Assessing the robustness of zonal mean climate change detection

Peter W. Thorne; Phil D. Jones; Tim J. Osborn; Trevor D. Davies; Simon F. B. Tett; David E. Parker; Peter A. Stott; Gareth S. Jones; Myles R. Allen

doi:10.1029/2002GL015717

Assessing the robustness of zonal mean climate change detection

Peter W. Thorne, Phil D. Jones, Tim J. Osborn, Trevor D. Davies, Simon F. B. Tett, David E. Parker, Peter A. Stott, Gareth S. Jones, Myles R. Allen

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We assess the robustness of previous optimal detection and attribution studies considering zonal-mean temperatures. Principal results, which have consistently pointed towards a demonstrable anthropogenic influence on recently observed upper air temperatures, are confirmed. Importantly our detection results are not critically dependent on the inclusion of stratospheric as well as tropospheric temperatures. We find that detection is dependent on input field pre-processing choices, and on the choice of detection algorithm. There are a number of cases where either no signals are detected, or results fail a consistency test.

Original language	English
Journal	Geophysical Research Letters
Volume	29
Issue number	19
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015717
Publication status	Published - 2002

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1029/2002GL015717

Cite this

@article{352147e9b2574e89959ae865c41ea2af,

title = "Assessing the robustness of zonal mean climate change detection",

abstract = "We assess the robustness of previous optimal detection and attribution studies considering zonal-mean temperatures. Principal results, which have consistently pointed towards a demonstrable anthropogenic influence on recently observed upper air temperatures, are confirmed. Importantly our detection results are not critically dependent on the inclusion of stratospheric as well as tropospheric temperatures. We find that detection is dependent on input field pre-processing choices, and on the choice of detection algorithm. There are a number of cases where either no signals are detected, or results fail a consistency test.",

author = "Thorne, {Peter W.} and Jones, {Phil D.} and Osborn, {Tim J.} and Davies, {Trevor D.} and Tett, {Simon F. B.} and Parker, {David E.} and Stott, {Peter A.} and Jones, {Gareth S.} and Allen, {Myles R.}",

year = "2002",

doi = "10.1029/2002GL015717",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

journal = "Geophysical Research Letters",

issn = "0094-8276",

publisher = "American Geophysical Union",

number = "19",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the robustness of zonal mean climate change detection

AU - Thorne, Peter W.

AU - Jones, Phil D.

AU - Osborn, Tim J.

AU - Davies, Trevor D.

AU - Tett, Simon F. B.

AU - Parker, David E.

AU - Stott, Peter A.

AU - Jones, Gareth S.

AU - Allen, Myles R.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - We assess the robustness of previous optimal detection and attribution studies considering zonal-mean temperatures. Principal results, which have consistently pointed towards a demonstrable anthropogenic influence on recently observed upper air temperatures, are confirmed. Importantly our detection results are not critically dependent on the inclusion of stratospheric as well as tropospheric temperatures. We find that detection is dependent on input field pre-processing choices, and on the choice of detection algorithm. There are a number of cases where either no signals are detected, or results fail a consistency test.

AB - We assess the robustness of previous optimal detection and attribution studies considering zonal-mean temperatures. Principal results, which have consistently pointed towards a demonstrable anthropogenic influence on recently observed upper air temperatures, are confirmed. Importantly our detection results are not critically dependent on the inclusion of stratospheric as well as tropospheric temperatures. We find that detection is dependent on input field pre-processing choices, and on the choice of detection algorithm. There are a number of cases where either no signals are detected, or results fail a consistency test.

U2 - 10.1029/2002GL015717

DO - 10.1029/2002GL015717

M3 - Article

VL - 29

JO - Geophysical Research Letters

JF - Geophysical Research Letters

SN - 0094-8276

IS - 19

ER -