Skip to main content

A Metamodel-Based Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty of the Response of Chesapeake Bay Salinity and Circulation to Projected Climate Change

A Correction to this article was published on 19 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Numerical models are often used to simulate estuarine physics and water quality under scenarios of future climate conditions. However, representing the wide range of uncertainty about future climate often requires an infeasible number of computationally expensive model simulations. Here, we develop and test a computationally inexpensive statistical model, or metamodel, as a surrogate for numerical model simulations. We show that a metamodel fit using only 12 numerical model simulations of Chesapeake Bay can accurately predict the early summer mean salinity, stratification, and circulation simulated by the numerical model given the input sea level, winter–spring streamflow, and tidal amplitude along the shelf. We then use this metamodel to simulate summer salinity and circulation under sampled probability distributions of projected future mean sea level, streamflow, and tidal amplitudes. The simulations from the metamodel show that future salinity, stratification, and circulation are all likely to be higher than present-day averages. We also use the metamodel to quantify how uncertainty about the model inputs transfers to uncertainty in the output and find that the model projections of salinity and stratification are highly sensitive to uncertainty about future tidal amplitudes along the shelf. This study shows that metamodels are a promising approach for robustly estimating the impacts of future climate change on estuaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Change history

References

  • Bakker, A.M.R., T.E. Wong, K.L. Ruckert, and K. Keller. 2017. Sea-level projections representing the deeply uncertain contribution of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Scientific Reports 7(1): 1517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke, L., B.L. Thrasher, E.P. Maurer, and T. Pruitt. 2013. Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate projections: release of downscaled CMIP5 climate projections, comparison with preceding information, and summary of user needs. Technical report.

  • Brekke, L., A. Wood, and T. Pruitt. 2014. Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections: release of hydrology projections, comparison with preceding information, and Summary of User Needs. Technical report.

  • Castruccio, S., D.J. McInerney, M.L. Stein, F. Liu Crouch, R.L. Jacob, and E.J. Moyer. 2014. Statistical emulation of climate model projections based on precomputed GCM runs. Journal of Climate 27(5): 1829–1844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chant, R.J., C.K. Sommerfield, and S.A. Talke. 2018. Impact of channel deepening on tidal and gravitational circulation in a highly engineered estuarine basin. Estuaries and Coasts 41(6): 1587–1600.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chassignet, E.P., H.E. Hurlburt, O.M. Smedstad, G.R. Halliwell, P.J. Hogan, A.J. Wallcraft, R. Baraille, and R. Bleck. 2007. The HYCOM HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model data assimilative system. Journal of Marine Systems 65: 60–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chassignet, E.P., L.T. Smith, G.R. Halliwell, and R. Bleck. 2003. North Atlantic Simulations with the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM): impact of the Vertical Coordinate Choice, Reference Pressure, and Thermobaricity. Journal of Physical Oceanography 33(12): 2504–2526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., R.R.C. Beardsley, and G. Cowles. 2006. An unstructured grid, Finite-Volume Coastal Ocean Model (FVCOM) System. Oceanography 19(1): 78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., H. Liu, and R.C. Beardsley. 2003. An unstructured grid, Finite-Volume, Three-Dimensional, Primitive Equations Ocean Model: application to coastal ocean and estuaries. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 20(1): 159–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., S.B. Roy, and P.H. Hutton. 2018. Emulation of a process-based estuarine hydrodynamic model. Hydrological Sciences Journal 63(5): 783–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, V.P., and M. Xu. 2014. Impacts of sea-level rise on estuarine circulation: an idealized estuary and San Francisco Bay. Journal of Marine Systems 139: 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, S., and A. O’Hagan. 2010. Bayesian emulation of complex multi-output and dynamic computer models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140(3): 640–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damblin, G., M. Couplet, and B. Iooss. 2013. Numerical studies of space-filling designs: optimization of Latin Hypercube Samples and subprojection properties. Journal of Simulation 7(4): 276–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeConto, R.M., and D. Pollard. 2016. Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature 531(7596): 591–597.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, A.T., J. Pan, and H. Lin. 2018. Extended spectral analysis of tidal variability in the North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research:, Oceans 124(1): 506–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H., and A.J. Elmore. 2015. Spatio-temporal patterns in water surface temperature from Landsat time series data in the Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A. Remote Sensing of Environment 168: 335–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., and J. Shen. 2015. Decoupling the influence of biological and physical processes on the dissolved oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 120(1): 78–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egbert, G.D., A.F. Bennett, and M.G.G. Foreman. 1994. TOPEX/POSEIDON tides estimated using a global inverse model. Journal of Geophysical Research 99: 24821–24852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egbert, G.D., and S.Y. Erofeeva. 2002. Efficient inverse modeling of barotropic ocean tides. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 19(2): 183–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, T.E., J.E. Oakley, and N.M. Urban. 2013. Multivariate gaussian process emulators with nonseparable covariance structures. Technometrics 55(1): 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, W.R., and P. MacCready. 2014. The estuarine circulation. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 46 (1): 175–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.R., and R.G. Najjar. 2000. The response of Chesapeake Bay salinity to climate-induced changes in streamflow. Limnology and Oceanography 45(8): 1764–1772.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, I.D., M.D. Pickering, J.A.M. Green, B.K. Arbic, A. Arns, S. Dangendorf, D.F. Hill, K. Horsburgh, T. Howard, D. Idier, D.A. Jay, L. Jänicke, S.B. Lee, M. Müller, M. Schindelegger, S.A. Talke, S. -B. Wilmes, and P.L. Woodworth. 2020. The tides they are A-Changin’: a comprehensive review of past and future nonastronomical changes in tides, their driving mechanisms, and future implications. Reviews of Geophysics 58(1): 06–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, D.V., and M. Rattray. 1965. Gravitational circulation in straits and estuaries. Journal of Marine Research 23: 104–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmings, J.C.P., P.G. Challenor, and A. Yool. 2015. Mechanistic site-based emulation of a global ocean biogeochemical model (MEDUSA 1.0) for parametric analysis and calibration: an application of the Marine Model Optimization Testbed mar (MOT 1.1). Geoscientific Model Development 8(3): 697–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, T.W., R.G. Najjar, L. Zhong, and M. Li. 2008. Is there a signal of sea-level rise in Chesapeake Bay salinity? Journal of Geophysical Research 113.

  • Holden, P.B., N.R. Edwards, K.I.C. Oliver, T.M. Lenton, and R.D. Wilkinson. 2010. A probabilistic calibration of climate sensitivity and terrestrial carbon change in GENIE-1. Climate Dynamics 35(5): 785–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, B., and J. Shen. 2012. Responses of estuarine salinity and transport processes to potential future sea-level rise in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science 104-105: 33–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W., S. Hagen, P. Bacopoulos, and D. Wang. 2015. Hydrodynamic modeling and analysis of sea-level rise impacts on salinity for oyster growth in Apalachicola bay, Florida. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 156: 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iooss, B., and P. Lemaître. 2015. A review on global sensitivity analysis methods. In Dellino, G. and Meloni, C., editors, Uncertainty management in simulation-optimization of complex systems: algorithms and applications, pages 101–122. Springer US, Boston, MA.

  • Irby, I., M.A. Friedrichs, F. Da, and K. Hinson. 2018. The competing impacts of climate change and nutrient reductions on dissolved oxygen in Chesapeake Bay. Biogeosciences 15: 2649–2668.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Irby, I.D., M.A. Friedrichs, C.T. Friedrichs, A.J. Bever, R.R. Hood, L.W. Lanerolle, M. Li, L. Linker, M.E. Scully, K. Sellner, J. Shen, J. Testa, H. Wang, P. Wang, and M. Xia. 2016. Challenges associated with modeling low-oxygen waters in Chesapeake Bay: a multiple model comparison. Biogeosciences 13(7): 2011–2028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakeman, A., R. Letcher, and J. Norton. 2006. Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models. Environmental Modelling & Software 21(5): 602–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, M.J.W. 1999. Analysis of variance designs for model output. Computer Physics Communications 117 (1): 35–43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T.E., J.B. Butcher, A. Parker, and C.P. Weaver. 2012. Investigating the sensitivity of U. S. streamflow and water quality to climate change: U. S. EPA Global Change Research Program’s 20 Watersheds Project. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 138(5): 453–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, D.G., M. Tarnowski, and R.I.E. Newell. 2014. The relationship between interannual climate variability and juvenile eastern oyster abundance at a regional scale in Chesapeake Bay. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34(1): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, R.E., R.M. DeConto, D.A. Bader, C.C. Hay, R.M. Horton, S. Kulp, M. Oppenheimer, D. Pollard, and B.H. Strauss. 2017. Evolving understanding of Antarctic ice-sheet physics and ambiguity in probabilistic sea- level projections . Earth’s Future 5(12): 1217–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, R.E., R.M. Horton, C.M. Little, J.X. Mitrovica, M. Oppenheimer, D.J. Rasmussen, B.H. Strauss, and C. Tebaldi. 2014. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earth’s Future 2(8): 383–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Gratiet, L., C. Cannamela, and B. Iooss. 2014. A Bayesian Approach for Global Sensitivity Analysis of (Multifidelity) Computer Codes. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 2(1): 336–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.B., M. Li, and F. Zhang. 2017. Impact of sea level rise on tidal range in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 122(5): 3917–3938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.J., W.R. Boynton, M. Li, and Y. Li. 2013. Role of late winter –spring wind influencing summer hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 36(4): 683–696.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., Y.J. Lee, J.M. Testa, Y. Li, W. Ni, W.M. Kemp, and D.M. Di Toro. 2016. What drives interannual variability of hypoxia in Chesapeake bay: climate forcing versus nutrient loading? Geophysical Research Letters 43(5): 2127–2134.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., L. Zhong, and W. C. Boicourt. 2005. Simulations of Chesapeake Bay estuary: sensitivity to turbulence mixing parameterizations and comparison with observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 110.

  • Li, Y., and M. Li. 2011. Effects of winds on stratification and circulation in a partially mixed estuary. Journal of Geophysical Research 116.

  • Loeppky, J.L., J. Sacks, and W.J. Welch. 2009. Choosing the sample size of a computer experiment: a practical guide. Technometrics 51(4): 366–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCready, P. 1999. Estuarine adjustment to changes in river flow and tidal mixing. Journal of Physical Oceanography 29(4): 708–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCready, P., and W.R. Geyer. 2010. Advances in estuarine physics. Annual Review of Marine Science 2(1): 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrel, A., B. Iooss, F. Van Dorpe, and E. Volkova. 2008. An efficient methodology for modeling complex computer codes with Gaussian processes. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 52(10): 4731–4744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattern, J.P., K. Fennel, and M. Dowd. 2013. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of model hypoxia estimates for the Texas-Louisiana shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 118(3): 1316–1317.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mesinger, F., G. DiMego, E. Kalnay, K. Mitchell, P.C. Shafran, W. Ebisuzaki, D. Jović, J. Woollen, E. Rogers, E.H. Berbery, M.B. Ek, Y. Fan, R. Grumbine, W. Higgins, H. Li, Y. Lin, G. Manikin, D. Parrish, and W. Shi. 2006. North American regional reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 87(3): 343–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monismith, S.G., W. Kimmerer, J.R. Burau, and M.T. Stacey. 2002. Structure and flow-induced variability of the subtidal salinity field in northern San Francisco Bay. Journal of Physical Oceanography 32(11): 3003–3019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muhling, B.A., C. F. Gaitán, C.A. Stock, V.S. Saba, D. Tommasi, and K.W. Dixon. 2018. Potential salinity and temperature futures for the Chesapeake Bay using a statistical downscaling spatial disaggregation framework. Estuaries and Coasts 41: 349–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulamba, T., P. Bacopoulos, E.J. Kubatko, and G.F. Pinto. 2019. Sea-level rise impacts on longitudinal salinity for a low-gradient estuarine system. Climatic Change 152(3-4): 533–550.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. 2012. The influence of changing stratification conditions on barotropic tidal transport and its implications for seasonal and secular changes of tides. Continental Shelf Research 47: 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M., B.K. Arbic, and J.X. Mitrovica. 2011. Secular trends in ocean tides: observations and model results. Journal of Geophysical Research 116.

  • Murphy, R.R., W.M. Kemp, and W.P. Ball. 2011. Long-term trends in chesapeake bay seasonal hypoxia, stratification, and nutrient loading. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1293–1309.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Najjar, R., L. Patterson, and S. Graham. 2009. Climate simulations of major estuarine watersheds in the mid-Atlantic region of the US. Climatic Change 95(1-2): 139–168.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Najjar, R.G., C.R. Pyke, M.B. Adams, D. Breitburg, C. Hershner, M. Kemp, R. Howarth, M.R. Mulholland, M. Paolisso, D. Secor, K. Sellner, D. Wardrop, and R. Wood. 2010. Potential climate-change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86(1): 1–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J.E., and J.V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I —a discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology 10: 282–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Officer, C.B., R.B. Biggs, J.L. Taft, L.E. Cronin, M.A. Tyler, and W.R Boynton. 1984. Chesapeake Bay anoxia: origin, development, and significance. Science 223(4631): 22–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K., P. Ruggiero, K.A. Serafin, and D.F. Hill. 2019. Emulation as an approach for rapid estuarine modeling. Coastal Engineering 150: 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M.D., K.J. Horsburgh, J.R. Blundell, J. -M. J. M. Hirschi, R.J. Nicholls, M. Verlaan, and N.C. Wells. 2017. The impact of future sea-level rise on the global tides. Continental Shelf Research 142: 50–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleming, J., and R. Manteufel. 2005. Replicated Latin Hypercube Sampling. 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference.

  • Preston, B.L. 2004. Observed Winter Warming of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary 1949–2002: implications for Ecosystem Management. Environmental Management 34(1): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D.K., and W.R. Geyer. 2019. Response to channel deepening of the salinity intrusion, estuarine circulation, and stratification in an urbanized estuary. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124.

  • Ralston, D.K., W.R. Geyer, and J.A. Lerczak. 2008. Subtidal salinity and velocity in the Hudson River estuary: observations and modeling. Journal of Physical Oceanography 38(4): 753–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D.K., S. Talke, W.R. Geyer, H. Al’Zubadaei, and C.K. Sommerfield. 2018. Bigger tides, less flooding: effects of dredging on barotropic dynamics in a highly modified estuary. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 124.

  • Rasmussen, C.E., and C.K.I. Williams. 2006. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, R.D. 2009. Secular changes in the solar semidiurnal tide of the western North Atlantic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters 36.

  • Razavi, S., B.A. Tolson, and D.H. Burn. 2012. Review of surrogate modeling in water resources. Water Resources Research 48 7.

  • Riahi, K., S. Rao, V. Krey, C. Cho, V. Chirkov, G. Fischer, G. Kindermann, N. Nakicenovic, and P. Rafaj. 2011. RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change 109: 33–57.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, K.C., B. Hong, and J. Shen. 2012. Assessment of salinity intrusion in the James and Chickahominy Rivers as a result of simulated sea-level rise in Chesapeake bay, East Coast, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 111: 61–69.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, K.C., and J.D. Jastram. 2015. Rising air and stream-water temperatures in Chesapeake Bay region, USA. Climatic Change 128(1-2): 127–138.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A.C., R.G. Najjar, M. Li, S.B. Lee, F. Zhang, and W. Liu. 2017. Fingerprints of sea- level rise on changing tides in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Journal of Geophysical Research:, Oceans 122 (10): 8102–8125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roustant, O., D. Ginsbourger, and Y. Deville. 2012. DiceKriging DiceOptim: two R Packages for the analysis of computer experiments by kriging-based metamodeling and optimization. Journal of Statistical Software 51(1): 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, J., W.J. Welch, J.S.B. Mitchell, and P.W. Henry. 1989. Design and experiments of computer experiments. Statistical Science 4(4): 409–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A., P. Annoni, I. Azzini, F. Campolongo, M. Ratto, and S. Tarantola. 2010. Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Computer Physics Communications 181(2): 259–270.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A., M. Ratto, T. Andres, F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, and D. Gatelli. 2008. Saisana. M., and Tarantola, S: Global sensitivity analysis. The Primer John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A., S. Tarantola, F. Campolongo, and M. Ratto. 2004. Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models wiley. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindelegger, M., J.A. Green, S.B. Wilmes, and I.D. Haigh. 2018. Can we model the effect of observed sea level rise on tides? Journal of Geophysical Research:, Oceans 123(7): 4593–4609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleussner, C.F., K. Frieler, M. Meinshausen, J. Yin, and A. Levermann. 2011. Emulating Atlantic overturning strength for low emission scenarios: consequences for sea-level rise along the North American east coast. Earth System Dynamics 2(2): 191–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, M.E. 2010a. The importance of climate variability to wind-driven modulation of hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Physical Oceanography 40(6): 1435–1440.

  • Scully, M.E. 2010b. Wind modulation of dissolved oxygen in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 33 (5): 1164–1175.

  • Scully, M.E. 2016. The contribution of physical processes to inter-annual variations of hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay: a 30-yr modeling study. Limnology and Oceanography 61(6): 2243–2260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seong, C., V. Sridhar, and M.M. Billah. 2018. Implications of potential evapotranspiration methods for streamflow estimations under changing climatic conditions. International Journal of Climatology 38(2): 896–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sin, G., K.V. Gernaey, and A.E. Lantz. 2009. Good modeling practice for PAT applications: propagation of input uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Biotechnology Progress 25(4): 1043–1053.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Storlie, C.B., L.P. Swiler, J.C. Helton, and C.J. Sallaberry. 2009. Implementation and evaluation of nonparametric regression procedures for sensitivity analysis of computationally demanding models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94(11): 1735–1763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talke, S.A., and D.A. Jay. 2020. Changing tides: the role of natural and anthropogenic factors. Annual Review of Marine Science pp.121- 151.

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Appendix F. Determination of the hydrologic period for model application. Technical report.

  • van der Merwe, R., T.K. Leen, Z. Lu, S. Frolov, and A.M. Baptista. 2007. Fast neural network surrogates for very high dimensional physics-based models in computational oceanography. Neural Networks 20(4): 462–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, P.L. 2010. A survey of recent changes in the main components of the ocean tide. Continental Shelf Research 30(15): 1680–1691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, X., and M. Li. 2018. Effects of wind straining on estuarine stratification: a combined observational and modeling study. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 123(4): 2363–2380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J., W. Long, J.D. Wiggert, L.W.J. Lanerolle, C.W. Brown, R. Murtugudde, and R.R. Hood. 2012. Climate forcing and salinity variability, in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 35(1): 237–261.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank John Lanzante, Charles Stock, and two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful reviews of this manuscript. Conflicts of interest: None.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation (CBET-1360286), PA Sea Grant (NA10OAR4170063), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (NA18OAR4320123). The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew C. Ross.

Additional information

Communicated by Neil Kamal Ganju

The original online version of this article was revised: On page 77, right column, first paragraph, the sentence was corrected.

Appendix A: Details of Gaussian Process Metamodel

Appendix A: Details of Gaussian Process Metamodel

We initially treat the model output as the sum of one or more trend terms and a zero-mean Gaussian process:

$$ \mathbf{Y}(\mathbf{x}) = f(\mathbf{x})^{\intercal} \upbeta + GP\left( 0, c(\mathbf{x}_{i}, \mathbf{x}_{j}) \right) $$
(7)

where, for an x consisting of n points in d-dimensional space, f(x) is a n × p design matrix for the trend term(s) and β is a p × 1 vector of trend parameters. For a simple intercept only (constant mean, or flat trend), p = 1 and f(x) would be a vector of n ones and β the intercept. For a linear trend, these terms are analogous to multiple linear regression, with p = 1 + d, f(x) a matrix with rows consisting of a 1 followed by the d coordinates of one point, and β representing the intercept and a slope for each dimension.

The covariance function gives the covariance between the GP at two points xi and xj. Under the assumption that the model output is a relatively smooth function of its inputs (Roustant et al. 2012), we modeled the covariance with a squared exponential function:

$$ c(\mathbf{x}_{i}, \mathbf{x}_{j}) = \sigma^{2} {\prod}_{k=1}^{d} \exp \left( -\frac{\left( \mathbf{x}_{i,k} - \mathbf{x}_{j,k} \right)^{2}}{2 {\theta_{k}^{2}}} \right ) $$
(8)

Here, 𝜃k functions as a length scale that adjusts the distance of the decay of the covariance between model results at different values of factor k, and σ2 is a constant known as the process variance.

The separate terms in Eq. 7 can be combined into a single Gaussian process with non-zero mean, and, following Roustant et al. (2012), prediction of the numerical model output Ŷ at a new point x can be obtained from the expected value of the GP conditional on the n known values of the numerical model simulations Y at points x used to train the metamodel:

$$ E\left[\hat{Y}(\mathbf{x}_{*}) \right] = f(\mathbf{x}_{*})^{\intercal} \hat{\upbeta} + \mathbf{C}_{\mathbf{x}_{*}}^{\intercal} \mathbf{C}_{\mathbf{x}}^{-1} (\mathbf{Y} - \textbf{F} \hat{\upbeta}) $$
(9)

where f(x)β̂ is the sum of the trend function(s) given estimated values of the coefficients β̂, Cx⊺ is a 1 × n vector of the covariance between the output at the new point and the n training points, Cx− 1 is the inverse of the n × n covariance matrix of the training simulations, Y is a vector of the values of the numerical simulations used for training, and Fβ̂ is a vector of the values of the trend(s) at the training points. Eq. 9 shows that when numerical simulations are near the prediction point in parameter space, and therefore have high covariance, the deviation of the prediction from the trend will be influenced by the deviation of the nearby simulations from the trend. Far away from any numerical simulations used to fit the metamodel, the metamodel prediction will tend to revert towards the value from the trend functions only. Uncertainty about the outcome of the Gaussian process is also typically included when making predictions. See Roustant et al. (2012) for the formulation of the variance of the predicted values. Intuitively, variance is low near points where the numerical model has been run and is large at points far away from known model simulations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ross, A.C., Najjar, R.G. & Li, M. A Metamodel-Based Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty of the Response of Chesapeake Bay Salinity and Circulation to Projected Climate Change. Estuaries and Coasts 44, 70–87 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00761-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00761-w

Keywords

  • Emulator
  • Metamodel
  • Chesapeake Bay
  • Climate change
  • Sensitivity analysis
  • Uncertainty analysis