A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part 2: Comparison with the Regularized Expectation-Maximization Algorithm

DSpace/Manakin Repository

A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part 2: Comparison with the Regularized Expectation-Maximization Algorithm

Citable link to this page

. . . . . .

Title: A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part 2: Comparison with the Regularized Expectation-Maximization Algorithm
Author: Tingley, Martin Patrick; Huybers, Peter John

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Tingley, Martin and Peter Huybers. 2010. A Bayesian algorithm for reconstructing climate anomalies in space and time. Part 2: Comparison with the regularized expectation-maximization algorithm. Journal of Climate 23(10): 2782-2800.
Full Text & Related Files:
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 as- sumptions 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 BARCAST results in reconstructions of both the field and the spatial mean that are more 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.
Published Version: doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3016.1
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9949280

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • FAS Scholarly Articles [7219]
    Peer reviewed scholarly articles from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University
 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters