FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2016098049> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2016098049 abstract "[1] In a recent paper, Schwartz [2007] (hereinafter referred to as S07) estimated climate sensitivity using globally averaged observed time series. He estimated the planet's effective heat capacity and “pertinent time constant” from ocean heat content and observed global temperature records, assuming that the latter can be modeled as a first-order Markov (AR(1)) process after removing the trend due to climate forcing by subtracting a linear trend. [3] This is the crux of S07's method for estimating the time constant of the global climate system from the 125-year record of global annually averaged temperature anomaly. The result for GISTEMP annual data is shown in S07's Figure 5g, for monthly data in S07's Figure 7; he concludes that the relevant time constant for global climate is 5 ± 1 years. It is important to recognize that S07's analysis does not depend on detailed assumptions concerning the Earth's climate system, only requiring that it obeys simple zero-order energy balance principles. Therefore, if his analysis method is valid, it should apply equally to all models which obey these same principles. In this comment, we test the performance of his analysis technique on a range of complex (section 3) and simple (section 4) models. First, in section 2, we explore the plausibility of the AR(1) approximation. [4] Even if the stochastic part of the temperature time series can be approximated by an autoregressive process, it may still exhibit numerous time scales. The climate system is likely to show such behavior, as it has multiple components with physically distinct characteristics: the atmosphere, land, upper ocean, deep ocean, and cryosphere. In fact the principal physical mechanism which leads us to believe that not all committed greenhouse gas warming has yet been experienced, and a substantial amount remains “in the pipeline,” is the warming of the deep ocean [Hansen et al., 2005; Wigley, 2005]. [5] Such a multicomponent physical system cannot be expected to act with a single time scale. Even if the system evolves according to an AR(1) process, it must be a vector AR(1) process with many distinct time scales. The observed surface temperature will be some function of the vector describing the entire system, and its time series is likely to exhibit all these time scales given a long enough set of data. Hence, basic physical considerations argue strongly against the notion that the global average surface temperature has a single characteristic time scale, or time constant. [6] Furthermore, much of the low-frequency variability in temperature time series is very likely not stochastic, but represents a response to radiative forcing changes that are external to the climate system (both natural and anthropogenic). Under the simplifying assumption that the forced and internal variability “noise” components are linearly additive, the latter component alone might be considered, as a null hypothesis, to conform approximately to an AR(1) process [Gilman et al., 1963; Hasselmann, 1976] in the asymptotic limit where complicating processes such as advective and diffusive exchanges of heat with the deep ocean are ignored [e.g., Wigley and Raper, 1990]. However the increase in forcing that has taken place over the 20th century is both strong and not linear. Therefore it seems unreasonable to expect that an AR(1) process should adequately describe observed temperature variations, even after detrending [Mann and Lees, 1996]. [7] For an AR(1) process, the ratio Δt/ln((Δt)) should be roughly constant. The results in S07, both for annual and monthly data sets, show a distinctly increasing ratio as a function of lag; the estimated time scale is, for low lag, roughly proportional to the lag. This casts severe doubt on the applicability of equation (1), which is the basis for the estimate of the time constant. The monthly data result (Figure 7 in S07) is in clear contradiction to the AR(1) model. [8] S07 tests for the appropriateness of the AR(1) model by regressing the detrended GISTEMP annual surface air temperature data Ts against its lag-1 value, then examining the residuals. The conclusion is (S07, paragraph 24) “Satisfaction of the assumption of a first-order Markov process was assessed by examination of the residuals of the lag-1 regression, which were found to exhibit no further significant autocorrelation.” However, it appears this test was applied only to the annual time series, which consists of only 125 data points. For such a short time series the detection threshold is about ≃±0.2, which makes the null hypothesis rather hard to refute conclusively, but there is still strong evidence that a higher-order model is more appropriate [e.g., Smith et al., 2003]. [9] Nevertheless, treating the system as an energy balance system with a single time constant may still be a reasonable approximation under some circumstances, so we do not reject the approach in S07 out of hand. Instead, we apply the method to some numerical experiments where the correct answer is known, in order to investigate its accuracy. First we use a climate model which simulates the multiple time scales of fast atmospheric and slower oceanic processes, and then we test the method on the simple energy balance model from which it was derived by S07. Finally, we provide a simple theoretical analysis to explain a significant source of bias and uncertainty which is intrinsic to the method. [10] We have applied the method of S07 to the output of 5 simulations of the GISS-ER GCM [Hansen et al., 2007] run with observed forcing for the same time period, 1880 to 2003. All the estimated parameters were derived as described by S07, using the total heat content anomaly (derived from the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere) and the global mean surface temperature anomaly; the results are presented in Table 1. [11] The time constant was estimated by computing −Δt/ln((Δt)) up to the last nonnegative (Δt) value, for the linearly detrended Ts time series. In order to compute estimates that are the most favorable possible for the S07 method, we took the highest estimated of all these values. We tested both methods given in S07 for estimating the effective heat capacity [Wigley and Raper, 1990], first (columns C1 and S1) by regressing the heat content anomaly (H) and temperature anomaly (Ts) from 1956 to 2002 (bisector of the slope of regressing H against Ts and the inverse of the slope of the regression of Ts against H), and second (columns C2 and S2) by taking the ratio of the estimates of dH/dt and dTs/dt. [12] The average of all these sensitivity estimates for the model runs is merely 0.175 K/(W/m2), and none of the estimates exceeds 0.324 K/(W/m2). These values imply warmings of 0.7 C and 1.3 C, respectively, for a CO2-doubling experiment (for the GISS-ER model, a doubling of CO2 results in a forcing of around 4 W/m2). Yet this model is known to exhibit a true equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.7 C under doubled CO2 conditions. [13] Although the effective heat capacities of these simulations seem rather high compared to the S07 observationally based estimate, the estimated time constants appear to be the greater problem with this analysis. A comparison of the autocorrelation estimates for the five runs of GISS-ER, and the GISTEMP time series data, is shown in Figure 1. It is apparent from Figure 1 (bottom) that taking the highest single value for the estimated time scale is, for some of the model runs, unrepresentative of the average behavior. Yet even with this built-in high bias, while the GISTEMP data yield the same very short time scale estimated by S07 (slightly different here since we used data through 2006), the model runs show even shorter and highly variable estimates of time scale. However, it is known that the model takes a number of decades to equilibrate after a change in external forcing, and that its sensitivity is many times greater than these estimates obtained via the S07 method. Hence this time scale analysis method does not appear to correctly diagnose the properties of the model. [15] The effective heat capacity was set at 19 W a m−2 K−1, and three values of τ were used, 5, 15 and 30 years (giving sensitivities of 1, 3 and 6 C for 3.7 W m−2 of forcing, equivalent to a doubling of CO2). External forcing (comprising volcanic aerosols, GHGs, solar variability, and anthropogenic aerosols) was taken from [Crowley, 2000] with noise sampled from the Gaussian distribution N(0, 1.5) (which allows for a “very unlikely” probability of 1–5% that natural variability could exceed the amplitude of forced variations). After an initial spin-up, the final 125 years (1874–1998) were analyzed. The method used by S07, of calculating −Δt/ln((Δt)) from the detrended time series, can be seen to generate highly inaccurate and strongly biased estimates. Each histogram is based on 1000 estimated values, each of which is the average of the diagnosed time scales for 5–15 year lags in an integration where all these values were defined. The results are insensitive both to these choices, and to the amount of noise added. So even in this case, where the underlying system does have a unique and well-defined relaxation time scale, this method of analysis fails to diagnose it, and, contrary to the confident estimate in S07 of τ = 5 ± 1, a time scale as high as 30 years (corresponding to a sensitivity of 6C for a doubling of CO2) or even greater is compatible with the S07 analysis of global surface temperature. In this simple energy balance model, the effective heat capacity is precisely determined by the ratio of heat anomaly to surface temperature, so these erroneous estimates of τ directly feed though into equivalently erroneous estimates for the sensitivity of the model. [16] Results from a similar analysis of 14 state-of-the-art GCMs from the World Climate Research Programme's (WCRP's) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) multimodel data set are also shown in Figure 2. Lags of 5–10 years were used in this analysis, in order not to exclude too many models from the sample. As with the GISS model analysis presented earlier, the estimates of time scale produced by this method are generally unrealistically low in comparison to the known behavior of the models in response to changes in GHG forcing. A more detailed analysis, considering also their effective heat capacities, confirms that the sensitivity estimates provided by the method of S07 are inaccurate and strongly biased [Knutti et al., 2008]. [17] As the length N of a sampled time series increases, the sample autocorrelation j converges to the true autocorrelation ρj, and follows an unbiased Gaussian distribution with variance given by Bartlett's formula [Bartlett, 1946]. What is widely overlooked is that the usual (Yule-Walker) estimate of autocorrelation is intrinsically biased [Priestly, 1982; Percival and Walden, 1993], more so when the time series is short and the time scale is long. [18] Figure 2 (bottom) shows the results obtained when the deterministic external forcing is omitted from the energy balance model, resulting in a pure AR(1) process with known time scale. Even with a true time scale as long as 30 years, there is a significant probability of obtaining an estimate as low as 5. No detrending was performed in this experiment; doing so would have reduced the estimated time scale still further. [20] For a series with N = 125 data points and time scale τ = 30, the true value of ρ1 is 0.9672, but the expected value of 1 is only 0.9283. This value would lead to an estimated time scale −1/ln(1) of only 13.4. In fact, as the time scale increases, the expected value of the estimated lag-1 autocorrelation approaches a limiting value of 0.96, which implies an estimated time scale of only 24.5. [21] For higher lags, bias in the autocorrelation estimate reduces the estimated time scale even more, and linear detrending reduces it still further. For τ = 30 with N = 125, the biases conspire to lower the mean estimate of the autocorrelation time scale to less than half its actual value, with a significant probability of even lower results, as observed in our numerical tests. [22] S07 has proposed an analysis method based on approximating the climate system as a linear trend plus an autoregressive process of order 1, forced by random noise. There are strong physical arguments why this approach is likely to be an oversimplification, and as we have shown, the data contradict this hypothesis. The S07 analysis method generates strongly biased results when applied to a climate model of known sensitivity, and even when applied to the simple energy balance model S07 invokes to justify the approach. In fact the S07 method for estimating the time scale of an AR(1) process is strongly biased for realistic parameter values, and we have provided a simple demonstration and explanation of this effect. We suggest that such credibility checks, which are not difficult to perform, should be considered a first step when a novel analysis technique such as that presented by S07 generates results that are inconsistent with previous work. Previous research indicates that, when correctly analyzed, the 20th century trends do not strongly constrain climate sensitivity other than to rule out low values [e.g., Gregory et al., 2002; Forest et al., 2006]. The belief that climate sensitivity is likely to lie in the range 2–4.5 C and very unlikely less than 1.5 C [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] is supported by numerous diverse analyses of the climate system [e.g., Annan and Hargreaves, 2006; Hegerl et al., 2006] and we conclude that S07 presents no substantive basis to challenge this view. [23] We acknowledge the modeling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), and the WCRP's Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multimodel data set. Support of this data set is provided by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy. We are grateful for helpful comments from the reviewers and J. C. Hargreaves. J. D. A. was supported by the Global Environment Research Fund (S-5) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article." @default.
• W2016098049 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2016098049 creator A5012924570 @default.
• W2016098049 creator A5041311829 @default.
• W2016098049 creator A5054086797 @default.
• W2016098049 creator A5061339003 @default.
• W2016098049 date "2008-08-02" @default.
• W2016098049 modified "2023-10-13" @default.
• W2016098049 title "Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system” by S. E. Schwartz" @default.
• W2016098049 cites W1618567178 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W1965358009 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W1983657072 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W1984430226 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2016398557 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2050094722 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2063613753 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2077409339 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2090347106 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2091813923 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2092384804 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2103651007 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2130256070 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2160853795 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2172485980 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2263224228 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W2797528610 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W3099198226 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W4238691261 @default.
• W2016098049 cites W4322702023 @default.
• W2016098049 doi "https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jd009373" @default.
• W2016098049 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2016098049 type Work @default.
• W2016098049 sameAs 2016098049 @default.
• W2016098049 citedByCount "23" @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492012 @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492014 @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492015 @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492016 @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492017 @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492018 @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492020 @default.
• W2016098049 countsByYear W20160980492021 @default.
• W2016098049 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2016098049 hasAuthorship W2016098049A5012924570 @default.
• W2016098049 hasAuthorship W2016098049A5041311829 @default.
• W2016098049 hasAuthorship W2016098049A5054086797 @default.
• W2016098049 hasAuthorship W2016098049A5061339003 @default.
• W2016098049 hasBestOaLocation W20160980491 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C13280743 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C153294291 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C21200559 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C24326235 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C26148502 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C2777027219 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C36644815 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C37914503 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C49204034 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C60205243 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C8058405 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C91586092 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C9695528 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConcept C97355855 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C121332964 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C127313418 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C127413603 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C13280743 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C153294291 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C199360897 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C21200559 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C24326235 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C26148502 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C2777027219 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C36644815 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C37914503 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C39432304 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C41008148 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C49204034 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C60205243 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C8058405 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C91586092 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C9695528 @default.
• W2016098049 hasConceptScore W2016098049C97355855 @default.
• W2016098049 hasIssue "D15" @default.
• W2016098049 hasLocation W20160980491 @default.
• W2016098049 hasOpenAccess W2016098049 @default.
• W2016098049 hasPrimaryLocation W20160980491 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W1993680344 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W2063351259 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W2478024444 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W2808024803 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W2985683535 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W2986232859 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W3046686927 @default.
• W2016098049 hasRelatedWork W3095470729 @default.

• next