Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 78:623 | Cite as

Comparison of piecewise linear change point detection with traditional analytical methods for ocean and climate data

  • D. BaneshEmail author
  • M. Petersen
  • J. Wendelberger
  • J. Ahrens
  • B. Hamann
Thematic Issue
  • 104 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Visual Data Exploration

Abstract

The Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are largely determined by periodic patterns of solar radiation, from daily and seasonal, to orbital variations over thousands of years. Dynamical processes alter these cycles with feedbacks and delays, so that the observed climate response is a combination of cyclical features and sudden regime changes. A primary example is the shift from a glacial (ice age) state to interglacial, which is driven by a 100-thousand year orbital cycle, while the transition occurs over a period of hundreds of years. Traditional methods of statistical analysis such as Fourier and wavelet transforms are very good at describing cyclical behavior, but lack any characterization of singular events and regime changes. More recently, researchers have tested techniques in the statistical discipline of change point detection. This paper explores the unique advantages of a piecewise linear regression change point detection algorithm to identify events, regime shifts, and the direction of cyclical trends in geophysical data. It evaluates the reasons for choosing this particular change detection algorithm over other techniques by applying the technique to both observational and model data sets. A comparison of the proposed change detection algorithm to the more established statistical techniques shows the benefits and drawbacks of each method.

Keywords

Change point detection Ocean data Fourier transform Wavelets 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the DOE, NNSA and ASC for funding this work at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). M. Petersen was supported as part of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research. MPAS-Ocean simulations were conducted at LANL Institutional Computing, under US DOE NNSA (DE-AC52-06NA25396). We would also like to thank Terece Turton for valuable feedback.

References

  1. Ahrens J, Jourdain S, O’Leary P, Patchett J, Rogers DH, Petersen M (2014) An image-based approach to extreme scale in situ visualization and analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis. IEEE Press, pp 424–434Google Scholar
  2. Banesh D, Schoonover JA, Ahrens JP, Hamann B (2017) Extracting, visualizing and tracking mesoscale ocean eddies in two-dimensional image sequences using contours and moments. In: Rink K, Middel A, Zeckzer D, Bujack R (eds) Workshop on visualisation in environmental sciences (EnvirVis). The Eurographics Association.  https://doi.org/10.2312/envirvis.20171103
  3. Basseville M, Nikiforov IV et al (1993) Detection of abrupt changes: theory and application, vol 104. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter B, Eggleston S, Schmitt J, Nehrbass-Ahles C, Stocker TF, Fischer H, Kipfstuhl S, Chappellaz J (2015) Revision of the epica dome c co2 record from 800 to 600 kyr before present. Geophys Res Lett 42(2):542–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaigneau A, Gizolme A, Grados C (2008) Mesoscale eddies off peru in altimeter records: Identification algorithms and eddy spatio-temporal patterns. Prog Oceanogr 79(2–4):106–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chelton DB, Schlax MG, Samelson RM, de Szoeke RA (2007) Global observations of large oceanic eddies. Geophys Res Lett 34:L15606Google Scholar
  7. Chelton DB, Gaube P, Schlax MG, Early JJ, Samelson RM (2011) The influence of nonlinear mesoscale eddies on near-surface oceanic chlorophyll. Science 334(6054):328–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen G, Hou Y, Chu X (2011) Mesoscale eddies in the south china sea: Mean properties, spatiotemporal variability, and impact on thermohaline structure. J Geophys Res Oceans 116:C06018Google Scholar
  9. Chen J, Gupta AK (2011) Parametric statistical change point analysis: with applications to genetics, medicine, and finance. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. CRAN (2017) The comprehensive R archive network. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ecp/index.html
  11. Doglioli A, Blanke B, Speich S, Lapeyre G (2007) Tracking coherent structures in a regional ocean model with wavelet analysis: application to cape basin eddies. J Geophys Res Oceans 112:C05043Google Scholar
  12. Goela PC, Cordeiro C, Danchenko S, Icely J, Cristina S, Newton A (2016) Time series analysis of data for sea surface temperature and upwelling components from the southwest coast of Portugal. J Mar Syst 163:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Golaz JC, Caldwell PM, Van Roekel LP, Petersen MR, Tang Q, Wolfe JD, Abeshu G, Anantharaj V, Asay-Davis XS, Bader DC, Baldwin SA, Bisht G, Bogenschutz PA, Branstetter M, Brunke MA, Brus SR, Burrows SM, Cameron-Smith PJ, Donahue AS, Deakin M, Easter RC, Evans KJ, Feng Y, Flanner M, Foucar JG, Fyke JG, Griffin BM, Hannay C, Harrop BE, Hunke EC, Jacob RL, Jacobsen DW, Jeffery N, Jones PW, Keen ND, Klein SA, Larson VE, Leung LR, Li HY, Lin W, Lipscomb WH, Ma PL, Mahajan S, Maltrud ME, Mametjanov A, McClean JL, McCoy RB, Neale RB, Price SF, Qian Y, Rasch PJ, Reeves Eyre JJ, Riley WJ, Ringler TD, Roberts AF, Roesler EL, Salinger AG, Shaheen Z, Shi X, Singh B, Tang J, Taylor MA, Thornton PE, Turner AK, Veneziani M, Wan H, Wang H, Wang S, Williams DN, Wolfram PJ, Worley PH, Xie S, Yang Y, Yoon JH, Zelinka MD, Zender CS, Zeng X, Zhang C, Zhang K, Zhang Y, Zheng X, Zhou T, Zhu Q (2019) The DOE E3SM coupled model version 1: overview and evaluation at standard resolution. J Adv Model Earth Syst 11(ja):2089–2129.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurrell JW (1995) Decadal trends in the North Atlantic oscillation: regional temperatures and precipitation. Science 269(5224):676–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurrell JW, Kushnir Y, Ottersen G, Visbeck M (2003) The North Atlantic oscillation: climatic significance and environmental impact. In: Washington DC American geophysical union geophysical monograph series, vol 134.  https://doi.org/10.1029/GM134 Google Scholar
  16. Hyndman RJ, Athanasopoulos G (2018) Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts (ISBN-13: 978-0987507112)Google Scholar
  17. Hyun S, G’Sell M, Tibshirani RJ (2016) Exact post-selection inference for changepoint detection and other generalized lasso problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:160603552
  18. Imbrie J, Berger A, Boyle E, Clemens S, Duffy A, Howard W, Kukla G, Kutzbach J, Martinson D, Mcintyre A (1993) On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 2. The 100,000-year cycle. Paleoceanography 8:699–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones PD, Jonsson T, Wheeler D (1997) Extension to the North Atlantic oscillation using early instrumental pressure observations from gibraltar and south-west iceland. Int J Climatol 17(13):1433–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jouzel J, Masson-Delmotte V et al (2007) Orbital and millennial Antarctic climate variability over the past 800,000 years. Science 317(5839):793–796.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141038, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/793, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/793.full.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lisiecki LE, Raymo ME (2005) A pliocene-pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic \(\delta \)18o records. Paleoceanography 20:PA1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McManus JF, Francois R, Gherardi JM, Keigwin LD, Brown-Leger S (2004) Collapse and rapid resumption of Atlantic meridional circulation linked to deglacial climate changes. Nature 428(6985):834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McWilliams JC (2008) The nature and consequences of oceanic eddies. In: Ocean modeling in an Eddying regime. Washington, DC, pp 5–15 (ISBN-13: 978-0875904429)Google Scholar
  24. Milankovitch M (1941) Canon of insolation and the iceage problem. In: Koniglich Serbische Akademice Beograd Special Publication, vol 132 (ISBN: 9788617066190)Google Scholar
  25. MPAS-Developers (2013) MPAS. http://mpas-dev.github.io/. Accessed 20 Jun 2016
  26. Myers K, Lawrence E, Fugate M, Bowen CM, Ticknor L, Woodring J, Wendelberger J, Ahrens J (2016) Partitioning a large simulation as it runs. Technometrics 58(3):329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NCEI (2018) Antarctic ice cores revised 800kyr co2 data. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/antarctica2015co2.xlss
  28. Oceanic Nino Index (2018) Equatorial pacific sea surface temperatures. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/sst/
  29. Petersen M, Williams S, Maltrud M, Hecht M, Hamann B (2013) A three-dimensional eddy census of a high-resolution global ocean simulation. J Geophys Res (Oceans) 118:1759–1774.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petersen MR, Williams SJ, Maltrud ME, Hecht MW, Hamann B (2013) A three-dimensional eddy census of a high-resolution global ocean simulation. J Geophys Res (Oceans) 118(4):1759–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petersen MR, Jacobsen DW, Ringler TD, Hecht MW, Maltrud ME (2015) Evaluation of the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian vertical coordinate method in the MPAS-Ocean model. Ocean Model 86:93–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.12.004, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500314001796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petersen MR, Asay-Davis XS, Berres AS, Chen Q, Feige N, Hoffman MJ, Jacobsen DW, Jones PW, Maltrud ME, Price SF, Ringler TD, Streletz GJ, Turner AK, Van Roekel LP, Veneziani M, Wolfe JD, Wolfram PJ, Woodring JL (2019) An evaluation of the ocean and sea ice climate of e3sm using mpas and interannual core-ii forcing. J Adv Mode Earth Syst 11(5):1438–1458.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quan J, Zhan W, Chen Y, Wang M, Wang J (2016) Time series decomposition of remotely sensed land surface temperature and investigation of trends and seasonal variations in surface urban heat islands. J Geophys Res Atmos 121(6):2638–2657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ray BK, Tsay RS (2002) Bayesian methods for change-point detection in long-range dependent processes. J Time Ser Anal 23(6):687–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reeves J, Chen J, Wang XL, Lund R, Lu QQ (2007) A review and comparison of changepoint detection techniques for climate data. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46(6):900–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ringler T, Petersen M, Higdon RL, Jacobsen D, Jones PW, Maltrud M (2013) A multi-resolution approach to global ocean modeling. Ocean Model 69(Supplement C):211–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.04.010, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500313000760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Samsel F, Petersen M, Geld T, Abram G, Wendelberger J, Ahrens J (2015) Colormaps that improve perception of high-resolution ocean data. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, CHI EA ’15, pp 703–710.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2702975
  38. Sigman DM, Hain MP, Haug GH (2010) The polar ocean and glacial cycles in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Nature 466:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Souza JMACD, De Boyer Montegut C, Le Traon PY (2011) Comparison between three implementations of automatic identification algorithms for the quantification and characterization of mesoscale eddies in the South Atlantic ocean. Ocean Sci 7(3):317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Tech. rep., Cambridge University, p 1535Google Scholar
  41. Talley LD (2011) Descriptive physical oceanography: an introduction. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  42. Thomson RE, Emery WJ (2014) Data analysis methods in physical oceanography. Newnes, Massachusetts, USA, pp 505–546 (ISBN-13: 978-0123877826)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tibshirani RJ et al (2014) Adaptive piecewise polynomial estimation via trend filtering. Ann Stat 42(1):285–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomé A, Miranda P (2004) Piecewise linear fitting and trend changing points of climate parameters. Geophys Res Lett 31:L02207Google Scholar
  45. Turton TL, Ware C, Samsel F, Rogers DH (2017) A crowdsourced approach to colormap assessment. In: Lawonn K, Smit N, Cunningham D (eds) EuroVis workshop on reproducibility, verification, and validation in visualization (EuroRV3). The Eurographics Association.  https://doi.org/10.2312/eurorv3.20171106
  46. Verbesselt J, Hyndman R, Newnham G, Culvenor D (2010) Detecting trend and seasonal changes in satellite image time series. Remote Sens Environ 114(1):106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Volkov DL, Lee T, Fu LL (2008) Eddy-induced meridional heat transport in the ocean. Geophys Res Lett 35:L20601Google Scholar
  48. von Storch H, Zwiers FW (2002) Statistical analysis in climate research. Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 197–199 (ISBN-13: 978-0521450713)Google Scholar
  49. Wang C, Deser C, Yu JY, DiNezio P, Clement A (2017) El niño and southern oscillation (enso): a review. In: Coral reefs of the eastern tropical pacific. Springer, pp 85–106Google Scholar
  50. Ware C, Turton TL, Bujack R, Samsel F, Shrivastava P, Rogers DH (2018) Measuring and modeling the feature detection threshold functions of colormaps. IIEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 25(9):2777–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams S, Petersen M, Bremer PT, Hecht M, Pascucci V, Ahrens J, Hlawitschka M, Hamann B (2011) Adaptive extraction and quantification of geophysical vortices. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 17(12):2088–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woodring J, Petersen M, Schmei\(\beta \)er A, Patchett J, Ahrens J, Hagen H, (2015) In situ eddy analysis in a high-resolution ocean climate model. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 22(1):857–866.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wunsch C (2015) Modern observational physical oceanography: understanding the global ocean. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Appendix A2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Los Alamos National LaboratoryNew MexicoUSA

Personalised recommendations