Seasonal Prediction of Summer Precipitation in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River Valley: Comparison of Machine Learning and Climate Model Predictions
The middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River valley (YRV), which are among the most densely populated regions in China, are subject to frequent flooding. In this study, the predictor importance analysis model was used to sort and select predictors, and five methods (multiple linear regression (...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/9821b115db424b10b09bd9fe58c98b66 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River valley (YRV), which are among the most densely populated regions in China, are subject to frequent flooding. In this study, the predictor importance analysis model was used to sort and select predictors, and five methods (multiple linear regression (MLR), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), backpropagation neural network (BPNN), and convolutional neural network (CNN)) were used to predict the interannual variation of summer precipitation over the middle and lower reaches of the YRV. Predictions from eight climate models were used for comparison. Of the five tested methods, RF demonstrated the best predictive skill. Starting the RF prediction in December, when its prediction skill was highest, the 70-year correlation coefficient from cross validation of average predictions was 0.473. Using the same five predictors in December 2019, the RF model successfully predicted the YRV wet anomaly in summer 2020, although it had weaker amplitude. It was found that the enhanced warm pool area in the Indian Ocean was the most important causal factor. The BPNN and CNN methods demonstrated the poorest performance. The RF, DT, and climate models all showed higher prediction skills when the predictions start in winter than in early spring, and the RF, DT, and MLR methods all showed better prediction skills than the numerical climate models. Lack of training data was a factor that limited the performance of the machine learning methods. Future studies should use deep learning methods to take full advantage of the potential of ocean, land, sea ice, and other factors for more accurate climate predictions. |
|---|