Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

The Potential Effect of GCM Uncertainties and Internal Atmospheric Variability on Anthropogenic Signal Detection

Tim P. Barnett Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California

Search for other papers by Tim P. Barnett in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Gabriele C. Hegerl Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

Search for other papers by Gabriele C. Hegerl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Ben Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California

Search for other papers by Ben Santer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Karl Taylor Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California

Search for other papers by Karl Taylor in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Apr 1998
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<0659:TPEOGU>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
659–675
Restricted access

Abstract

When long integrations of climate models forced by observed boundary conditions are compared against observations, differences appear that have spatial and temporal coherence. These differences are due to several causes, the largest of which are fundamental model errors and the internal variability inherent in a GCM integration. Uncertainties in the observations themselves are small in comparison. The present paper constitutes a first attempt to compare the time dependence of these spatial difference patterns with the time dependence of simulated spatial patterns of climate change associated with anthropogenic sources.

The analysis procedure was to project the model minus observed near-surface temperature difference fields onto estimates of the anthropogenic “signal” (in this case the response to greenhouse-gas and sulfate-aerosol forcing). The temporal behavior of this projection was then compared with the estimated temporal evolution of the anthropogenic signal. Such comparisons were performed on timescales of 10, 20, and 30 yr. For trends of only 10 yr in length, the model minus observed spatial difference patterns are of the same magnitude and have the same time rate of change as the expected anthropogenic signal. In the case of 20- and 30-yr trends, the prospects are favorable for discriminating between temperature changes due to anthropogenic signal changes and changes associated with model minus observed difference structures. This suggests that attempts to quantitatively detect anthropogenic climate change should be based on temporal samples of at least several decades in length. This study also shows the importance of distinguishing between purely statistical detection and what the authors term practical prediction. It is found that the results of the detection analysis are sensitive to the spatial resolution at which it is performed: for the specific case of near-surface temperature, higher spatial resolution improves ability to discriminate between an anthropogenic signal and the type of model error/internal variability “noise” considered here.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Tim P. Barnett, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr. Dept. 0224, La Jolla, CA 92093-0224.

Abstract

When long integrations of climate models forced by observed boundary conditions are compared against observations, differences appear that have spatial and temporal coherence. These differences are due to several causes, the largest of which are fundamental model errors and the internal variability inherent in a GCM integration. Uncertainties in the observations themselves are small in comparison. The present paper constitutes a first attempt to compare the time dependence of these spatial difference patterns with the time dependence of simulated spatial patterns of climate change associated with anthropogenic sources.

The analysis procedure was to project the model minus observed near-surface temperature difference fields onto estimates of the anthropogenic “signal” (in this case the response to greenhouse-gas and sulfate-aerosol forcing). The temporal behavior of this projection was then compared with the estimated temporal evolution of the anthropogenic signal. Such comparisons were performed on timescales of 10, 20, and 30 yr. For trends of only 10 yr in length, the model minus observed spatial difference patterns are of the same magnitude and have the same time rate of change as the expected anthropogenic signal. In the case of 20- and 30-yr trends, the prospects are favorable for discriminating between temperature changes due to anthropogenic signal changes and changes associated with model minus observed difference structures. This suggests that attempts to quantitatively detect anthropogenic climate change should be based on temporal samples of at least several decades in length. This study also shows the importance of distinguishing between purely statistical detection and what the authors term practical prediction. It is found that the results of the detection analysis are sensitive to the spatial resolution at which it is performed: for the specific case of near-surface temperature, higher spatial resolution improves ability to discriminate between an anthropogenic signal and the type of model error/internal variability “noise” considered here.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Tim P. Barnett, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr. Dept. 0224, La Jolla, CA 92093-0224.

Save
Cover Journal of Climate
Journal of Climate

  • Angell, J., and J. Korshover, 1983: Global temperature variations in the troposphere and stratosphere, 1958–1982. Mon. Wea Rev.,111, 901–921.

  • Barnett, T. P., 1986: Detection of changes in the global troposphere temperature field induced by greenhouse gases. J. Geophys. Res.,91, 6659–6667.

  • ——, 1991: An attempt to detect the greenhouse-gas signal in a transient GCM simulation. Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climatic Change: A Critical Appraisal of Simulations and Observations,M. E. Schlesinger, Ed., Elsevier, 559–568.

  • ——, 1995: Monte Carlo climate forecasting. J. Climate,8, 1005–1022.

  • ——, and M. E. Schlesinger, 1987: Detecting changes in global climate induced by greenhouse gases. J. Geophys. Res.,92 (D12), 14722–14780.

  • ——, ——, and X. Jiang, 1991: On greenhouse gas signal detection strategies. Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climatic Change: A Critical Appraisal of Simulations and Observations, M. E. Schlesinger, Ed., Elsevier, 537–558.

  • ——, N. Graham, M. Latif, S. Pazan, and W. White, 1993: ENSO and ENSO-related predictability. Part I: Prediction of equatorial pacific sea surface temperature with a hybrid coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J. Climate,6, 1545–1566.

  • ——, K. Arpe, L. Bengtsson, M. Ji, and A. Kumar, 1997: Potential predictability and AMIP implications of midlatitude climate variability in two general circulation models. J. Climate,10, 2321–2329.

  • Bell, T. L., 1986: Theory of optimal weighting of data to detect climatic change. J. Atmos. Sci.,43, 1694–1710.

  • Bengtsson, L., K. Arpe, E. Roeckner, and U. Schulzweida, 1996: Climate predictability experiments with a general circulation model. Climate Dyn.,12, 261–278.

  • Christy, J. R., and R. T. McNider, 1994: Satellite greenhouse signal. Nature,367, 325.

  • Cubasch, U., K. Hasselmann, H. Höck, E. Maier-Reimer, U. Mikolajewicz, B. Santer, and R. Sausen, 1992: Time-dependent greenhouse warming computations with a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. Climate Dyn.,8, 55–69.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 1994: Monte Carlo climate forecasts with a global coupled ocean–atmosphere model. Climate Dyn.,10, 1–19.

  • ——, G. C. Hegerl, R. Voss, J. Waszkewitz, and T. J. Crowley, 1997: Simulation of the influence of solar radiation variations on the global climate with an ocean–atmosphere general circulation model. Climate Dyn.,13, 757–767.

  • Gates, W. L., 1992: AMIP: The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,73, 1962–1970.

  • Graham, N. E., T. P. Barnett, R. Wilde, U. Schlese, and L. Bengtsson, 1994: On the roles of tropical and midlatitude SSTs in forcing interannual to interdecadal variability in the winter Northern Hemisphere circulation. J. Climate,7, 1416–1441.

  • Hasselmann, K., 1979: On the signal-to-noise problem in atmospheric response studies. Meteorology Over the Tropical Ocean, D. B. Shaw, Ed., Roy. Meteor. Soc., 251–259.

  • ——, 1993: Optimal fingerprints for the detection of time dependent climate change. J. Climate,6, 1957–1971.

  • ——, 1997: Multi-pattern fingerprint method for detection and attribution of climate change. Climate Dyn.,13, 601–611.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 1995: Detection of anthropogenic climate change using a fingerprint method. Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie Rep. 168, 20 pp. [Available from MPI, Bundesstr. 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany.].

  • Hegerl, G. C., and G. R. North, 1997: Comparison of statistically optimal methods for detecting anthropogenic climate change. J. Climate,10, 1125–1133.

  • ——, H. von Storch, K. Hasselmann, B. D. Santer, U. Cubasch, and P. D. Jones, 1996: Detecting greenhouse gas-change with an optimal fingerprint method. J. Climate,9, 2281–2306.

  • ——, K. Hasselmann, U. Cubasch, J. F. B. Mitchell, E. Roeckner, R. Voss, and J. Waszkewitz, 1997: On multi-fingerprint detection and attribution of greenhouse gas- and aerosol forced climate change. Climate Dyn.,13, 613–639.

  • Jones, P. D., and K. Briffa, 1992: Global surface air temperature variations over the twentieth century. Part 1: Spatial, temporal, and seasonal details. Holocene,2, 165–179.

  • ——, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, 1997: Estimating sampling errors in large-scale temperature changes. J. Climate,10, 2548–2568.

  • Karoly, D. J., J. A. Cohen, G. A. Meehl, J. F. B. Mitchell, A. H. Oort, R. J. Stouffer, and R. T. Wetherald, 1994: An example of fingerprint detection of greenhouse climate change. Climate Dyn.,10, 97–105.

  • Kattenberg, A., and Coauthors, 1996: Climate models—Projections of future climate. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 285–357.

  • Maier-Reimer, E., U. Mikolajewicz, and K. Hasselmann, 1993: Mean circulation of the Hamburg LSG OGCM and its sensitivity to the thermohaline surface forcing. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,23, 731–757.

  • Manabe, S., and R. J. Stouffer, 1996: Low frequency variability of surface air temperature in a 1000-year integration of a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J. Climate,9, 376–393.

  • Nicholls, N., G. V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, T. R. Karl, L. A. Ogallo, and D. E. Parker, 1996: Observed climate variability and change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 133–192.

  • North, G. R., and K. Y. Kim, 1995: Detection of forced climate signals. Part II: Simulation results. J. Climate,8, 409–417.

  • ——, and M. Stevens, 1998: Detecting climate signals in the surface temperature record. J. Climate,11, 563–577.

  • ——, K. Y. Kim, S. P. Shen, and J. W. Hardin, 1995: Detection of forced climate signals. Part I: Filter theory. J. Climate,8, 401–408.

  • Roeckner, E., and Coauthors, 1992: Simulation of the present-day climate with the ECHAM model: Impact of model physics and resolution. Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie Rep. 93, 171 pp. [Available from MPI, Bundesstr. 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany.].

  • Santer, B. D., T. M. L. Wigley, and P. D. Jones, 1993: Correlation methods in fingerprint detection studies. Climate Dyn.,8, 265–276.

  • ——, U. Mikolajewicz, W. Brueggemann, U. Cubasch, K. Hasselmann, H. Hoeck, E. Maier-Reimer, and T. M. L. Wigley, 1995a: Ocean variability and its influence on the detectability of greenhouse warming signals. J. Geophys. Res.,100, 10693–10725.

  • ——, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. E. Penner, P. D. Jones, and U. Cubasch, 1995b: Towards the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic effect on climate. Climate Dyn.,12, 77–100.

  • ——, T. M. L. Wigley, T. P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba, 1996a: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. Climate Change 1995: The IPCC Second Scientific Assessment, J. T. Houghton and B. A. Callander, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 362 pp.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 1996b: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Nature,382, 39–46.

  • Tett, S. F. B., J. F. B. Mitchell, D. E. Parker, and M. R. Allen, 1996: Human influence on the atmospheric vertical temperature structure: Detection and observations. Science,274, 1170–1173.

  • Trenberth, K. E., and J. G. Olson, 1991: Representativeness of a 63-station network for depicting climate changes. Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climatic Change: A Critical Appraisal of Simulations and Observations, M. E. Schlesinger, Ed., Elsevier, 249–259.

  • Voss, R., and R. Sausen, 1996: Techniques of asynchronous and periodically synchronous coupling of atmosphere and ocean general circulation models 2. Impact of variability. Climate Dyn.,12, 605–614.

  • Zwiers, F. W., 1996: Interannual variability and predictability in an ensemble of AMIP climate simulations conducted with the CCC GCM2. Climate Dyn.,12, 825–847.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 678 466 28
PDF Downloads 63 17 2