Cited by 180Climate variability and modelsMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsClimate Change and Geoengineering

Viewing forced climate patterns through an AI Lens

Open access
Barnes, Elizabeth A., Hurrell, James W., Ebert‐Uphoff, Imme, Anderson, Chuck, Anderson, David·2019·Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract

Abstract Many problems in climate science require extracting forced signals from a background of internal climate variability. We demonstrate that artificial neural networks (ANNs) are a useful addition to the climate science “toolbox” for this purpose. Specifically, forced patterns are detected by an ANN trained on climate model simulations under historical and future climate scenarios. By identifying spatial patterns that serve as indicators of change in surface temperature and precipitation, the ANN can determine the approximate year from which the simulations came without first explicitly separating the forced signal from the noise of both internal climate variability and model uncertainty. Thus, the ANN indicator patterns are complex, nonlinear combinations of signal and noise and are identified from the 1960s onward in simulated and observed surface temperature maps. This approach suggests that viewing climate patterns through an artificial intelligence (AI) lens has the power to uncover new insights into climate variability and change.

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 · 10.1029/2019gl084944

Cites

42 of 42 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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: 5

  1. Bindoff, N., Stott, P. A., AchutaRao, K. M., Allen, M. R., Gillett, N., Gutzler, D., et al. (2013). Detection and attribution of climate change: From global to regional. In S. Et-Al (Ed.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Detection and attribution of climate change: From global to regional (pp. 867-952). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Flato, G., Marotzke, J., Abiodun, B., Braconnot, P., Chou, S. C., Collins, W., et al. (2013). Evaluation of climate models. In Climate Change 2013 -The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 741-866). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. In T. F. Stocker, et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Knutson, T., Kossin, J. P., Mears, C., Perlwitz, J., & Wehner, M. F. (2017). Detection and attribution of climate change. Detection and attribution of climate change. In D. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, & T. K. Maycock (Eds.), Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment (pp. 114-132). Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Global Change Research Program.
  5. Myhre, G., Shindell, D., & Pongratz, J. (2013). Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2013 -The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 659-740). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barnes, E. A., Hurrell, J. W., Ebert‐Uphoff, I., Anderson, C., & Anderson, D.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (US)
  • Department of Computer Science Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA
  • Pattern Exploration LLC Fort Collins CO USA
Corresponding author
Barnes, Elizabeth A.
Venue
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2019-11-27
Volume
46
Issue
22
Pages
13389-13398
ISSN
  • 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8007
OpenAlex
W2991419155
Cited by
179
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 14
FWCI
11.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (AGS‐1749261, AGS‐1445978)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
Keywords
natural climate variability, artificial neural networks, climate model simulation, surface temperature, precipitation, model uncertainty, climate change detection, climate change attribution

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