Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2002, Pages

  Govindan, R B ^a,b   Vyushin, Dmitry ^a,b   Bunde, Armin ^b   Brenner, Stephen ^a   Havlin, Shlomo ^a   Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim ^c  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOLS; ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORRELATION METHODS; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

DETRENDED FLUCTUATION ANALYSIS (DFA);

GLOBAL WARMING;

EID: 4244112582     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.028501     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. H. Grassl, Science 288, 1991 (2000).
2. K. Hasselmann, Nature (London) 390, 225 (1997).
3. A typical climate module within the AOGCM machinery will have a grid spacing of 300–500 km and 10–20 vertical layers as compared to a weather forecasting model with a grid spacing of 100 km or less and 30–40 layers.
4. http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/dkrz/dkrz_index.html.
5. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), J. T. Houghton et al., (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
6. The models also predict climate warming with a global mean increase during the 21st century, in the range of (Formula presented) for greenhouse gas forcing only and (Formula presented) for greenhouse gas plus sulphate aerosol forcing, depending upon the model.
7. J. R. Petit, Nature (London) 399, 429 (1999).
8. A. Ganopolski, Clim. Dyn. 17, 735 (2001).
9. S. V. Buldyrev, Phys. Rev. E 51, 5084 (1995);
10. C.-K. Peng, Phys. Rev. E 49, 1685 (1994).
11. J. W. Kantelhardt, Physica (Amsterdam) 295A, 441 (2001).
12. E. Koscielny-Bunde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 729 (1998).
13. E. Koscielny-Bunde, Physica (Amsterdam) 231A, 393 (1996).
14. A. Arneodo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3293 (1995).
15. J. D. Pelletier and D. L. Turcotte, J. Hydrol. 203, 198 (1997).
16. P. Talkner and R. O. Weber, Phys. Rev. E 62, 150 (2000).
17. M. F. Shlesinger, B. J. West, and J. Klafter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1100 (1987).
18. H. E. Stanley, Philos. Mag. B 77, 1373 (1998).
19. Fractals in Science, A. Bunde and S. Havlin (Springer, New York, 1995).
20. J. Feder, Fractals (Plenum Press, New York, 1989).
21. The large differences between FA and DFA reemphasize that FA (as the Hurst method) cannot be used by itself for evaluating the scaling exponent.