A bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. Part II: Comparison with the regularized expectation-maximization algorithm

Martin P. Tingley, Peter Huybers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

55 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Part I presented a Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time (BARCAST). This method involves specifying simple parametric forms for the spatial covariance and temporal evolution of the climate field as well as "observation equations" describing the relationships between the data types and the corresponding true values of the climate field. As this Bayesian approach to reconstructing climate fields is new and different, it is worthwhile to compare it in detail to the more established regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) algorithm, which is based on an empirical estimate of the joint data covariance matrix and a multivariate regression of the instrumental time series onto the proxy time series. The differing assumptions made by BARCAST and RegEM are detailed, and the impacts of these differences on the analysis are discussed. Key distinctions between BARCAST and RegEM include their treatment of spatial and temporal covariance, the prior information that enters into each analysis, the quantities they seek to impute, the end product of each analysis, the temporal variance of the reconstructed field, and the treatment of uncertainty in both the imputed values and functions of these imputations. Differences between BARCAST and RegEM are illustrated by applying the two approaches to various surrogate datasets. If the assumptions inherent to BARCAST are not strongly violated, then in scenarios comparable to practical applications BARCASTresults in reconstructions of both the field and the spatialmean that aremore skillful than those produced by RegEM, as measured by the coefficient of efficiency. In addition, the uncertainty intervals produced by BARCAST are narrower than those estimated using RegEM and contain the true values with higher probability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2782-2800
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Climate
Volume23
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2010

Fingerprint

anomaly
climate
time series
comparison
temporal evolution
matrix
analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Atmospheric Science

Cite this

@article{8b37372a396d4feeb3bbbd456444cd14,
title = "A bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. Part II: Comparison with the regularized expectation-maximization algorithm",
abstract = "Part I presented a Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time (BARCAST). This method involves specifying simple parametric forms for the spatial covariance and temporal evolution of the climate field as well as {"}observation equations{"} describing the relationships between the data types and the corresponding true values of the climate field. As this Bayesian approach to reconstructing climate fields is new and different, it is worthwhile to compare it in detail to the more established regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) algorithm, which is based on an empirical estimate of the joint data covariance matrix and a multivariate regression of the instrumental time series onto the proxy time series. The differing assumptions made by BARCAST and RegEM are detailed, and the impacts of these differences on the analysis are discussed. Key distinctions between BARCAST and RegEM include their treatment of spatial and temporal covariance, the prior information that enters into each analysis, the quantities they seek to impute, the end product of each analysis, the temporal variance of the reconstructed field, and the treatment of uncertainty in both the imputed values and functions of these imputations. Differences between BARCAST and RegEM are illustrated by applying the two approaches to various surrogate datasets. If the assumptions inherent to BARCAST are not strongly violated, then in scenarios comparable to practical applications BARCASTresults in reconstructions of both the field and the spatialmean that aremore skillful than those produced by RegEM, as measured by the coefficient of efficiency. In addition, the uncertainty intervals produced by BARCAST are narrower than those estimated using RegEM and contain the true values with higher probability.",
author = "Tingley, {Martin P.} and Peter Huybers",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1175/2009JCLI3016.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "2782--2800",
journal = "Journal of Climate",
issn = "0894-8755",
publisher = "American Meteorological Society",
number = "10",

}

A bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. Part II : Comparison with the regularized expectation-maximization algorithm. / Tingley, Martin P.; Huybers, Peter.

In: Journal of Climate, Vol. 23, No. 10, 01.05.2010, p. 2782-2800.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. Part II

T2 - Comparison with the regularized expectation-maximization algorithm

AU - Tingley, Martin P.

AU - Huybers, Peter

PY - 2010/5/1

Y1 - 2010/5/1

N2 - Part I presented a Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time (BARCAST). This method involves specifying simple parametric forms for the spatial covariance and temporal evolution of the climate field as well as "observation equations" describing the relationships between the data types and the corresponding true values of the climate field. As this Bayesian approach to reconstructing climate fields is new and different, it is worthwhile to compare it in detail to the more established regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) algorithm, which is based on an empirical estimate of the joint data covariance matrix and a multivariate regression of the instrumental time series onto the proxy time series. The differing assumptions made by BARCAST and RegEM are detailed, and the impacts of these differences on the analysis are discussed. Key distinctions between BARCAST and RegEM include their treatment of spatial and temporal covariance, the prior information that enters into each analysis, the quantities they seek to impute, the end product of each analysis, the temporal variance of the reconstructed field, and the treatment of uncertainty in both the imputed values and functions of these imputations. Differences between BARCAST and RegEM are illustrated by applying the two approaches to various surrogate datasets. If the assumptions inherent to BARCAST are not strongly violated, then in scenarios comparable to practical applications BARCASTresults in reconstructions of both the field and the spatialmean that aremore skillful than those produced by RegEM, as measured by the coefficient of efficiency. In addition, the uncertainty intervals produced by BARCAST are narrower than those estimated using RegEM and contain the true values with higher probability.

AB - Part I presented a Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time (BARCAST). This method involves specifying simple parametric forms for the spatial covariance and temporal evolution of the climate field as well as "observation equations" describing the relationships between the data types and the corresponding true values of the climate field. As this Bayesian approach to reconstructing climate fields is new and different, it is worthwhile to compare it in detail to the more established regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) algorithm, which is based on an empirical estimate of the joint data covariance matrix and a multivariate regression of the instrumental time series onto the proxy time series. The differing assumptions made by BARCAST and RegEM are detailed, and the impacts of these differences on the analysis are discussed. Key distinctions between BARCAST and RegEM include their treatment of spatial and temporal covariance, the prior information that enters into each analysis, the quantities they seek to impute, the end product of each analysis, the temporal variance of the reconstructed field, and the treatment of uncertainty in both the imputed values and functions of these imputations. Differences between BARCAST and RegEM are illustrated by applying the two approaches to various surrogate datasets. If the assumptions inherent to BARCAST are not strongly violated, then in scenarios comparable to practical applications BARCASTresults in reconstructions of both the field and the spatialmean that aremore skillful than those produced by RegEM, as measured by the coefficient of efficiency. In addition, the uncertainty intervals produced by BARCAST are narrower than those estimated using RegEM and contain the true values with higher probability.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954365677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77954365677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1175/2009JCLI3016.1

DO - 10.1175/2009JCLI3016.1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77954365677

VL - 23

SP - 2782

EP - 2800

JO - Journal of Climate

JF - Journal of Climate

SN - 0894-8755

IS - 10

ER -