4.8 Article

Artificial intelligence reconstructs missing climate information

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 408-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41561-020-0582-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Historical temperature measurements are the basis of global climate datasets like HadCRUT4. This dataset contains many missing values, particularly for periods before the mid-twentieth century, although recent years are also incomplete. Here we demonstrate that artificial intelligence can skilfully fill these observational gaps when combined with numerical climate model data. We show that recently developed image inpainting techniques perform accurate monthly reconstructions via transfer learning using either 20CR (Twentieth-Century Reanalysis) or the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) experiments. The resulting global annual mean temperature time series exhibit high Pearson correlation coefficients (>= 0.9941) and low root mean squared errors (<= 0.0547 degrees C) as compared with the original data. These techniques also provide advantages relative to state-of-the-art kriging interpolation and principal component analysis-based infilling. When applied to HadCRUT4, our method restores a missing spatial pattern of the documented El Nino from July 1877. With respect to the global mean temperature time series, a HadCRUT4 reconstruction by our method points to a cooler nineteenth century, a less apparent hiatus in the twenty-first century, an even warmer 2016 being the warmest year on record and a stronger global trend between 1850 and 2018 relative to previous estimates. We propose image inpainting as an approach to reconstruct missing climate information and thereby reduce uncertainties and biases in climate records. An artificial intelligence-based method may infill gaps in historical temperature data more effectively than conventional techniques. Application of this method reveals a stronger global warming trend between 1850 and 2018 than estimated previously.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据