ub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.muninLogoub.xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.openResearchArchiveLogo
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Velg spraakEnglish 
    • EnglishEnglish
    • norsknorsk
  • Administration/UB
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Fakultet for naturvitenskap og teknologi
  • Institutt for matematikk og statistikk
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (matematikk og statistikk)
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Fakultet for naturvitenskap og teknologi
  • Institutt for matematikk og statistikk
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (matematikk og statistikk)
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Comment on "Scaling regimes and linear/nonlinear responses of last millennium climate to volcanic and solar forcing" by S. Lovejoy and C. Varotsos (2016)

Permanent link
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/10363
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-597-2016
Thumbnail
View/Open
article.pdf (2.990Mb)
Main article (PDF)
Date
2016-07-13
Type
Journal article
Tidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed

Author
Rypdal, Kristoffer; Rypdal, Martin Wibe
Abstract
Lovejoy and Varotsos (2016) (L&V) analyse the temperature response to solar, volcanic, and solar plus volcanic forcing in the Zebiak–Cane (ZC) model, and to solar and solar plus volcanic forcing in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) E2-R model. By using a simple wavelet filtering technique they conclude that the responses in the ZC model combine subadditively on timescales from 50 to 1000 years. Nonlinear response on shorter timescales is claimed by analysis of intermittencies in the forcing and the temperature signal for both models. The analysis of additivity in the ZC model suffers from a confusing presentation of results based on an invalid approximation, and from ignoring the effect of internal variability. We present tests without this approximation which are not able to detect nonlinearity in the response, even without accounting for internal variability. We also demonstrate that internal variability will appear as subadditivity if it is not accounted for. L&V’s analysis of intermittencies is based on a mathematical result stating that the intermittencies of forcing and response are the same if the response is linear.We argue that there are at least three different factors that may invalidate the application of this result for these data. It is valid only for a power-law response function; it assumes power-law scaling of structure functions of forcing as well as temperature signal; and the internal variability, which is strong at least on the short timescales, will exert an influence on temperature intermittence which is independent of the forcing. We demonstrate by a synthetic example that the differences in intermittencies observed by L&V easily can be accounted for by these effects under the assumption of a linear response. Our conclusion is that the analysis performed by L&V does not present valid evidence for a detectable nonlinear response in the global temperature in these climate models.
Description
Published version. Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-597-2016
Publisher
European Geosciences Union
Citation
Rypdal K, Rypdal Mw. Comment on "Scaling regimes and linear/nonlinear responses of last millennium climate to volcanic and solar forcing" by S. Lovejoy and C. Varotsos (2016). Earth System Dynamics. 2016;7(3):579-609
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Artikler, rapporter og annet (matematikk og statistikk) [355]

Browse

Browse all of MuninCommunities & CollectionsAuthor listTitlesBy Issue DateBrowse this CollectionAuthor listTitlesBy Issue Date
Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
UiT

Munin is powered by DSpace

UiT The Arctic University of Norway
The University Library
uit.no/ub - munin@ub.uit.no

Accessibility statement (Norwegian only)