the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Internal climate variability and spatial temperature correlations during the past 2000 years
Abstract. The spatio-temporal structure of natural climate variability has to be taken into account when unraveling observed climatic changes and simulate future climate change. However, based on the comparison of temperature reconstructions and climate model simulations covering the past two millenia, it has been argued that climate models are biased. They would simulate too little temporal temperature variability and too high correlations between temperature time series from different continents. One of the proposed causes is the lack of internal climate variability in climate models on centennial time scales, for instance variability related to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
We present a perturbed-parameter ensemble with the iLOVECLIM earth system model containing various levels of AMOC-related internal climate variability to investigate the effect on the spatio-temporal temperature variability structure. The model ensemble shows that indeed enhanced AMOC variability leads to more continental-scale temperature variability, but it also increases the spatio-temporal temperature correlations between different continents. However, combining the iLOVECLIM results with CMIP5 model results and various PAGES-2K temperature field reconstructions, we find that neither model results or reconstructions are robust. We show overall agreement for the magnitude of continental temperature variability in models and reconstructions, but both the simulated and the reconstructed ranges are large. This is even more true when considering higher order metrices like inter-continental temperature correlations or temperature variability land-sea contrasts. For such metrices, uncertainties in both model results and temperature reconstructions are so large that they hamper our ability to constrain simulated spatio-temporal structure of centennial temperature variability. As a result, we cannot determine the importance of AMOC variability for the climatic evolution over the past two millenia.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2983 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2983 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-570', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Aug 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-570/egusphere-2022-570-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-570', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Sep 2022
Review of: Internal climate variability and spatial temperature correlations during the past 2000 yearsI think this paper is in very good form. I only have a few minor comments.
Lines 10-12: I found this sentence confusing: 'However, combining the iLOVECLIM results with CMIP5 model results and various PAGES-2K temperature field reconstructions, we find that neither model results or reconstructions are robust.' The models and reconstructions are not robust in what sense? I think this sentence could be more clearly re-worded to be more specific or perhaps even cut entirely given the content that follows it.
All of the main text figures have quite small font sizes on nearly all the labels and axes. Their readability would be much improved by increasing the font sizes of everything in the figures.
Could you comment in the paper on how the spatial resolution of the different datasets may influence the comparisons you've done? LOVECLIM is 3 degrees, the PAGES2k reconstructions are 5 degrees, the CMIP models are ~2 degrees, and the proxy data is based on individual points, so there's a lot of spatial averaging differences that could affect the comparisons.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-570-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-570/egusphere-2022-570-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-570', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Aug 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-570/egusphere-2022-570-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-570', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Sep 2022
Review of: Internal climate variability and spatial temperature correlations during the past 2000 yearsI think this paper is in very good form. I only have a few minor comments.
Lines 10-12: I found this sentence confusing: 'However, combining the iLOVECLIM results with CMIP5 model results and various PAGES-2K temperature field reconstructions, we find that neither model results or reconstructions are robust.' The models and reconstructions are not robust in what sense? I think this sentence could be more clearly re-worded to be more specific or perhaps even cut entirely given the content that follows it.
All of the main text figures have quite small font sizes on nearly all the labels and axes. Their readability would be much improved by increasing the font sizes of everything in the figures.
Could you comment in the paper on how the spatial resolution of the different datasets may influence the comparisons you've done? LOVECLIM is 3 degrees, the PAGES2k reconstructions are 5 degrees, the CMIP models are ~2 degrees, and the proxy data is based on individual points, so there's a lot of spatial averaging differences that could affect the comparisons.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-570-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-570/egusphere-2022-570-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pepijn Bakker, 21 Sep 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
387 | 177 | 18 | 582 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 387
- PDF: 177
- XML: 18
- Total: 582
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Hugues Goosse
Didier M. Roche
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2983 KB) - Metadata XML