the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Do phenomenological dynamical paleoclimate models have physical similarity with Nature? Seemingly, not all of them do
Mikhail Y. Verbitsky
Michel Crucifix
Abstract. Phenomenological models may be impressive in reproducing empirical time series but this is not sufficient to claim physical similarity with Nature until comparison of similarity parameters is performed. We illustrated such a process of diagnostics of physical similarity by comparing the phenomenological dynamical paleoclimate model of Ganopolski (2023), the van der Pol model (as used by Crucifix, 2013), and the model of Leloup and Paillard (2022) with the physically explicit Verbitsky et al (2018) model that played a role of a reference dynamical system. We concluded that phenomenological models of Ganopolski (2023) and of Leloup and Paillard (2022) may be considered to be physically similar with the proxy parent dynamical system in some range of parameters, or in other words they may be derived from basic laws of physics under some reasonable physical assumptions. We have not been able to arrive to the same conclusion regarding the van der Pol model. Though developments of better proxies of the parent dynamical system should be encouraged, we nevertheless believe that the diagnostics of physical similarity, as we describe it here, should become a standard procedure to delineate a model that is merely a statistical description of the data, from a model that can be claimed to have a link with known physical assumptions.
Mikhail Y. Verbitsky and Michel Crucifix
Status: open (until 17 Jul 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2023-30', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 May 2023
reply
General comments
This manuscript has the potential to provide an important contribution to Ice Age modelling. Building on their previous work (Verbitsky & Crucifix, 2020; 2022), the authors investigate the physical similarity of different models using dimenional analysis. A key finding is that although all these models are structurally dissimilar, they share a dependence of the modeled periodicity on the dimensionless "V" parameter or the ratio between positive and negative feedbacks in the system. Having said all this, I do think that the authors will need to address the issues discussed below before the manuscript will be ready for publication.
Specific commentsI have two major concerns that the authors will need to address in a compelling manner:
1) The authors make it seem as if they are comparing models to Nature when they are really comparing different models to each other. And yes, even the Verbitsky et al. (2018) model is not the same thing as Nature. The authors should be transparent about this, which starts with the title. I suggest changing it from "Do phenomenological dynamical paleoclimate models have physical similarity with Nature? Seeming, but not all of them" to something like "Structural similarities and differences between paleoclimate models of glacial-interglacial dynamics". Then, the Abstract and Introduction could be framed around questions such as "To which extent are different paleoclimate models of glacial-interglacial dynamics physically similar?" and "Are there any shared dimensionless quantities playing key roles in all these models? If so, then finding values for these quantities should be a central objective of future research into glacial-interglacial dynamics."
2) The authors use the Buckingham pi theorem to answer the identify the dimensionless parameters affecting the period of the system in each of the models. All well and good, but what do we really learn from this about glacial-interglacial dynamics? I think much more insight could be gained if the authors would identify the actual relatonships between the parameters and the period of the model systems (i.e., the psi and phi functions). It should not be too difficult to find decent approximations of these relationships through simulations, given that the models under consideration are rather simple and computationally cheap to run. Such an exercise would also give much deeper insight about the physical similarity between the different models. For example, the period may depend on "V" in two models, but the scaling may be V^2 in one model and V^3 in the other. Then, one can ask where these different scalings originate from and whether any of these scalings could be tested against observational data.
Technical correctionsl. 16: "...similar with the..." -> "...similar to the..."
l. 55: "Dynamical system's theory tell us why..." -> "Dynamical Systems Theory tells us why..."
l. 59: "...phemenon..." -> "...phenomenon..."
l 79: "...parameters, let say Pi_1, is..." -> "....parameters, say Pi_1, is..."
l. 375: "...according to pi-theorem:" -> "...according to the pi-theorem:"
ReferencesM.Y. Verbitsky, M. Crucifix, D.M. Volobuev, A theory of Pleistocene glacial rhythmicity, Earth Syst. Dynam. 9: 1025 (2018)
M.Y. Verbitsky, M. Crucifix, Pi-theorem generalization of the ice-age theory, Earth Syst. Dynam. 11: 281 (2020)
M.Y. Verbitsky, M. Crucifix, Inarticulate past: Similarity properties of the ice–climate system and their implications for paleo-record attribution, Earth Syst. Dynam. 13: 879 (2022)Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2023-30-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mikhail Verbitsky, 01 Jun 2023
reply
Our response to Anonymous Referee #1 has been uploaded as a pdf file.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mikhail Verbitsky, 01 Jun 2023
reply
Mikhail Y. Verbitsky and Michel Crucifix
Mikhail Y. Verbitsky and Michel Crucifix
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
134 | 44 | 13 | 191 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 134
- PDF: 44
- XML: 13
- Total: 191
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1