees (random forest) as the ML algorithm, and this has the advantage that it automatically ensures conservation of energy and nonnegativity of surface precipitation. The GCM with the ML convective parameterization runs stably and accurately captures important climate statistics including precipitation extremes without the need for special training on extremes. Climate change between a control climate and a warm climate is not captured if the ML parameterization is only trained on the control climate, but it is captured if the training includes samples from both climates. Remarkably, climate change is also captured when training only on the warm climate, and this is because the extratropics of the warm climate provides training samples for the tropics of the control climate. In addition to being potentially useful for the simulation of climate, we show that ML parameterizations can be interrogated to provide diagnostics of the interaction between convection and the large‐scale environment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2018ms001351

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Anderson, J. L., Balaji, V., Broccoli, A. J., Cooke, W. F., Delworth, T. L., Dixon, K. W., et al. (2004). The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2-LM2: Evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. Journal of Climate, 17, 4641-4673.
  2. Arakawa, A. (2004). The cumulus parameterization problem: Past, present, and future. Journal of Climate, 17, 2493-2525.
  3. Arakawa, A., & Schubert, W. H. (1974). Interaction of a cumulus cloud ensemble with the large-scale environment, Part I. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 31, 674-701.
  4. Bechtold, P., Köhler, M., Jung, T., Doblas-Reyes, F., Leutbecher, M., Rodwell, M. J., et al. (2008). Advances in simulating atmospheric variability with the ECMWF model: From synoptic to decadal time-scales. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 134, 1337-1351.
  5. Belochitski, A., Binev, P., DeVore, R., Fox-Rabinovitz, M., Krasnopolsky, V., & Lamby, P. (2011). Tree approximation of the long wave radiation parameterization in the NCAR CAM global climate model. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 236, 447-460.
  6. Benedict, J. J., Maloney, E. D., Sobel, A. H., Frierson, D. M., & Donner, L. J. (2013). Tropical intraseasonal variability in version 3 of the GFDL atmosphere model. Journal of Climate, 26, 426-449.
  7. Brenowitz, N. D., & Bretherton, C. S. (2018). Prognostic validation of a neural network unified physics parameterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 6289-6298. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078510 · DOI
  8. Chevallier, F., Chéruy, F., Scott, N. A., & Chédin, A. (1998). A neural network approach for a fast and accurate computation of a longwave radiative budget. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 37, 1385-1397.
  9. Derbyshire, S. H., Beau, I., Bechtold, P., Grandpeix, J. Y., Piriou, J. M., Redelsperger, J. L., & Soares, P. M. M. (2004). Sensitivity of moist convection to environmental humidity. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 130, 3055-3079.
  10. Dwyer, J. G., & O'Gorman, P. A. (2017). Moist formulations of the Eliassen-Palm flux and their connection to the surface westerlies. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 74, 513-530.
  11. Emanuel, K. A., & Živković-Rothman, M. (1999). Development and evaluation of a convection scheme for use in climate models. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 56, 1766-1782.
  12. Frierson, D. M. W., Held, I. M., & Zurita-Gotor, P. (2006). A gray-radiation aquaplanet moist GCM. Part I: Static stability and eddy scale. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 63, 2548-2566.
  13. Gentine, P., Pritchard, M., Rasp, S., Reinaudi, G., & Yacalis, G. (2018). Could machine learning break the convection parameterization deadlock? Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 5742-5751. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078202 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2001). The elements of statistical learning (2nd ed.)., pp. 745. New York: Springer.
  15. Held, I. M., Zhao, M., & Wyman, B. (2007). Dynamic radiative-convective equilibria using GCM column physics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 64, 228-238.
  16. Herman, M. J., & Kuang, Z. (2013). Linear response functions of two convective parameterization schemes. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 5, 510-541. https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20037 · DOI
  17. Khairoutdinov, M. F., & Randall, D. A. (2001). A cloud resolving model as a cloud parameterization in the NCAR Community Climate System Model: Preliminary results. Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 3617-3620.
  18. Kim, D., Sobel, A. H., Del Genio, A. D., Chen, Y., Camargo, S. J., Yao, M.-S., et al. (2012). The tropical subseasonal variability simulated in the NASA GISS general circulation model. Journal of Climate, 25, 4641-4659.
  19. Kooperman, G. J., Pritchard, M. S., Burt, M. A., Branson, M. D., & Randall, D. A. (2016). Robust effects of cloud superparameterization on sim- ulated daily rainfall intensity statistics across multiple versions of the Community Earth System Model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 8, 140-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000574 · DOI
  20. Krasnopolsky, V. M. (2013). The application of neural networks in the Earth system sciences, 189 pp. Netherlands: Springer.
  21. Krasnopolsky, V. M., Fox-Rabinovitz, M. S., & Belochitski, A. A. (2010). Development of neural network convection parameterizations for numerical climate and weather prediction models using cloud resolving model simulations. In The 2010 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 1-8.
  22. Kuang, Z. (2010). Linear response functions of a cumulus ensemble to temperature and moisture perturbations and implications for the dynamics of convectively coupled waves. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 67, 941-962.
  23. Ling, J., Kurzawski, A., & Templeton, J. (2016). Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 807, 155-166.
  24. Mapes, B., & Neale, R. (2011). Parameterizing convective organization to escape the entrainment dilemma. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 3, M06004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000042 · DOI
  25. Monteleoni, C., Schmidt, G. A., Alexander, F., Niculescu-Mizil, A., Steinhaeuser, K., Tippett, M., et al. (2013). Climate informatics. In T. Yu, et al. (Eds.), Computational intelligent data analysis for sustainable development. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 81-126.
  26. Moorthi, S., & Suarez, M. J. (1992). Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert: A parameterization of moist convection for general circulation models. Monthly Weather Review, 120, 978-1002.
  27. O'Gorman, P. A. (2011). The effective static stability experienced by eddies in a moist atmosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 68, 75-90.
  28. O'Gorman, P. A., & Schneider, T. (2008). The hydrological cycle over a wide range of climates simulated with an idealized GCM. Journal of Climate, 21, 3815-3832.
  29. O'Gorman, P. A., & Schneider, T. (2009). Scaling of precipitation extremes over a wide range of climates simulated with an idealized GCM. Journal of Climate, 22, 5676-5685.
  30. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., et al. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825-2830.
  31. Randall, D., Khairoutdinov, M., Arakawa, A., & Grabowski, W. (2003). Breaking the cloud parameterization deadlock. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 1547-1564.
  32. Rasp, S., Pritchard, M. S., & Gentine, P. (2018). Deep learning to represent sub-grid processes in climate models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 39, 9684-9689.
  33. Schneider, T., Lan, S., Stuart, A., & Teixeira, J. (2017). Earth System Modeling 2.0: A blueprint for models that learn from observations and targeted high-resolution simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 12,396-12,417. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076101 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Sherwood, S. C., Ingram, W., Tsushima, Y., Satoh, M., Roberts, M., Vidale, P. L., & O'Gorman, P. A. (2010). Relative humidity changes in a warmer climate. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, D09104. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012585 · DOI
  35. Singh, M. S., & O'Gorman, P. A. (2012). Upward shift of the atmospheric general circulation under global warming: Theory and simulations. Journal of Climate, 25, 8259-8276.
  36. Vallis, G. K., Zurita-Gotor, P., Cairns, C., & Kidston, J. (2015). Response of the large-scale structure of the atmosphere to global warming. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 141, 1479-1501.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Gorman, P. A., & Dwyer, J. G.
Affiliations
  • Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA USA
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
Published
2018-10
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
2548-2563
ISSN
1942-2466 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2811423591
Cited by
419
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 5
FWCI
18.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (AGS-1433290, AGS-1552195)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
machine learning parameterization, random forest, climate change simulation, heavy rainfall, energy conservation (physics), training data selection, idealized climate simulations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review