4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Bayesian palaeoclimate reconstruction

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00429.x

Keywords

climatology; compositional data; cross-validation; Dirichlet-multinomial distribution; inverse problems; Markov chain Monte Carlo methods; random walk with long-tailed innovations; space-time process

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We consider the problem of reconstructing prehistoric climates by using fossil data that have been extracted from lake sediment cores. Such reconstructions promise to provide one of the few ways to validate modern models of climate change. A hierarchical Bayesian modelling approach is presented and its use, inversely, is demonstrated in a relatively small but statistically challenging exercise: the reconstruction of prehistoric climate at Glendalough in Ireland from fossil pollen. This computationally intensive method extends current approaches by explicitly modelling uncertainty and reconstructing entire climate histories. The statistical issues that are raised relate to the use of compositional data (pollen) with covariates (climate) which are available at many modern sites but are missing for the fossil data. The compositional data arise as mixtures and the missing covariates have a temporal structure. Novel aspects of the analysis include a spatial process model for compositional data, local modelling of lattice data, the use, as a prior, of a random walk with long-tailed increments, a two-stage implementation of the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach and a fast approximate procedure for cross-validation in inverse problems. We present some details, contrasting its reconstructions with those which have been generated by a method in use in the palaeoclimatology literature. We suggest that the method provides a basis for resolving important challenging issues in palaeoclimate research. We draw attention to several challenging statistical issues that need to be overcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available