Articles | Volume 25, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2365-2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2365-2025
Opinion
 | Highlight paper
 | 
21 Feb 2025
Opinion | Highlight paper |  | 21 Feb 2025

Opinion: Why all emergent constraints are wrong but some are useful – a machine learning perspective

Peer Nowack and Duncan Watson-Parris

Viewed

Total article views: 738 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
471 213 54 738 36 26
  • HTML: 471
  • PDF: 213
  • XML: 54
  • Total: 738
  • BibTeX: 36
  • EndNote: 26
Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Jun 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Jun 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 738 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 726 with geography defined and 12 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 21 Feb 2025
Download
Executive editor
Emergent constraints are becoming popular for the identification of statistical relationships in observed current and past climate data that can be used to guide projections of future climate states. Their application is not without controversy, however, due to uncertainties about whether these relationships are indeed climate-invariant. This Opinion introduces an argument that Machine Learning tools can be useful for identifying climate-invariant relationships in historical data, especially those that are more complex, that can be expected to remain consistent under future climate scenarios.
Short summary
In our article, we review uncertainties in global climate change projections and current methods using Earth observations as constraints, which is crucial for climate risk assessments and for informing society. We then discuss how machine learning can advance the field, discussing recent work that provides potentially stronger and more robust links between observed data and future climate projections. We further discuss the challenges of applying machine learning to climate science.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint