Smith Leonard A
Centre for the Analysis of Time Series, London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Feb 19;99 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):2487-92. doi: 10.1073/pnas.012580599.
Most climate models are large dynamical systems involving a million (or more) variables on big computers. Given that they are nonlinear and not perfect, what can we expect to learn from them about the earth's climate? How can we determine which aspects of their output might be useful and which are noise? And how should we distribute resources between making them "better," estimating variables of true social and economic interest, and quantifying how good they are at the moment? Just as "chaos" prevents accurate weather forecasts, so model error precludes accurate forecasts of the distributions that define climate, yielding uncertainty of the second kind. Can we estimate the uncertainty in our uncertainty estimates? These questions are discussed. Ultimately, all uncertainty is quantified within a given modeling paradigm; our forecasts need never reflect the uncertainty in a physical system.
大多数气候模型都是大型动力系统,在大型计算机上涉及数百万(或更多)个变量。鉴于它们是非线性的且并不完美,我们能从它们那里了解到关于地球气候的哪些信息呢?我们如何确定其输出的哪些方面可能有用,哪些是噪声呢?以及我们应该如何在使模型“更优”、估计真正具有社会和经济意义的变量,以及量化它们目前的优劣程度之间分配资源呢?正如“混沌”阻碍了准确的天气预报一样,模型误差也妨碍了对定义气候的分布进行准确预测,从而产生了第二类不确定性。我们能否估计我们不确定性估计中的不确定性呢?本文将讨论这些问题。最终,所有不确定性都是在给定的建模范式内进行量化的;我们的预测永远不需要反映物理系统中的不确定性。