Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :
- Author or Editor: Sarah T. Gille x
- Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Abstract
Sea surface slope (SSS) responds to oceanic processes and other environmental parameters. This study aims to identify the parameters that influence SSS variability. We use SSS calculated from multiyear satellite altimeter observations and focus on small resolvable scales in the 30–100-km wavelength band. First, we revisit the correlation of mesoscale ocean variability with seafloor roughness as a function of depth, as proposed by Gille et al. Our results confirm that in shallow water there is statistically significant positive correlation between rough bathymetry and surface variability, whereas the opposite is true in the deep ocean. In the next step, we assemble 27 features as input variables to fit the SSS with a linear regression model and a boosted trees regression model, and then we make predictions. Model performance metrics for the linear regression model are R 2 = 0.381 and mean square error = 0.010 μrad2. For the boosted trees model, R 2 = 0.563 and mean square error = 0.007 μrad2. Using the hold-out data, we identify the most important influencing factors to be the distance to the nearest thermocline boundary, significant wave height, mean dynamic topography gradient, and M2 tidal speed. However, there are individual regions, that is, the Amazon outflow, that cannot be predicted by our model, suggesting that these regions are governed by processes that are not represented in our input features. The results highlight both the value of machine learning and its shortcomings in identifying mechanisms governing oceanic phenomena.
Abstract
Sea surface slope (SSS) responds to oceanic processes and other environmental parameters. This study aims to identify the parameters that influence SSS variability. We use SSS calculated from multiyear satellite altimeter observations and focus on small resolvable scales in the 30–100-km wavelength band. First, we revisit the correlation of mesoscale ocean variability with seafloor roughness as a function of depth, as proposed by Gille et al. Our results confirm that in shallow water there is statistically significant positive correlation between rough bathymetry and surface variability, whereas the opposite is true in the deep ocean. In the next step, we assemble 27 features as input variables to fit the SSS with a linear regression model and a boosted trees regression model, and then we make predictions. Model performance metrics for the linear regression model are R 2 = 0.381 and mean square error = 0.010 μrad2. For the boosted trees model, R 2 = 0.563 and mean square error = 0.007 μrad2. Using the hold-out data, we identify the most important influencing factors to be the distance to the nearest thermocline boundary, significant wave height, mean dynamic topography gradient, and M2 tidal speed. However, there are individual regions, that is, the Amazon outflow, that cannot be predicted by our model, suggesting that these regions are governed by processes that are not represented in our input features. The results highlight both the value of machine learning and its shortcomings in identifying mechanisms governing oceanic phenomena.
Abstract
Physics-based simulations of Arctic sea ice are highly complex, involving transport between different phases, length scales, and time scales. Resultantly, numerical simulations of sea ice dynamics have a high computational cost and model uncertainty. We employ data-driven machine learning (ML) to make predictions of sea ice motion. The ML models are built to predict present-day sea ice velocity given present-day wind velocity and previous-day sea ice concentration and velocity. Models are trained using reanalysis winds and satellite-derived sea ice properties. We compare the predictions of three different models: persistence (PS), linear regression (LR), and a convolutional neural network (CNN). We quantify the spatiotemporal variability of the correlation between observations and the statistical model predictions. Additionally, we analyze model performance in comparison to variability in properties related to ice motion (wind velocity, ice velocity, ice concentration, distance from coast, bathymetric depth) to understand the processes related to decreases in model performance. Results indicate that a CNN makes skillful predictions of daily sea ice velocity with a correlation up to 0.81 between predicted and observed sea ice velocity, while the LR and PS implementations exhibit correlations of 0.78 and 0.69, respectively. The correlation varies spatially and seasonally: lower values occur in shallow coastal regions and during times of minimum sea ice extent. LR parameter analysis indicates that wind velocity plays the largest role in predicting sea ice velocity on 1-day time scales, particularly in the central Arctic. Regions where wind velocity has the largest LR parameter are regions where the CNN has higher predictive skill than the LR.
Significance Statement
We build and evaluate different machine learning (ML) models that make 1-day predictions of Arctic sea ice velocity using present-day wind velocity and previous-day ice concentration and ice velocity. We find that models that incorporate nonlinear relationships between inputs (a neural network) capture important information (i.e., have a higher correlation between observations and predictions than do linear and persistence models). This performance enhancement occurs primarily in deeper regions of the central Arctic where wind speed is the dominant predictor of ice motion. Understanding where these models benefit from increased complexity is important because future work will use ML to elucidate physically meaningful relationships within the data, looking at how the relationship between wind and ice velocity is changing as the ice melts.
Abstract
Physics-based simulations of Arctic sea ice are highly complex, involving transport between different phases, length scales, and time scales. Resultantly, numerical simulations of sea ice dynamics have a high computational cost and model uncertainty. We employ data-driven machine learning (ML) to make predictions of sea ice motion. The ML models are built to predict present-day sea ice velocity given present-day wind velocity and previous-day sea ice concentration and velocity. Models are trained using reanalysis winds and satellite-derived sea ice properties. We compare the predictions of three different models: persistence (PS), linear regression (LR), and a convolutional neural network (CNN). We quantify the spatiotemporal variability of the correlation between observations and the statistical model predictions. Additionally, we analyze model performance in comparison to variability in properties related to ice motion (wind velocity, ice velocity, ice concentration, distance from coast, bathymetric depth) to understand the processes related to decreases in model performance. Results indicate that a CNN makes skillful predictions of daily sea ice velocity with a correlation up to 0.81 between predicted and observed sea ice velocity, while the LR and PS implementations exhibit correlations of 0.78 and 0.69, respectively. The correlation varies spatially and seasonally: lower values occur in shallow coastal regions and during times of minimum sea ice extent. LR parameter analysis indicates that wind velocity plays the largest role in predicting sea ice velocity on 1-day time scales, particularly in the central Arctic. Regions where wind velocity has the largest LR parameter are regions where the CNN has higher predictive skill than the LR.
Significance Statement
We build and evaluate different machine learning (ML) models that make 1-day predictions of Arctic sea ice velocity using present-day wind velocity and previous-day ice concentration and ice velocity. We find that models that incorporate nonlinear relationships between inputs (a neural network) capture important information (i.e., have a higher correlation between observations and predictions than do linear and persistence models). This performance enhancement occurs primarily in deeper regions of the central Arctic where wind speed is the dominant predictor of ice motion. Understanding where these models benefit from increased complexity is important because future work will use ML to elucidate physically meaningful relationships within the data, looking at how the relationship between wind and ice velocity is changing as the ice melts.
