Article | Published:

Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 835840 (2014) | Download Citation

Abstract

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    & Prediction or projection: The nomenclature of climate science. Sci. Commun. 30, 534–543 (2009).

  2. 2.

    & Separating fast and slow modes in coupled chaotic systems. Nonlinear Proc. Geophys. 11, 319–327 (2004).

  3. 3.

    , , & Application of coupled bred vectors to seasonal-to-interannual forecasting and ocean data assimilation. J. Clim. 22, 2850–2870 (2009).

  4. 4.

    , , & ENSO regimes and the late 1970s climate shift: The role of synoptic weather and south Pacific ocean spiciness. J. Comput. Phys. 271, 19–38 (2014).

  5. 5.

    , & An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

  6. 6.

    et al. Decadal prediction: Can it be skillful? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, 1467–1485 (2009).

  7. 7.

    et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Technical Summary (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  8. 8.

    The case of the missing heat. Nature 505, 276–278 (2014).

  9. 9.

    Climatic determinism. Meteorol. Monogr. 8, 1–3 (1968).

  10. 10.

    & Ultra-low-frequency variability in a simple atmospheric circulation model. Nature 342, 53–55 (1989).

  11. 11.

    et al. Decadal variability in an OGCM Southern Ocean: Intrinsic modes, forced modes and metastable states. Ocean Model. 69, 1–21 (2013).

  12. 12.

    & Atmospheric CO2 and climate: Importance of the transient response. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 3135–3147 (1981).

  13. 13.

    , , , & Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nature Clim. Change 1, 360–364 (2011).

  14. 14.

    & The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. J. Oceanogr. 58, 35–44 (2002).

  15. 15.

    & Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 1–8 (2011).

  16. 16.

    , & Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Clim. Change 3, 767–769 (2013).

  17. 17.

    & Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. doi: (2014).

  18. 18.

    , , & Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys. 48, 1–29 (2010).

  19. 19.

    & Ensemble forecasting at NCEP and the breeding method. Mon. Weath. Rev. 125, 3297–3319 (1997).

  20. 20.

    et al. Decadal climate prediction: An update from the trenches. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95, 243–267 (2014).

  21. 21.

    & Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013).

  22. 22.

    et al. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nature Clim. Change 4, 222–227 (2014).

  23. 23.

    , & Reconciling warming trends. Nature Geosci. 7, 158–160 (2014).

  24. 24.

    The definition of El Niño. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78, 2771–2777 (1997).

  25. 25.

    , & Zonal structure and variability of the Western Pacific dynamic warm pool edge in CMIP5. Clim. Dynam. 42, 3061–3076 (2014).

  26. 26.

    & Recent observed and simulated warming. Nature Clim. Change 4, 150–151 (2014).

  27. 27.

    , & Evaluation of multidecadal variability in CMIP5 surface solar radiation and inferred underestimation of aerosol direct effects over Europe, China, Japan, and India. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 6311–6336 (2013).

  28. 28.

    et al. Understanding El Niño in ocean–atmosphere general circulation models: Progress and challenges. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, 325–340 (2009).

  29. 29.

    , , & Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys. Res. 117, 1–22 (2012).

  30. 30.

    et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747–756 (2010).

  31. 31.

    et al. Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4407–4444 (2003).

  32. 32.

    et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 11, 953–1028 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Climate Adaptation and Wealth from Oceans Flagships of CSIRO, and the Australian Research Council.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia

    • James S. Risbey
    • , Clothilde Langlais
    • , Didier P. Monselesan
    •  & Terence J. O’Kane
  2. School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK

    • Stephan Lewandowsky
  3. School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia

    • Stephan Lewandowsky
  4. Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    • Naomi Oreskes

Authors

  1. Search for James S. Risbey in:

  2. Search for Stephan Lewandowsky in:

  3. Search for Clothilde Langlais in:

  4. Search for Didier P. Monselesan in:

  5. Search for Terence J. O’Kane in:

  6. Search for Naomi Oreskes in:

Contributions

J.S.R. and S.L. conceived the study and initial experimental design. All authors contributed to experiment design and interpretation. S.L. provided analysis of models and observations. C.L. and D.P.M. analysed Niño3.4 in models. J.S.R. wrote the paper and all authors edited the text.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James S. Risbey.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2310

Further reading