Attribution analysis for the failure of CMIP5 climate models to simulate the recent global warming hiatus

The Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) contains a group of state-of-the-art climate models and represents the highest level of climate simulation thus far. However, these models significantly overestimated global mean surface temperature (GMST) during 2006-2014. Based on the ense...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Science China. Earth sciences 2017-02, Vol.60 (2), p.397-408
Hauptverfasser: Wei, Meng, Qiao, FangLi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 408
container_issue 2
container_start_page 397
container_title Science China. Earth sciences
container_volume 60
creator Wei, Meng
Qiao, FangLi
description The Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) contains a group of state-of-the-art climate models and represents the highest level of climate simulation thus far. However, these models significantly overestimated global mean surface temperature (GMST) during 2006-2014. Based on the ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) method, the long term change of the observed GMST time series of HadCRUT4 records during 1850-2014 was analyzed, then the simulated GMST by 33 CMIP5 climate models was assessed. The possible reason that climate models failed to project the recent global warming hiatus was revealed. Results show that during 1850-2014 the GMST on a centennial timescale rose with fluctuation, dominated by the secular trend and the multi-decadal variability (MDV). The secular trend was relatively steady beginning in the early 20th century, with an average warming rate of 0.0883℃/decade over the last 50 years. While the MDV (with a -65-year cycle) showed 2.5 multi-decadal waves during 1850-2014, which deepened and steepened with time, the alarming warming over the last quarter of the 20th century was a result of the concurrence of the secular wanning trend and the warming phase of the MDV, both of which accounted one third of the temperature increase during 1975-1998. Recently the slowdown of global warming emerged as the MDV approached its third peak, leading to a reduction in the warming rate. A comparative analysis between the GMST time series derived from HadCRUT4 records and 33 CMIP5 model outputs reveals that the GMSTs during the historical simulation period of 1850-2005 can be reproduced well by models, especially on the accelerated global warming over the last quarter of 20th century. However, the projected GMSTs and their linear trends during 2006-2014 under the RCP4.5 scenario were significantly higher than observed. This is because the CMIP5 models confused the MDV with secular trend underlying the GMST time series, which results in a fast secular trend and an improper MDV with irregular phases and small amplitudes. This implies that the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming may be overestimated, while the MDV which is an interior oscillation of the climate system may be underestimated, which should be related to insufficient understanding of key climatic internal dynamic processes. Our study puts forward an important criterion for the new generation of climate models: they should be able to simulate both the secular trend and t
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11430-015-5465-y
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1868304810</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>671358017</cqvip_id><sourcerecordid>4312367241</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-77bfc1247e58cb40dde8987f6a252debe39d76860be55ca839a4db68f1a6c6093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAURYsoKKM_wF3QjZtq0jQfXcrgx8CILnQd0vR1JpI2mqTI_Hszjoi4MJuEl3PfhVMUpwRfEozFVSSkprjEhJWs5qzc7BVHRPKmJLIR-_nNRV0KSuhhcRLjK86H5p9KHBX2OqVg2ylZPyI9areJNqLeB5TWgHpt3RQA-R7NHxZPDBlnB50ADb4DF1HyKNphctvRlg9gYExo5XyrHfrQYbDjCq2tTlM8Lg567SKcfN-z4uX25nl-Xy4f7xbz62VpqOCpFKLtDalqAUyatsZdB7KRoue6YlUHLdCmE1xy3AJjRkva6LprueyJ5objhs6Ki93et-DfJ4hJDTYacE6P4KeoshhJcS0Jzuj5H_TVTyFL-KJYLsw6M0V2lAk-xgC9egvZQtgogtXWv9r5V9m_2vpXm5ypdpmY2XEF4dfmf0Jn30VrP67ec-6niQtCmcRE0E_3wpRM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1865252546</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Attribution analysis for the failure of CMIP5 climate models to simulate the recent global warming hiatus</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wei, Meng ; Qiao, FangLi</creator><creatorcontrib>Wei, Meng ; Qiao, FangLi</creatorcontrib><description>The Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) contains a group of state-of-the-art climate models and represents the highest level of climate simulation thus far. However, these models significantly overestimated global mean surface temperature (GMST) during 2006-2014. Based on the ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) method, the long term change of the observed GMST time series of HadCRUT4 records during 1850-2014 was analyzed, then the simulated GMST by 33 CMIP5 climate models was assessed. The possible reason that climate models failed to project the recent global warming hiatus was revealed. Results show that during 1850-2014 the GMST on a centennial timescale rose with fluctuation, dominated by the secular trend and the multi-decadal variability (MDV). The secular trend was relatively steady beginning in the early 20th century, with an average warming rate of 0.0883℃/decade over the last 50 years. While the MDV (with a -65-year cycle) showed 2.5 multi-decadal waves during 1850-2014, which deepened and steepened with time, the alarming warming over the last quarter of the 20th century was a result of the concurrence of the secular wanning trend and the warming phase of the MDV, both of which accounted one third of the temperature increase during 1975-1998. Recently the slowdown of global warming emerged as the MDV approached its third peak, leading to a reduction in the warming rate. A comparative analysis between the GMST time series derived from HadCRUT4 records and 33 CMIP5 model outputs reveals that the GMSTs during the historical simulation period of 1850-2005 can be reproduced well by models, especially on the accelerated global warming over the last quarter of 20th century. However, the projected GMSTs and their linear trends during 2006-2014 under the RCP4.5 scenario were significantly higher than observed. This is because the CMIP5 models confused the MDV with secular trend underlying the GMST time series, which results in a fast secular trend and an improper MDV with irregular phases and small amplitudes. This implies that the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming may be overestimated, while the MDV which is an interior oscillation of the climate system may be underestimated, which should be related to insufficient understanding of key climatic internal dynamic processes. Our study puts forward an important criterion for the new generation of climate models: they should be able to simulate both the secular trend and the MDV of GMST.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1674-7313</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1869-1897</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11430-015-5465-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Beijing: Science China Press</publisher><subject>Carbon dioxide ; Climate change ; Climate models ; Climate science ; Climate system ; Comparative studies ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Failure analysis ; Global warming ; Marine ; Research Paper ; Simulation ; Surface temperature ; Time series ; 全球变暖 ; 地表温度 ; 年代际变化 ; 归因分析 ; 故障模拟 ; 时间序列 ; 气候模型 ; 经验模式分解</subject><ispartof>Science China. Earth sciences, 2017-02, Vol.60 (2), p.397-408</ispartof><rights>Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016</rights><rights>Science China Earth Sciences is a copyright of Springer, 2016.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-77bfc1247e58cb40dde8987f6a252debe39d76860be55ca839a4db68f1a6c6093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-77bfc1247e58cb40dde8987f6a252debe39d76860be55ca839a4db68f1a6c6093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/60111X/60111X.jpg</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11430-015-5465-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11430-015-5465-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wei, Meng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qiao, FangLi</creatorcontrib><title>Attribution analysis for the failure of CMIP5 climate models to simulate the recent global warming hiatus</title><title>Science China. Earth sciences</title><addtitle>Sci. China Earth Sci</addtitle><addtitle>SCIENCE CHINA Earth Sciences</addtitle><description>The Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) contains a group of state-of-the-art climate models and represents the highest level of climate simulation thus far. However, these models significantly overestimated global mean surface temperature (GMST) during 2006-2014. Based on the ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) method, the long term change of the observed GMST time series of HadCRUT4 records during 1850-2014 was analyzed, then the simulated GMST by 33 CMIP5 climate models was assessed. The possible reason that climate models failed to project the recent global warming hiatus was revealed. Results show that during 1850-2014 the GMST on a centennial timescale rose with fluctuation, dominated by the secular trend and the multi-decadal variability (MDV). The secular trend was relatively steady beginning in the early 20th century, with an average warming rate of 0.0883℃/decade over the last 50 years. While the MDV (with a -65-year cycle) showed 2.5 multi-decadal waves during 1850-2014, which deepened and steepened with time, the alarming warming over the last quarter of the 20th century was a result of the concurrence of the secular wanning trend and the warming phase of the MDV, both of which accounted one third of the temperature increase during 1975-1998. Recently the slowdown of global warming emerged as the MDV approached its third peak, leading to a reduction in the warming rate. A comparative analysis between the GMST time series derived from HadCRUT4 records and 33 CMIP5 model outputs reveals that the GMSTs during the historical simulation period of 1850-2005 can be reproduced well by models, especially on the accelerated global warming over the last quarter of 20th century. However, the projected GMSTs and their linear trends during 2006-2014 under the RCP4.5 scenario were significantly higher than observed. This is because the CMIP5 models confused the MDV with secular trend underlying the GMST time series, which results in a fast secular trend and an improper MDV with irregular phases and small amplitudes. This implies that the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming may be overestimated, while the MDV which is an interior oscillation of the climate system may be underestimated, which should be related to insufficient understanding of key climatic internal dynamic processes. Our study puts forward an important criterion for the new generation of climate models: they should be able to simulate both the secular trend and the MDV of GMST.</description><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Climate models</subject><subject>Climate science</subject><subject>Climate system</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Failure analysis</subject><subject>Global warming</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Research Paper</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Surface temperature</subject><subject>Time series</subject><subject>全球变暖</subject><subject>地表温度</subject><subject>年代际变化</subject><subject>归因分析</subject><subject>故障模拟</subject><subject>时间序列</subject><subject>气候模型</subject><subject>经验模式分解</subject><issn>1674-7313</issn><issn>1869-1897</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAURYsoKKM_wF3QjZtq0jQfXcrgx8CILnQd0vR1JpI2mqTI_Hszjoi4MJuEl3PfhVMUpwRfEozFVSSkprjEhJWs5qzc7BVHRPKmJLIR-_nNRV0KSuhhcRLjK86H5p9KHBX2OqVg2ylZPyI9areJNqLeB5TWgHpt3RQA-R7NHxZPDBlnB50ADb4DF1HyKNphctvRlg9gYExo5XyrHfrQYbDjCq2tTlM8Lg567SKcfN-z4uX25nl-Xy4f7xbz62VpqOCpFKLtDalqAUyatsZdB7KRoue6YlUHLdCmE1xy3AJjRkva6LprueyJ5objhs6Ki93et-DfJ4hJDTYacE6P4KeoshhJcS0Jzuj5H_TVTyFL-KJYLsw6M0V2lAk-xgC9egvZQtgogtXWv9r5V9m_2vpXm5ypdpmY2XEF4dfmf0Jn30VrP67ec-6niQtCmcRE0E_3wpRM</recordid><startdate>20170201</startdate><enddate>20170201</enddate><creator>Wei, Meng</creator><creator>Qiao, FangLi</creator><general>Science China Press</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170201</creationdate><title>Attribution analysis for the failure of CMIP5 climate models to simulate the recent global warming hiatus</title><author>Wei, Meng ; Qiao, FangLi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c376t-77bfc1247e58cb40dde8987f6a252debe39d76860be55ca839a4db68f1a6c6093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Climate models</topic><topic>Climate science</topic><topic>Climate system</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Failure analysis</topic><topic>Global warming</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Research Paper</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Surface temperature</topic><topic>Time series</topic><topic>全球变暖</topic><topic>地表温度</topic><topic>年代际变化</topic><topic>归因分析</topic><topic>故障模拟</topic><topic>时间序列</topic><topic>气候模型</topic><topic>经验模式分解</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wei, Meng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qiao, FangLi</creatorcontrib><collection>中文科技期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-7.0平台</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Science China. Earth sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wei, Meng</au><au>Qiao, FangLi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Attribution analysis for the failure of CMIP5 climate models to simulate the recent global warming hiatus</atitle><jtitle>Science China. Earth sciences</jtitle><stitle>Sci. China Earth Sci</stitle><addtitle>SCIENCE CHINA Earth Sciences</addtitle><date>2017-02-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>397</spage><epage>408</epage><pages>397-408</pages><issn>1674-7313</issn><eissn>1869-1897</eissn><abstract>The Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) contains a group of state-of-the-art climate models and represents the highest level of climate simulation thus far. However, these models significantly overestimated global mean surface temperature (GMST) during 2006-2014. Based on the ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) method, the long term change of the observed GMST time series of HadCRUT4 records during 1850-2014 was analyzed, then the simulated GMST by 33 CMIP5 climate models was assessed. The possible reason that climate models failed to project the recent global warming hiatus was revealed. Results show that during 1850-2014 the GMST on a centennial timescale rose with fluctuation, dominated by the secular trend and the multi-decadal variability (MDV). The secular trend was relatively steady beginning in the early 20th century, with an average warming rate of 0.0883℃/decade over the last 50 years. While the MDV (with a -65-year cycle) showed 2.5 multi-decadal waves during 1850-2014, which deepened and steepened with time, the alarming warming over the last quarter of the 20th century was a result of the concurrence of the secular wanning trend and the warming phase of the MDV, both of which accounted one third of the temperature increase during 1975-1998. Recently the slowdown of global warming emerged as the MDV approached its third peak, leading to a reduction in the warming rate. A comparative analysis between the GMST time series derived from HadCRUT4 records and 33 CMIP5 model outputs reveals that the GMSTs during the historical simulation period of 1850-2005 can be reproduced well by models, especially on the accelerated global warming over the last quarter of 20th century. However, the projected GMSTs and their linear trends during 2006-2014 under the RCP4.5 scenario were significantly higher than observed. This is because the CMIP5 models confused the MDV with secular trend underlying the GMST time series, which results in a fast secular trend and an improper MDV with irregular phases and small amplitudes. This implies that the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming may be overestimated, while the MDV which is an interior oscillation of the climate system may be underestimated, which should be related to insufficient understanding of key climatic internal dynamic processes. Our study puts forward an important criterion for the new generation of climate models: they should be able to simulate both the secular trend and the MDV of GMST.</abstract><cop>Beijing</cop><pub>Science China Press</pub><doi>10.1007/s11430-015-5465-y</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1674-7313
ispartof Science China. Earth sciences, 2017-02, Vol.60 (2), p.397-408
issn 1674-7313
1869-1897
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1868304810
source SpringerLink Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Carbon dioxide
Climate change
Climate models
Climate science
Climate system
Comparative studies
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Failure analysis
Global warming
Marine
Research Paper
Simulation
Surface temperature
Time series
全球变暖
地表温度
年代际变化
归因分析
故障模拟
时间序列
气候模型
经验模式分解
title Attribution analysis for the failure of CMIP5 climate models to simulate the recent global warming hiatus
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T15%3A39%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Attribution%20analysis%20for%20the%20failure%20of%20CMIP5%20climate%20models%20to%20simulate%20the%20recent%20global%20warming%20hiatus&rft.jtitle=Science%20China.%20Earth%20sciences&rft.au=Wei,%20Meng&rft.date=2017-02-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=397&rft.epage=408&rft.pages=397-408&rft.issn=1674-7313&rft.eissn=1869-1897&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11430-015-5465-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4312367241%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1865252546&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cqvip_id=671358017&rfr_iscdi=true