Try optimizing for OHC #33
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I implemented new functions and scripts to enable optimization for ocean heat content (in addition to temperature and CO2). By optimizing for all three variables using the NMSE with uncertainty metric and the Matilda paper's bounds for ocean heat diffusivity, I was able to get much better results for ocean heat content at the cost of slightly worse CO2 accuracy.
Something worth noting about the current NMSE with uncertainty metric is that I realized the bounds for OHC are +/- 1 standard deviation, while the bounds for temperature are a 95% confidence interval. I considered using a 95% confidence interval for OHC as well, but I was concerned that using such a large confidence interval for OHC would lead to it basically being ignored while optimizing. When I implement mean variance-standardized squared error, I plan to account for this discrepancy.
Graphs of these results are shown below:
