New Research In
Physical Sciences
Social Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
Biological Sciences
Featured Portals
Articles by Topic
- Agricultural Sciences
- Anthropology
- Applied Biological Sciences
- Biochemistry
- Biophysics and Computational Biology
- Cell Biology
- Developmental Biology
- Ecology
- Environmental Sciences
- Evolution
- Genetics
- Immunology and Inflammation
- Medical Sciences
- Microbiology
- Neuroscience
- Pharmacology
- Physiology
- Plant Biology
- Population Biology
- Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
- Sustainability Science
- Systems Biology
Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature
Contributed by Benjamin D. Santer, June 22, 2012

Abstract
We perform a multimodel detection and attribution study with climate model simulation output and satellite-based measurements of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature change. We use simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This multimodel archive provides estimates of the signal pattern in response to combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (the fingerprint) and the noise of internally generated variability. Using these estimates, we calculate signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios to quantify the strength of the fingerprint in the observations relative to fingerprint strength in natural climate noise. For changes in lower stratospheric temperature between 1979 and 2011, S/N ratios vary from 26 to 36, depending on the choice of observational dataset. In the lower troposphere, the fingerprint strength in observations is smaller, but S/N ratios are still significant at the 1% level or better, and range from three to eight. We find no evidence that these ratios are spuriously inflated by model variability errors. After removing all global mean signals, model fingerprints remain identifiable in 70% of the tests involving tropospheric temperature changes. Despite such agreement in the large-scale features of model and observed geographical patterns of atmospheric temperature change, most models do not replicate the size of the observed changes. On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear, model biases in lower stratospheric temperature trends are likely to be reduced by more realistic treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing.
Footnotes
- ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: santer1{at}llnl.gov.
This article is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members of the National Academy of Sciences elected in 2011.
Author contributions: B.D.S., C.A.M., S.S., K.E.T., L.T., F.J.W., and T.M.L.W. designed research; B.D.S., J.F.P., C.A.M., C.D., P.C., J.P., and L.J.W. performed research; B.D.S., J.F.P., C.A.M., C.D., P.C., P.J.C.-S., P.J.G., J.P., S.S., L.T., and L.J.W. analyzed data; C.A.M., F.J.W., and C.-Z.Z. contributed key observational datasets; and B.D.S., J.F.P., C.A.M., C.D., P.C., J.A., P.J.C.-S., N.P.G., P.J.G., J.L., J.P., S.S., P.A.S., K.E.T., L.T., P.W.T., M.F.W., F.J.W., T.M.L.W., L.J.W., and C.-Z.Z. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1210514109/-/DCSupplemental.
*Other CHEM models (such as GISS-E2-R [p2] and GFDL-CM3) substantially overestimate observed ozone loss in certain regions and at certain times of year. The fact that some CHEM models underpredict observed ozone loss and others overestimate observed ozone trends helps to explain why we do not find even larger TLS trend differences between the O3+V case (which excludes CHEM models) and the BASE case (which includes CHEM results).
†Previous multimodel studies have found either small (45) or large (47) impacts of stratospheric ozone changes on tropospheric temperature. The ozone-induced tropospheric temperature signals inferred from such multimodel analyses can be obscured by intermodel differences in other applied external forcings and model differences in climate sensitivity (48).
‡Model temperature fields are spatially complete and sampled at uniform time intervals, whereas MSU-based temperature measurements are not spatially complete and not sampled at uniform time intervals. These sampling differences tend to inflate the high-frequency variance of the observations. The RSS percentile realizations attempt to account for this variance inflation (26).
§For each of the four atmospheric layers except TLT, the O3+V fingerprint is searched for in 14 individual observational datasets (RSS v3.3, UAH v5.4, STAR v2.0, and 11 RSS percentile realizations). For TLT, there are only 13 model vs. observed comparisons, because STAR does not provide TLT information. There are, therefore, a total of (3 × 14) + 13 comparisons.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
Citation Manager Formats
Sign up for Article Alerts
Jump to section
You May Also be Interested in
More Articles of This Classification
Physical Sciences
Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
Related Content
Cited by...
- Human influence on the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature
- The seasonal fingerprint of climate change
- Reply to Gonsamo and Chen: Yield findings independent of cause of climate trends
- Identifying external influences on global precipitation
- Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere
- More evidence for anthropogenic influence on climate change