Quantifying the contribution of forcing and three prominent modes of variability on historical climate
- 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW, United Kingdom
- 2Université Catholique de Louvain, Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Louvain-La-Neuve, B-1348, Belgium
- 3Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, University of New South Wales, New South Wales 2052, Australia
- 4Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
- 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW, United Kingdom
- 2Université Catholique de Louvain, Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Louvain-La-Neuve, B-1348, Belgium
- 3Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, University of New South Wales, New South Wales 2052, Australia
- 4Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom
Abstract. Climate models can produce accurate representations of the most important modes of climate variability, but they cannot be expected to follow their observed time-evolution. This makes direct comparison of simulated and observed variability difficult, and creates uncertainty in estimates of forced change. We investigate the role of three modes of climate variability, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El-Niño Southern Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode, as pacemakers of climate variability since 1781, evaluating where their evolution masks or enhances forced climate trends. We use particle filter data assimilation to constrain the observed variability in a global climate model without nudging, producing a near free running model simulation with the time-evolution of these modes similar to those observed. Since the climate model also contains external forcings, these simulations, in combination with model experiments with identical forcing but no assimilation, can be used to compare the forced response to the effect of the three modes assimilated, and evaluate to what extent these are confounded with the forced response. The assimilated model is significantly closer than the “forcing only” simulations to annual temperature and precipitation observations over many regions, in particular the tropics, the north Atlantic and Europe. The results indicate where initialized simulations that track these modes could be expected to show additional skill. Assimilating the three modes cannot explain the large discrepancy previously found between observed and modelled variability in the southern extra-tropics but constraining the El-Niño Southern Oscillation reconciles simulated global cooling with that observed after volcanic eruptions.
- Preprint
(2452 KB) -
Supplement
(2885 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Andrew P. Schurer et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2022-55', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Nov 2022
This study used particle filtering to nudge a climate model to follow the observed variability of NAO, ENSO and SAM. The paper is well written and a nice contribution to the scientific literature. I think this paper can be accepted with minor revision, however, I make some major comments below in regards to colors and clarity of the Figures that need to be addressed before publication. I also make minor comments largely on literature that may be missing from the introduction/discussion. While not all papers suggested below need to be cited by the authors – I suggest the authors read the suggested literature and make their own decision whether it should be included.
Major comments:
Line 104 – how does the choice to stop the simulations on April 1 affect the results? Would the results differ if you used a different month?
Figures – in generel the use of red and green is not good for colorblind people. Please update the colorschemes. There are online tools to check whether a Figure is readable if someone is colorblind.
Figure 3 – the red and green and black lines are hard to distinguish – perhaps the use of dots or dashes for those plotted on top of others would help.
Figure 4/5 – I recommend adding panels where differences are taken – this would be much easier to interpret
Figure 6 – Why are you looking at boreal winter alone?
The bottom two panels are hard to interpret – would smoothing help?
Figure 7 -
The caption says this is Annual and DJFM but I only see one result.
There is currently no panel (g)
Minor comments:
Line 35 – should also cite the original paper by Hawkins and Sutton, 2009: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/8/2009bams2607_1.xml
Line 45 needs citation:
Some options:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0731-2
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-010-0977-x
Overview of large ensemble literature – could be useful for lines 40-45:
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/401/2021/
Line 80 – first thought is can we really trust data from 1781 – I see later you use reconstructions, this is great but perhaps needs to be mentioned earlier on line 80.
Line 118 – remove repeated word “schematically”
Line 225 – tell the read which color this is in brackets for ease of interpretation
Line 299 – could this lack of variability in the Southern Ocean be due to the coarse resolution of the model?
Section 3.3 either be clear that you refer to only tropical eruptions or add citations for high-latitude eruptions: some are as follows
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509153112
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/975/2021/
https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/projects/community-projects/LME/publications/Stevenson-JClimate-2016.pdf
Line 316 – another possible citation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28210-1
Section 3.3 – there is a review on this topic: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/chapter-epub/10.1002/9781119548164.ch12
Line 354: Does this relate to these results: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066608
Line 363 – can you say why?
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrew Schurer, 05 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2022-55/cp-2022-55-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrew Schurer, 05 Dec 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on cp-2022-55', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Nov 2022
Review of: 'Quantifying the contribution of forcing and three prominent modes of variability on historical climate'; https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2022-55
This paper's experiments and results appear straightforwardly produced and written up and I do not have many comments or issues. The only concern I have is that the verification of the DA only includes the correlation metric, which by its nature does not provide any information about bias. I think the authors ought to provide, at least in the supplement, some verification metric that incorporates bias, such as 'bias' or 'mean absolute error' or 'continuous-ranked probability score'. So I am suggesting a verification just like Fig 6 but for an additional metric. This will allow for a more complete assessment of the limitations of the DA product.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrew Schurer, 05 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2022-55/cp-2022-55-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrew Schurer, 05 Dec 2022
Andrew P. Schurer et al.
Andrew P. Schurer et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
362 | 138 | 11 | 511 | 29 | 9 | 4 |
- HTML: 362
- PDF: 138
- XML: 11
- Total: 511
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1