The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatially Extended Tests of a Neural Network Parametrization Trained by Coarse‐Graining
Open accessAbstract
General circulation models (GCMs) typically have a grid size of 25–200 km. Parametrizations are used to represent diabatic processes such as radiative transfer and cloud microphysics and account for subgrid‐scale motions and variability. Unlike traditional approaches, neural networks (NNs) can readily exploit recent observational data sets and global cloud‐system resolving model (CRM) simulations to learn subgrid variability. This article describes an NN parametrization trained by coarse‐graining a near‐global CRM simulation with a 4‐km horizontal grid spacing. The NN predicts the residual heating and moistening averaged over (160 km) 2 grid boxes as a function of the coarse‐resolution fields within the same atmospheric column. This NN is coupled to the dynamical core of a GCM with the same 160‐km resolution. A recent study described how to train such an NN to be stable when coupled to specified time‐evolving advective forcings in a single‐column model, but feedbacks between NN and GCM components cause spatially extended simulations to crash within a few days. Analyzing the linearized response of such an NN reveals that it learns to exploit a strong synchrony between precipitation and the atmospheric state above 10 km. Removing these variables from the NN's inputs stabilizes the coupled simulations, which predict the future state more accurately than a coarse‐resolution simulation without any parametrizations of subgrid‐scale variability, although the mean state slowly drifts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Previous studies found that running extended simulations with hybrid models is challenging due to numerical instabilities and climate drift21.”
From Neural general circulation models for weather and climate (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“The lack of coupling between machine-learning components and the governing equations during training potentially causes serious problems, such as instability and climate drift21.”
From Neural general circulation models for weather and climate (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
Citations
Cites
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function
Cybenko, G. (1989) · Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems · doi:10.1007/bf02551274 · Cited by 13,883
(2017) · Cited by 11,625
Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps
Simonyan, K., Vedaldi, A., & Zisserman, A. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1312.6034 · Cited by 5,370
Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models
Rasp, S., Pritchard, M. S., & Gentine, P. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1810286115 · Cited by 1,044
On large-scale circulations in convecting atmospheres
Emanuel, K., Neelin, J. D., & Bretherton, C. S. (1994) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.49712051902 · Cited by 874
Self-citationFundamentals of synchronization in chaotic systems, concepts, and applications
Pecora, L. M., Carroll, T. L., Johnson, G. A., Mar, D. J., & Heagy, J. F. (1997) · Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · doi:10.1063/1.166278 · Cited by 862
Tropical Super Clusters within Intraseasonal Variations over the Western Pacific
Nakazawa, T. (1988) · Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan Ser II · doi:10.2151/jmsj1965.66.6_823 · Cited by 654
Nonhydrostatic icosahedral atmospheric model (NICAM) for global cloud resolving simulations
Satoh, M., Matsuno, T., Tomita, H., Miura, H., Nasuno, T., & Iga, S. (2007) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.006 · Cited by 651
Palmer, T. N. (2001) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.49712757202 · Cited by 469
O'Gorman, P. A., & Dwyer, J. G. (2018) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2018ms001351 · Cited by 419
Jiang, X., Waliser, D. E., Xavier, P., Petch, J. C., Klingaman, N. P., Woolnough, S. J., Guan, B., Bellon, G., Crueger, T., DeMott, C. A., et al. (2015) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2014jd022375 · Cited by 399
Schneider, T., Lan, S., Stuart, A., & Teixeira, J. (2017) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2017gl076101 · Cited by 391
Prognostic Validation of a Neural Network Unified Physics Parameterization
Brenowitz, N., & Bretherton, C. S. (2018) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2018gl078510 · Cited by 387
Self-citationParameterizing Convective Organization to Escape the Entrainment Dilemma
Mapes, B. E., & Neale, R. (2011) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2011ms000042 · Cited by 226
Krasnopolsky, V. M., Fox‐Rabinovitz, M. S., & Chalikov, D. V. (2005) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/mwr2923.1 · Cited by 210
Krasnopolsky, V. M., Fox‐Rabinovitz, M. S., & Belochitski, A. A. (2013) · Advances in Artificial Neural Systems · doi:10.1155/2013/485913 · Cited by 208
Jiang, X. (2017) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2016jd025955 · Cited by 138
Convective self‐aggregation feedbacks in near‐global cloud‐resolving simulations of an aquaplanet
Bretherton, C. S., & Khairoutdinov, M. F. (2015) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1002/2015ms000499 · Cited by 115
Self-citationToward mitigating the double ITCZ problem in NCAR CCSM3
Zhang, G. J., & Wang, H. (2006) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2005gl025229 · Cited by 101
Reexamining the Nonlinear Moisture‐Precipitation Relationship Over the Tropical Oceans
Rushley, S. S., Kim, D., Bretherton, C. S., & Ahn, M. (2018) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2017gl076296 · Cited by 89
Self-citationImproving the diurnal cycle of convection in GCMs
Stratton, R. A., & Stirling, A. (2011) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.991 · Cited by 85
Multiscale Models with Moisture and Systematic Strategies for Superparameterization
Majda, A. J. (2007) · Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1175/jas3976.1 · Cited by 72
Kim, D., Jang, Y.-S., Kim, D., Kim, Y.-H., Watanabe, M., Jin, F., & Kug, J. (2011) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2011jd016526 · Cited by 61
Kumar, A., Minnett, P. J., Podestá, G., & Evans, R. H. (2003) · Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060 · Cited by 44
Jung, T. J., Ruprecht, E., & Wagner, F. (1998) · Journal of applied meteorology · doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1998)037 · Cited by 37
Sensitivity of Coupled Tropical Pacific Model Biases to Convective Parameterization in CESM1
Woelfle, M. D., Yu, S., Bretherton, C. S., & Pritchard, M. S. (2017) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1002/2017ms001176 · Cited by 35
Self-citationArctic Fog Droplet Size Distribution and Its Effect on Light Attenuation
Kumai, M. (1973) · Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1973)030 · Cited by 34
Cloud and circulation feedbacks in a near‐global aquaplanet cloud‐resolving model
Narenpitak, P., Bretherton, C. S., & Khairoutdinov, M. F. (2017) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1002/2016ms000872 · Cited by 27
Self-citationPareto‐Optimal Estimates of California Precipitation Change
Langenbrunner, B., & Neelin, J. D. (2017) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2017gl075226 · Cited by 27
Adjoint‐Based Climate Model Tuning: Application to the Planet Simulator
Lyu, G., Köhl, A., Matei, I., & Stammer, D. B. (2018) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1002/2017ms001194 · Cited by 25
Krasnopolsky, V. M., Fox‐Rabinovitz, M. S., & Belochitski, A. A. (2010) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2010.5596766 · Cited by 20
Kuang, Z. (2018) · Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1175/jas-d-18-0092.1 · Cited by 15
Brenowitz, N., & Kwa, A. (2019) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.2621716 · Cited by 2
Self-citationBrenowitz, N. (2019) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3242831 · Cited by 1
Self-citationMcHugh, M. (2004) · doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<1517:RBWVPA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- ECMWF, 2018, IFS Documentation CY41R1, 1
- Goodfellow I., 2016, Deep learning, adaptive computation and machine learning
- Hanin B.(2017).Universal function approximation by deep neural nets with bounded width and ReLU activations. arXiv e‐prints.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Integrating Scientific Knowledge with Machine Learning for Engineering and Environmental Systems
Willard, J., Jia, X., Xu, S., Steinbach, M. S., & Kumar, V. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3514228 · Cited by 1,498
WeatherBench: A Benchmark Data Set for Data‐Driven Weather Forecasting
Rasp, S., Dueben, P. D., Scher, S., Weyn, J. A., Mouatadid, S., & Thuerey, N. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2020ms002203 · Cited by 663
Neural general circulation models for weather and climate
Kochkov, D., Yuval, J., Langmore, I., Norgaard, P., Smith, J., Mooers, G., Klöwer, M., Lottes, J., Rasp, S., Düben, P., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07744-y · Cited by 454
“The lack of coupling between machine-learning components and the governing equations during training potentially causes serious problems, such as instability and climate drift 21 .”
BackgroundToms, B. A., Barnes, E. A., & Ebert‐Uphoff, I. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms002002 · Cited by 388
Integrating Physics-Based Modeling with Machine Learning: A Survey
Willard, J., Jia, X., Xu, S., Steinbach, M. S., & Kumar, V. (2020) · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Brenowitz, N. D., & Bretherton, C. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brenowitz, Noah D.
- Venue
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2728-2744
- ISSN
- 1942-2466 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2930756996
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 9.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (3835)
- Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (2013-10-29)
- U.S. Department of Energy (DE-SC0012451, DE-SC0016433)
- Washington Research Foundation
- 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
- neural network parametrization, coarse-graining, cloud-resolving model, subgrid-scale processes, linear stability analysis, model drift
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