the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessing uncertainty in past ice and climate evolution: overview, stepping-stones, and challenges
Abstract. In the geosciences, complex computational models have become a common tool for making statements about past earth system evolution. However, the relationship between model output and the actual earth system (or component thereof) is generally poorly specified and even more poorly assessed. This is especially challenging for the paleo sciences for which data constraints are sparse and have large uncertainties. Bayesian inference offers a self-consistent and rigorous framework for assessing this relationship as well as a coherent approach to combining data constraints with computational modelling. Though “Bayesian” is becoming more common in paleoclimate and paleo ice sheet publications, our impression is that most scientists in these fields have little understanding of what this actually means nor are they able to evaluate the quality of such inference. This is especially unfortunate given the correspondence between Bayesian inference and the classical concept of the scientific method.
Herein, we examine the relationship between a complex model and a system of interest, or in equivalent words (from a statistical perspective), how uncertainties describing this relationship can be assessed and accounted for in a principled and coherent manner. By way of a simple example, we show how inference can be severely broken if uncertainties are erroneously assessed. We explain and decompose Bayes Rule (more commonly known as Bayes Theorem), examine key components of Bayesian inference, offer some more robust and easier to attain stepping stones, and provide suggestions on implementation and how the community can move forward. This overview is intended for all interested in making and/or evaluating inferences about the past evolution of the Earth system (or any of its components), with a nominal focus on past ice sheet and climate evolution during the Quaternary.
- Preprint
(649 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2021-145', Natasha Barlow, 05 Jan 2022
I have been asked by the editor to review this manuscript as a ‘data person’. I feel it is necessary to summarise my background here to provide context for my review – I have had no formal mathematics training since the age of 16, focusing my studies on geography and biological sciences. I have 15 years’ experience of field and lab-based geoscience since the start of my PhD, focusing on reconstruction of past RSL change. I have worked with models, model outputs and the modelling community, but I would not call myself a modeller.
The reason for this summary is that it is important to understand the background of some of the suggested readership. The authors state that “This overview is intended for all who are concerned with either inferring past ice sheet and/or climate system evolution or using the results of such inferences (be they modellers, data gatherers, or mongrels). Our goal is that after a careful read, you will at least be able to more critically evaluate uncertainty assessment for such contexts.” From my own personal perspective, as a data gatherer, I am afraid I am unable to realise the authors stated goal. The paper is likely of use to those with mathematical training, for example postgraduate palaeo modellers, but for those of us without this background, much of the paper is inaccessible as it heavily utilises mathematical jargon and equations. For example, in outlining what Bayesian inference is, the authors by page 5 include lines such as “To be consistent under various sets of natural axioms, the conditional probability P(A|B) can be defined as the quotient of the joint probability of A and B, P(A,B), and the probability of B, P(B)” followed by equation 2. I am going to have to admit (in open review!) I had to ask a postgraduate modeller what the “|” notation means (though the authors do state it in line 115, it is not clear to a non-expert that conditional probability refers the whole of the equation or the | notation) and then search for several of the terms in the text; by equation 3 I was incredibly confused.
I have read the whole manuscript, but have been left very lost, rather than informed. This is not a reflection on the authors work, but rather how it is written relative to my experience and training (which is very different to the background of the authors). However, if the authors really do want to achieve their desired goal of assisting the palaeo community in better understanding and quantification of uncertainties, the paper needs to be written in a far more accessible way; or the pitch needs to be altered as a paper for targeted to modellers rather than the wider palaeo community.
If the goal is to upskill the wider community, the paper would benefit from a very simplified introduction of the concepts with supporting figures, rather than equations (some of which could be moved to a supplementary for those who wish to study them) with less technical jargon; followed by worked through examples (again with supporting figures) to aid the communication to a much wider audience. I agree with authors in line 1365 that we need better understanding of observational uncertainties, but as the authors state “as none of the above uncertainties are likely to be well represented by a Gaussian distribution, the efficient representation of the uncertainties for likelihood application also needs consideration”. Addressing this requires clear and simple communication between those with extensive mathematical experience and those without, which this manuscript as presented does not currently help achieve.
Alternatively, if the paper is to be targeted to palaeo modellers specifically, I would think section 4 is a key take home for the paper, and may be of value to this community whom likely already have some understanding of the opening Bayes introduction.
Given the above, I find I cannot comment on the content in detail – but instead provide a wider reflection of whether this paper actually achieves what the authors had hoped?
Some minor comments:
- In additional to the HolSea database, I would add reference to the WALIS database by A. Rovere et al https://warmcoasts.eu/world-atlas.html. Though previously LIG focused, there is currently efforts to migrate the Holocene datasets into this same interface which address some of the comments by the authors in section 2.10
- Line 195 and 201 there are hanging … which need replacing.
- Line 828 : at the end of the title need removing
- To make this as useful as possible, the framework in section 4.1 might be supported by a flow diagram/table.
- Line 1241 - ? at the end of Briggs reference needs removing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-145-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lev Tarasov, 30 Jul 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on cp-2021-145', Danny Williamson, 25 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2021-145/cp-2021-145-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lev Tarasov, 30 Jul 2022
-
EC1: 'Comment on cp-2021-145', Eric Wolff, 25 Mar 2022
You will see that your paper has received two reviews, and you are now invited to respond to them with author comments. After that I will be asked to decide whether the paper should be resubmitted or rejected - please do not spend time preparing a new version until we reach that stage, and I have seen your responses. Please do consider very carefully the comments of both reviewers. Although they come from very different perspective, they illustrate that you have missed the mark with both your potential audiences: the data practitioner who found the paper aimed (if she'll forgive me for the paraphrase), above her head; and the expert in uncertainty quantification who felt among other things that you had not cited the most relevant literature and were not therefore really addressing the constituency most likely to engage with the paper. In making your responses therefore you may want to reconsider whether you can effectively address both audiences you claimed to be targetting. You should also address how you will shorten the paper as I agree with rev 2 that the paper needs to be much shorter.
I look forward to reading your responses so that I can consider how to proceed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-145-EC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lev Tarasov, 30 Jul 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2021-145', Natasha Barlow, 05 Jan 2022
I have been asked by the editor to review this manuscript as a ‘data person’. I feel it is necessary to summarise my background here to provide context for my review – I have had no formal mathematics training since the age of 16, focusing my studies on geography and biological sciences. I have 15 years’ experience of field and lab-based geoscience since the start of my PhD, focusing on reconstruction of past RSL change. I have worked with models, model outputs and the modelling community, but I would not call myself a modeller.
The reason for this summary is that it is important to understand the background of some of the suggested readership. The authors state that “This overview is intended for all who are concerned with either inferring past ice sheet and/or climate system evolution or using the results of such inferences (be they modellers, data gatherers, or mongrels). Our goal is that after a careful read, you will at least be able to more critically evaluate uncertainty assessment for such contexts.” From my own personal perspective, as a data gatherer, I am afraid I am unable to realise the authors stated goal. The paper is likely of use to those with mathematical training, for example postgraduate palaeo modellers, but for those of us without this background, much of the paper is inaccessible as it heavily utilises mathematical jargon and equations. For example, in outlining what Bayesian inference is, the authors by page 5 include lines such as “To be consistent under various sets of natural axioms, the conditional probability P(A|B) can be defined as the quotient of the joint probability of A and B, P(A,B), and the probability of B, P(B)” followed by equation 2. I am going to have to admit (in open review!) I had to ask a postgraduate modeller what the “|” notation means (though the authors do state it in line 115, it is not clear to a non-expert that conditional probability refers the whole of the equation or the | notation) and then search for several of the terms in the text; by equation 3 I was incredibly confused.
I have read the whole manuscript, but have been left very lost, rather than informed. This is not a reflection on the authors work, but rather how it is written relative to my experience and training (which is very different to the background of the authors). However, if the authors really do want to achieve their desired goal of assisting the palaeo community in better understanding and quantification of uncertainties, the paper needs to be written in a far more accessible way; or the pitch needs to be altered as a paper for targeted to modellers rather than the wider palaeo community.
If the goal is to upskill the wider community, the paper would benefit from a very simplified introduction of the concepts with supporting figures, rather than equations (some of which could be moved to a supplementary for those who wish to study them) with less technical jargon; followed by worked through examples (again with supporting figures) to aid the communication to a much wider audience. I agree with authors in line 1365 that we need better understanding of observational uncertainties, but as the authors state “as none of the above uncertainties are likely to be well represented by a Gaussian distribution, the efficient representation of the uncertainties for likelihood application also needs consideration”. Addressing this requires clear and simple communication between those with extensive mathematical experience and those without, which this manuscript as presented does not currently help achieve.
Alternatively, if the paper is to be targeted to palaeo modellers specifically, I would think section 4 is a key take home for the paper, and may be of value to this community whom likely already have some understanding of the opening Bayes introduction.
Given the above, I find I cannot comment on the content in detail – but instead provide a wider reflection of whether this paper actually achieves what the authors had hoped?
Some minor comments:
- In additional to the HolSea database, I would add reference to the WALIS database by A. Rovere et al https://warmcoasts.eu/world-atlas.html. Though previously LIG focused, there is currently efforts to migrate the Holocene datasets into this same interface which address some of the comments by the authors in section 2.10
- Line 195 and 201 there are hanging … which need replacing.
- Line 828 : at the end of the title need removing
- To make this as useful as possible, the framework in section 4.1 might be supported by a flow diagram/table.
- Line 1241 - ? at the end of Briggs reference needs removing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-145-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lev Tarasov, 30 Jul 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on cp-2021-145', Danny Williamson, 25 Mar 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2021-145/cp-2021-145-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lev Tarasov, 30 Jul 2022
-
EC1: 'Comment on cp-2021-145', Eric Wolff, 25 Mar 2022
You will see that your paper has received two reviews, and you are now invited to respond to them with author comments. After that I will be asked to decide whether the paper should be resubmitted or rejected - please do not spend time preparing a new version until we reach that stage, and I have seen your responses. Please do consider very carefully the comments of both reviewers. Although they come from very different perspective, they illustrate that you have missed the mark with both your potential audiences: the data practitioner who found the paper aimed (if she'll forgive me for the paraphrase), above her head; and the expert in uncertainty quantification who felt among other things that you had not cited the most relevant literature and were not therefore really addressing the constituency most likely to engage with the paper. In making your responses therefore you may want to reconsider whether you can effectively address both audiences you claimed to be targetting. You should also address how you will shorten the paper as I agree with rev 2 that the paper needs to be much shorter.
I look forward to reading your responses so that I can consider how to proceed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2021-145-EC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lev Tarasov, 30 Jul 2022
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,039 | 503 | 54 | 1,596 | 47 | 42 |
- HTML: 1,039
- PDF: 503
- XML: 54
- Total: 1,596
- BibTeX: 47
- EndNote: 42
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1