arXiv subjects

Hannah Christensen

Publications and source records attributed to Hannah Christensen.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How different are deterministic physics suites when coupled to fixed model dynamics and why?

It is often difficult to attribute uncertainty and errors in atmospheric models to designated model components. This is because sub-grid parameterised processes interact strongly with the large-scale transport represented by the explicit model dynamics. We carry out experiments with prescribed large-scale dynamics and different sub-grid physics suites. This dataset has been constructed for the Model Uncertainty Model Intercomparison Project (MUMIP), in which each suite forecasts sub-grid tendencies at a 22km grid. The common dynamics is derived from a convection-permitting benchmark: an ICON DYAMOND experiment (2.5km grid). We compare four different physics suites for atmospheric models in an Indian Ocean experiment. We analyse their joint PDFs of precipitation and associated physics tendencies for a full month. Precipitation is selected because it is a dominant uncertainty in the models that redistributes large amounts of heat. We find that all physics suites produce very similar precipitation amounts, with very high correlations between models, which exceed 0.95 at the native grid. However, the convection-permitting benchmark is more dissimilar from each of the physics suites, with correlations of $\approx$0.80. Similarly, we show that the vertically averaged physics tendencies in the free-troposphere are highly similar between the four physics suites, yet different if reconstructed for the benchmark. The water vapour sink is very closely linked with precipitation in the four physics suites. This suggests that the coarse-grid models are overconfident. We hypothese is that variation in unresolved convective structures can lead to variation in the dynamics, following a given amount of latent heating at fine grids, but not in our physics suites. The abstract length limit of ArXiv requires you to proceed in the PDF.

physics.ao-ph↗

arXiv2025

Crowdsourcing the Frontier: Advancing Hybrid Physics-ML Climate Simulation via a $50,000 Kaggle Competition

Subgrid machine-learning (ML) parameterizations have the potential to introduce a new generation of climate models that incorporate the effects of higher-resolution physics without incurring the prohibitive computational cost associated with more explicit physics-based simulations. However, important issues, ranging from online instability to inconsistent online performance, have limited their operational use for long-term climate projections. To more rapidly drive progress in solving these issues, domain scientists and machine learning researchers opened up the offline aspect of this problem to the broader machine learning and data science community with the release of ClimSim, a NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks publication, and an associated Kaggle competition. This paper reports on the downstream results of the Kaggle competition by coupling emulators inspired by the winning teams' architectures to an interactive climate model (including full cloud microphysics, a regime historically prone to online instability) and systematically evaluating their online performance. Our results demonstrate that online stability in the low-resolution, real-geography setting is reproducible across multiple diverse architectures, which we consider a key milestone. All tested architectures exhibit strikingly similar offline and online biases, though their responses to architecture-agnostic design choices (e.g., expanding the list of input variables) can differ significantly. Multiple Kaggle-inspired architectures achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on certain metrics such as zonal mean bias patterns and global RMSE, indicating that crowdsourcing the essence of the offline problem is one path to improving online performance in hybrid physics-AI climate simulation.

physics.ao-ph↗

arXiv2022

How is model-related uncertainty quantified and reported in different disciplines?

How do we know how much we know? Quantifying uncertainty associated with our modelling work is the only way we can answer how much we know about any phenomenon. With quantitative science now highly influential in the public sphere and the results from models translating into action, we must support our conclusions with sufficient rigour to produce useful, reproducible results. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to false conclusions with real world impacts. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, uncertainty consideration is incomplete both within and across scientific fields. We take a unique interdisciplinary approach and conduct a systematic audit of model-related uncertainty quantification from seven scientific fields, spanning the biological, physical, and social sciences. Our results show no single field is achieving complete consideration of model uncertainties, but together we can fill the gaps. We propose opportunities to improve the quantification of uncertainty through use of a source framework for uncertainty consideration, model type specific guidelines, improved presentation, and shared best practice. We also identify shared outstanding challenges (uncertainty in input data, balancing trade-offs, error propagation, and defining how much uncertainty is required). Finally, we make nine concrete recommendations for current practice (following good practice guidelines and an uncertainty checklist, presenting uncertainty numerically, and propagating model-related uncertainty into conclusions), future research priorities (uncertainty in input data, quantifying uncertainty in complex models, and the importance of missing uncertainty in different contexts), and general research standards across the sciences (transparency about study limitations and dedicated uncertainty sections of manuscripts).

stat.AP↗

arXiv2017

Stochastic Parameterization: Towards a new view of Weather and Climate Models

The last decade has seen the success of stochastic parameterizations in short-term, medium-range and seasonal forecasts: operational weather centers now routinely use stochastic parameterization schemes to better represent model inadequacy and improve the quantification of forecast uncertainty. Developed initially for numerical weather prediction, the inclusion of stochastic parameterizations not only provides better estimates of uncertainty, but it is also extremely promising for reducing longstanding climate biases and relevant for determining the climate response to external forcing. This article highlights recent developments from different research groups which show that the stochastic representation of unresolved processes in the atmosphere, oceans, land surface and cryosphere of comprehensive weather and climate models (a) gives rise to more reliable probabilistic forecasts of weather and climate and (b) reduces systematic model bias. We make a case that the use of mathematically stringent methods for the derivation of stochastic dynamic equations will lead to substantial improvements in our ability to accurately simulate weather and climate at all scales. Recent work in mathematics, statistical mechanics and turbulence is reviewed, its relevance for the climate problem demonstrated, and future research directions outlined.

physics.ao-ph↗