Articles | Volume 5, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-5-161-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-5-161-2019
26 Nov 2019
 | 26 Nov 2019

An improved projection of climate observations for detection and attribution

Alexis Hannart

Related authors

Expanding the validity of the ensemble Kalman filter without the intrinsic need for inflation
M. Bocquet, P. N. Raanes, and A. Hannart
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 22, 645–662, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-22-645-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-22-645-2015, 2015
Short summary

Related subject area

Statistics
Modeling general circulation model bias via a combination of localized regression and quantile mapping methods
Benjamin James Washington, Lynne Seymour, and Thomas L. Mote
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 9, 1–28, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-9-1-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-9-1-2023, 2023
Short summary
Evaluation of simulated responses to climate forcings: a flexible statistical framework using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling – Part 1: Theory
Katarina Lashgari, Gudrun Brattström, Anders Moberg, and Rolf Sundberg
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 8, 225–248, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-8-225-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-8-225-2022, 2022
Short summary
Evaluation of simulated responses to climate forcings: a flexible statistical framework using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling – Part 2: Numerical experiment
Katarina Lashgari, Anders Moberg, and Gudrun Brattström
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 8, 249–271, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-8-249-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-8-249-2022, 2022
Short summary
A conditional approach for joint estimation of wind speed and direction under future climates
Qiuyi Wu, Julie Bessac, Whitney Huang, Jiali Wang, and Rao Kotamarthi
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 8, 205–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-8-205-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-8-205-2022, 2022
Short summary
Comparing climate time series – Part 2: A multivariate test
Timothy DelSole and Michael K. Tippett
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 7, 73–85, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-7-73-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-7-73-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Allen, M. and Stott, P.: Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, part i: theory, Clim. Dynam., 21, 477–491, 2003. a
Allen, M. and Tett, S.: Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting, Clim. Dynam., 15, 419–434, 1999. a
Amemiya, T.: Advanced Econometrics, Harvard University Press, 1985. a
Bell, T. P.: Theory of optimal weighting of data to detect climate change, J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 1694–1710, 1986. a
Brohan, P., Kennedy, J., Harris, I., Tett, S., and Jones, P.: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new data set from 1850, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006548, 2006. a, b
Download
Short summary
In climate change attribution studies, one often seeks to maximize a signal-to-noise ratio, where the signal is the anthropogenic response and the noise is climate variability. A solution commonly used in D&A studies thus far consists of projecting the signal on the subspace spanned by the leading eigenvectors of climate variability. Here I show that this approach is vastly suboptimal – in fact, it leads instead to maximizing the noise-to-signal ratio. I then describe an improved solution.