Towards Ice-Core-Based Synoptic Reconstructions of West Antarctic Climate with Artificial Neural Networks
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY Int. J. Climatol. 25: 581–610 (2005) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/joc.1143 TOWARDS ICE-CORE-BASED SYNOPTIC RECONSTRUCTIONS OF WEST ANTARCTIC CLIMATE WITH ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS DAVID B. REUSCH,a,* BRUCE C. HEWITSONb and RICHARD B. ALLEYa a Department of Geosciences and EMS Environment Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 USA b Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa Received 9 March 2004 Revised 22 August 2004 Accepted 12 November 2004 ABSTRACT Ice cores have, in recent decades, produced a wealth of palaeoclimatic insights over widely ranging temporal and spatial scales. Nonetheless, interpretation of ice-core-based climate proxies is still problematic due to a variety of issues unrelated to the quality of the ice-core data. Instead, many of these problems are related to our poor understanding of key transfer functions that link the atmosphere to the ice. This study uses two tools from the field of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to investigate the relationship between the atmosphere and surface records of climate in West Antarctica. The first, self-organizing maps (SOMs), provides an unsupervised classification of variables from the mid- troposphere (700 hPa temperature, geopotential height and specific humidity) into groups of similar synoptic patterns. An SOM-based climatology at annual resolution (to match ice-core data) has been developed for the period 1979–93 based on the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) 15-year reanalysis (ERA-15) dataset. This analysis produced a robust mapping of years to annual-average synoptic conditions as generalized atmospheric patterns or states. Feed-forward ANNs, our second ANN-based tool, were then used to upscale from surface data to the SOM-based classifications, thereby relating the surface sampling of the atmosphere to the large-scale circulation of the mid-troposphere. Two recorders of surface climate were used in this step: automatic weather stations (AWSs) and ice cores. Six AWS sites provided 15 years of near-surface temperature and pressure data. Four ice-core sites provided 40 years of annual accumulation and major ion chemistry. Although the ANN training methodology was properly designed and followed standard principles, limited training data and noise in the ice-core data reduced the effectiveness of the upscaling predictions. Despite these shortcomings, which might be expected to preclude successful analyses, we find that the combined techniques do allow ice-core reconstruction of annual-average synoptic conditions with some skill. We thus consider the ANN-based approach to upscaling to be a useful tool, but one that would benefit from additional training data. Copyright 2005 Royal Meteorological Society. KEY WORDS: ice cores; synoptic reconstruction; artificial neural networks; self-organizing maps; West Antarctica 1. INTRODUCTION This work seeks to use ice-core proxy datasets to reconstruct 40 years (1954–93) of West Antarctic annual climate as seen in the mid-tropospheric circulation using the well-known but poorly understood link between the atmosphere and ice cores. Ice-core proxy data is calibrated to atmospheric circulation data for the period 1979–93 and then used to predict the latter for the period 1954–78. As an additional test of our method, automatic weather station (AWS) data are also used for a limited reconstruction in the 1979–93 period. As described in further detail in the following sections, our approach to this problem consists of four steps. 1. Simplify the atmosphere: self-organizing maps (SOMs) extract patterns of variability by doing a classification into generalized states. These patterns are useful both for studying the recent atmosphere and as components of the subsequent reconstruction. * Correspondence to: David B. Reusch, Department of Geosciences and EMS Environmental Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA; e-mail: [email protected] Copyright 2005 Royal Meteorological Society 582 D. B. REUSCH, B. C. HEWITSON AND R. B. ALLEY 2. Link ice-core proxy and AWS datasets to the atmosphere: a feed-forward artificial neural network (FF ANN) is trained to predict the patterns from (1) using either ice-core or AWS data. This step calibrates the upscaling tool. 3. Reconstruct earlier climate: ice-core data outside the calibration period are used with the trained FF ANN to predict the associated atmospheric patterns for the rest of the ice-core period. Given sufficient confidence in these predictions, they would be used to develop a full time series of reconstructed climate. 4. Evaluate the methodology: confidence in a climate reconstruction is tied to the data and steps involved in creating it. We thus evaluate the reliability of the SOM-based analysis and FF ANN-based upscaling steps and comment on issues associated with the ice-core data that reduce skill in the upscaling step. 1.1. Ice cores and climate Decades of research have shown ice cores to be extremely valuable records of the Earth’s climate from subannual to millenial time scales and beyond (e.g. Wolff and Peel, 1985; Legrand et al., 1988; Mayewski et al., 1988, 1997; Zielinski et al., 1994; White et al., 1999). As with marine sediment cores, tree rings and other climate proxies, interpretation of the ice-core record of palaeoclimate is not always straightforward. In many cases, although the data are of unquestionably high quality and temporal resolution, our poor knowledge of the relevant transfer functions can greatly reduce the value of the record. This is a recognized problem (Waddington, 1996) and, although process studies and field work have helped greatly in some areas 18 (e.g. in improving our understanding of how δ Oice records temperature), there are still many gaps in the knowledge we need to understand the proxy records fully. This is particularly true in the Antarctic, where direct observational data for the atmosphere are hard to obtain and, when available, tend to be relatively short (by climatological standards) and spatially limited. Ice cores record many different aspects of the climate system, sometimes in multiple ways. Each proxy captures one or more climate features in a way that will likely differ in both space and time to varying 18 degrees. For example, the relationship between δ Oice and temperature can be different at different places 18 and times (Alley and Cuffey, 2001; Jouzel et al., 2003) as other influences on δ Oice vary in their relative effect. Furthermore, many proxies are only captured during precipitation events. This can lead to biases in the proxy when precipitation is seasonally variable. For example, if wet deposition is the dominant capture process for a chemical species and snow only falls during the summer, then the ice-core record for that species will be biased towards a picture of the summer atmosphere. Unfortunately, the subannual character of precipitation is typically not very well known at West Antarctic ice-core sites, and we are often forced to assume that snow falls uniformly throughout the year. Subannual sampling is still possible, and indeed necessary to reconstruct annual cycles of chemical species, but it must be remembered that these data are projected onto an underlying assumption about uniform snowfall. Thus, unless detailed subannual process data are available (e.g. Kreutz et al., 1999), we are limited to studies of ice-core proxies at annual resolution. High-resolution meteorological data (reanalysis and/or observational) provide a means to study relationships between ice-core proxies and the atmosphere over subannual intervals, but we remain limited to annual (or possibly semiannual)-resolution climate reconstructions from the proxies. 1.2. The meteorological record and reanalysis datasets The best meteorological datasets in the Antarctic are typically from two areas: the coastal stations, such as McMurdo, Mawson and Halley Bay, and the two long-term interior plateau stations, South Pole and Vostok (Figure 1). Records from elsewhere in the Antarctic interior are limited, with few exceptions, to AWSs and short-term data collection during traverses and ice-core drilling operations (e.g. Siple Dome). The latter often only represent the summer field season (when the sites are occupied). AWSs provide year-round data, apart from instrument problems, but only measure the near-surface environment in a limited manner. The AWS network, nonetheless, provides an invaluable sampling of the West Antarctic atmosphere. The shortage of direct observational data has, in turn, increased the importance and utility of numerical forecast/data assimilation/analysis products for Antarctic climate research. The two most widely used datasets of this type are from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Copyright 2005 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. 25: 581–610 (2005) ICE-CORE-BASED SYNOPTIC RECONSTRUCTIONS 583 Figure 1. Site map showing AWS (solid circles) and ice-core sites (squares) of this study, and other sites (open circles) and regions mentioned in the text. CWA (central West Antarctica) collectively describes four ice core sites (A, B, C, D) published in Reusch et al. (1999) Research (NCEP–NCAR) in the USA and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in the UK. Both forecast models have problems in the Antarctic (e.g. Bromwich et al., 1995; Genthon and Braun, 1995; Cullather et al., 1997) and the shortage of observations tends to produce analyses that resemble the forecast more than in areas with more available observations. Nonetheless, despite their shortcomings (e.g. Marshall, 2002; Bromwich and Fogt, 2004), these products are still much better options than having only the observational data. ECMWF and NCEP–NCAR have each produced so-called reanalysis versions of their model predictions (Kalnay et al., 1996; ECMWF, 2000; Kistler et al., 2001). A reanalysis uses one version of the forecast model for the duration of the study period and thus removes changes to the model as a source of changes in the forecasts.