Next Article
Previous Article

Free Access Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction

Authors:
Ryan O’Donnell
x
Affiliations
Mattawan, Michigan Nicholas Lewis
x
Affiliations
Bath, United Kingdom Steve McIntyre
x
Affiliations
Toronto, Ontario, Canada Jeff Condon
x
Affiliations
Chicago, Illinois
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3656.1
Received: 3 February 2010
Final Form: 25 November 2010
Published Online: 15 April 2011
Abstract

A detailed analysis is presented of a recently published Antarctic temperature reconstruction that combines satellite and ground information using a regularized expectation–maximization algorithm. Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include the following: (i) improper calibration of satellite data; (ii) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (iii) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. This study proposes two methods to resolve these issues. One utilizes temporal relationships between the satellite and ground data; the other combines ground data with only the spatial component of the satellite data. Both improved methods yield similar results that disagree with the previous method in several aspects. Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, the authors find warming over the period of 1957–2006 to be concentrated in the peninsula (≈0.35°C decade−1). This study also shows average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though the authors find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude and find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land. This study also finds differences in the seasonal patterns of temperature change, with winter and fall showing the largest differences and spring and summer showing negligible differences outside of the peninsula.

Keywords: Principal components analysis; Temperature; Antarctica
Corresponding author address: Ryan O’Donnell, 23522 Finch Ave., Mattawan, MI 49071. E-mail:
April 2011 Publication Cover

Share this Article

Share |

Featured Collections

Connecting the Tropics to the Polar Regions -JCLI
Seventh International Precipitation Working Group (IPWG) Workshop -JHM
Mountain Terrain Atmospheric Modeling and Observations (MATERHORN) -BAMS, JAMC,MWR, WAF
In Honor of Bach-Lien Hua: Ocean Scale Interactions -JPO
LatMix -BAMS, JPO, JTECH
PANDOWAE -MWR, JAS, WAF, JTECH

All Special Collections

Most Read JCLI Articles
(past 12 months)

Most Cited (past 12 months)

  • MERRA: NASA’s Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications
    Rienecker et al.
    July 2011, Vol. 24, No. 14
  • Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land–Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880–2006)
    Smith et al.
    May 2008, Vol. 21, No. 10
  • An Improved In Situ and Satellite SST Analysis for Climate
    Reynolds et al.
    July 2002, Vol. 15, No. 13
  • Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming
    Held et al.
    November 2006, Vol. 19, No. 21
  • Daily High-Resolution-Blended Analyses for Sea Surface Temperature
    Reynolds et al.
    November 2007, Vol. 20, No. 22
  • The Community Climate System Model Version 4
    Gent et al.
    October 2011, Vol. 24, No. 19
See More