Testing the robustness of the anthropogenic climate change detection statements using different empirical models
KAUST Grant NumberKUK-C1-013-04
Online Publication Date2013-04-29
Print Publication Date2013-04-27
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/599869
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractThis paper aims to test the robustness of the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change using four different empirical models that were previously developed to explain the observed global mean temperature changes over the last few decades. These studies postulated that the main drivers of these changes included not only the usual natural forcings, such as solar and volcanic, and anthropogenic forcings, such as greenhouse gases and sulfates, but also other known Earth system oscillations such as El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In this paper, we consider these signals, or forced responses, and test whether or not the anthropogenic signal can be robustly detected under different assumptions for the internal variability of the climate system. We assume that the internal variability of the global mean surface temperature can be described by simple stochastic models that explore a wide range of plausible temporal autocorrelations, ranging from short memory processes exemplified by an AR(1) model to long memory processes, represented by a fractional differenced model. In all instances, we conclude that human-induced changes to atmospheric gas composition is affecting global mean surface temperature changes. ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
CitationImbers J, Lopez A, Huntingford C, Allen MR (2013) Testing the robustness of the anthropogenic climate change detection statements using different empirical models. J Geophys Res Atmos 118: 3192–3199. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50296.
SponsorsThis work was based on work supported in part by Award No. KUK-C1-013-04, made by King Abdulah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). A.L. was funded by the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and Munich Re. The authors also thank the authors of the four studies analyzed in this paper for providing their data for their analysis.
PublisherAmerican Geophysical Union (AGU)