Influence of satellite data uncertainties on the detection of externally forced climate change

Science

Volumn 300, Issue 5623, 2003, Pages 1280-1284

  Santer, B D ^a   Wigley, T M L ^b   Meehl, G A ^b   Wehner, M F ^c   Mears, C ^d   Schabel, M ^d   Wentz, F J ^d   Ammann, C ^b   Arblaster, J ^b   Bettge, T ^b   Washington, W M ^b   Taylor, K E ^a   Boyle, J S ^a   Bruggemann W ^e   Doutriaux, C ^a  

^a LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^d REMOTE SENSING SYSTEMS   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; DATA REDUCTION; TROPOSPHERE; WEATHER FORECASTING;

RADIATIVE EMISSIONS;

WEATHER SATELLITES;

CLIMATE CHANGE; REMOTE SENSING; TEMPERATURE; TROPOSPHERE;

AIR TEMPERATURE; ARTICLE; ASTRONOMY; ATMOSPHERIC RADIOACTIVITY; CLIMATE CHANGE; DATA ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL TEMPERATURE; MODEL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ENERGY; RADIOACTIVITY; TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE;

EID: 0038136889     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1082393     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. R. W. Spencer, J. R. Christy, J. Clim. 5, 847 (1992).
2. J. R. Christy, R. W. Spencer, W. D. Braswell, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 17, 1153 (2000).
3. J. M. Wallace et al., Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
4. F. J. Wentz, M. Schabel, Nature 394, 661 (1998).
5. J. W. Hurrell, K. E. Trenberth, Nature 386, 164 (1997).
6. C. A. Mears, M. C. Schabel, F. W. Wentz, in preparation.
7. S. F. Singer, EOS 80, 183 (1999).
8. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 104, 6305 (1999).
9. W. M. Washington et al., Clim. Dyn. 16, 755 (2000).
10. C. Ammann, G. A. Meehl, W. M. Washington, C. Zender, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, doi: 10.1029/2003GL016875RR.
11. G. A. Meehl, W. M. Washington, T. M. L. Wigley, J. M. Arblaster, A. Dai, J. Clim., 16, 426 (2003).
12. V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, W. Randel, Nature 382, 616 (1996).
13. V. Ramaswamy et al., Rev. Geophys. 39, 71 (2001).
14. J. E. Hansen et al., J. Geophys. Res. 107, doi: 10.1029/2001JD001143 (2002).
15. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 105, 7337 (2000).
16. e.
17. For T4, adjusted confidence intervals are much smaller in observations than in the four ALL realizations (Fig. 2A), primarily due to PCM's overestimate of the stratospheric temperature responses to El Chichón and Pinatubo (Fig. 1A). Note that ensemble averaging reduces internally generated noise and increases the autocorrelation of trend residuals. This is why adjusted confidence intervals in the "ALL MEAN" case are not smaller than in individual ALL realizations (Fig. 2A).
18. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 108, doi: 10,1029/ 2002JD0022S8 (2003).
19. The precise timing of El Niño and La Niña events (and hence of their effects on tropospheric temperatures) is not the same in the PCM simulations and in the real world. Similar timing of modeled and observed El Niño variability occurs in integrations with an atmospheric general circulation model (GCM) driven by observed changes in SST (21). Such similarities do not occur (except by chance) in a coupled atmosphereocean GCM like PCM.
20. G. A. Meehl et al., Clim. Dyn. 17, 515 (2001).
21. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 106, 28033 (2001).
22. The fact that the PCM T2 results fall within the UAH and RSS range is unlikely to be due to compensating errors in PCM, such as excessive stratospheric cooling offsetting unrealistically large upper tropospheric warming. PCM's stratospheric cooling is smaller than in either UAH or RSS, which rules out error compensation (at least at the global mean level) as a plausible explanation for model-data trend correspondence.
23. None of the model trends is significantly different from the observed T2 trends (at the 10% level or better).
24. K. Hasselmann, in Meteorology of Tropical Oceans, D. B. Shaw, Ed., (Royal Meteorological Society of London, London, 1979), pp. 251-259.
25. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 100, 10693 (1995).
26. E. Roeckner, L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, H. Rodhe, J. Clim. 12, 3004 (1999).
27. M. R. Allen, S. F. B. Tett, Clim. Dyn. 15, 419 (1999).
28. P. A. Stott et al., Science 290, 2133 (2000).
29. G. C. Hegerl et al., J. Clim. 9, 2281 (1996).
30. P. A. Stott, S. F. B. Tett, J. Clim. 11, 3282 (1998).
31. S. F. B. Tett et al., J. Geophys. Res. 107, doi 10.1029/ 2000JD000028 (2002).
32. V. Ramaswamy et al., in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001), pp. 349-416.
33. The PCM climate change experiments available to us did not consider indirect aerosol forcing. However, we did have access to an ECHAM experiment that incorporated the indirect effects of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols on cloud albedo (26). Like the PCM All experiment, the ECHAM integration (GSDIO) applied changes in well-mixed greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosol direct effects, and tropospheric ozone. GSDIO differed from ALL both in its inclusion of indirect sulfate aerosol effects and in its neglect of changes in solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, and stratospheric ozone. These differences in the ALL and GSDIO forcings (and the fact that no ECHAM experiment included all GSDIO forcings except indirect sulfate aerosols) make it difficult to isolate the influence of indirect sulfate aerosols on the detection of T4 and T2 fingerprints. Nevertheless, we note that repeating our detection analysis with GSDIO fingerprints yields results qualitatively similar to those obtained with PCM (fig. S2 and Fig. 4, respectively). This suggests that our primary conclusions may be relatively insensitive to the inclusion of indirect sullate aerosol effects. The main difference between the PCM and ECHAM results is the delayed and less robust detection of the GSDIO mean-removed T4 fingerprint, which is probably due to GSDIO's neglect of stratospheric ozone depletion. Another difference is that the GSDIO mean-removed T2 fingerprint is detected earlier and more consistently than the corresponding PCM ALL fingerprint.
34. J. R. Lanzante, S. A. Klein, D. J. Seidel, J. Clim. 16, 241 (2003).
35. F. J. Wentz, M. Schabel, Nature 403, 414 (2000).
36. J. F. B. Mitchell et al., in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001), pp. 695-738.
37. Work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Sciences Division, contract W-7405-ENG-48. T.M.L.W. was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Global Programs ("Climate Change Data and Detection") grant no. NA87GP0105, and by DOE grant no. DE-FG0298ER62601. A portion of this study was supported by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research, as part of its Climate Change Prediction Program. The MSU T2 and T4 data and static MSU weighting functions were provided by J. Christy (Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville). ECHAM model data were supplied by E. Roeckner. We thank T. Barnett and an anonymous reviewer for useful comments and suggestions.