4.7 Article

On the Estimation of Internal Climate Variability During the Preindustrial Past Millennium

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021GL096596

关键词

Last Millennium; climate change; radiative forcing; paleoclimate

资金

  1. NSF Paleoclimate Program [1748097, 1748115]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1748115] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [1748097] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the effectiveness of methods designed to remove forced variability from proxy-based climate reconstructions and estimate residual internal variability. The results showed that regression-based methods fail to accurately estimate internal variability when uncertainties in the underlying natural radiative forcing are present.
We use an ensemble of simulations of a coupled model (NCAR Community Earth System Model) driven by natural radiative forcing estimates over the pre-industrial past millennium to test the efficacy of methods designed to remove forced variability from proxy-based climate reconstructions and estimate residual internal variability (e.g., a putative Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). Within the framework of these experiments, the forced component of surface temperature change can be estimated accurately from the ensemble mean, and the internal variability of each of the independent realizations can be accurately assessed by subtracting off that estimate. We show in this case, where the true internal variability is known, that regression-based methods of removing the forced component from proxy reconstructions will, in the presence of uncertainties in the underlying natural radiative forcing, fail to yield accurate estimates thereof, incorrectly attributing unresolved forced features (and multidecadal spectral peaks associated with them) to internal variability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据