Spatial performance of four climate field reconstruction methods targeting the Common Era

The spatial skill of four climate field reconstruction (CFR) methods is investigated using pseudoproxy experiments (PPEs) based on two millennial-length general circulation model simulations. Results indicate that presently available global and hemispheric CFRs for the Common Era likely suffer from spatial uncertainties not previously characterized. No individual method produced CFRs with universally superior spatial error statistics, making it difficult to advocate for one method over another. Northern Hemisphere means are shown to be insufficient for evaluating spatial skill, indicating that the spatial performance of future CFRs should be rigorously tested for dependence on proxy type and location, target data and employed methodologies. Observed model-dependent methodological performance also indicates that CFR methods must be tested across multiple models and conclusions from PPEs should be carefully evaluated against the spatial statistics of real-world climatic fields. Citation: Smerdon, J. E., A. Kaplan, E. Zorita, J. F. Gonzalez-Rouco, and M. N. Evans (2011), Spatial performance of four climate field reconstruction methods targeting the Common Era, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L11705, doi: 10.1029/2011GL047372.

[1]  R. Preisendorfer,et al.  A Significance Test for Principal Components Applied to a Cyclone Climatology , 1982 .

[2]  M. Hughes,et al.  Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  S. Solomon.  The Physical Science Basis : Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[4]  Eugene R. Wahl,et al.  Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Past Climate , 2005 .

[5]  M. Cane,et al.  Pacific sea surface temperature field reconstruction from coral δ18O data using reduced space objective analysis , 2002 .

[6]  Bo Christiansen,et al.  A Surrogate Ensemble Study of Climate Reconstruction Methods: Stochasticity and Robustness , 2009 .

[7]  Alexey Kaplan,et al.  Comments on “Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Past Climate”: The Role of the Standardization Interval* , 2007 .

[8]  E. Wahl,et al.  Wahl and Ammann -- Robustness of MBH Temperature Reconstruction 1 ROBUSTNESS OF THE MANN, BRADLEY, HUGHES RECONSTRUCTION OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES: EXAMINATION OF CRITICISMS BASED ON THE NATURE AND PROCESSING OF PROXY CLIMATE EVIDENCE , 2006 .

[9]  J. Smerdon,et al.  A Pseudoproxy Evaluation of the CCA and RegEM Methods for Reconstructing Climate Fields of the Last Millennium , 2010 .

[10]  Gene H. Golub,et al.  Generalized cross-validation as a method for choosing a good ridge parameter , 1979, Milestones in Matrix Computation.

[11]  Malcolm K. Hughes,et al.  corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries , 2004 .

[12]  F. Joos,et al.  Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Arthur E. Hoerl,et al.  Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation for Nonorthogonal Problems , 2000, Technometrics.

[14]  Malcolm K. Hughes,et al.  Proxy-Based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target Season, and Target Domain , 2005 .

[15]  H. Wanner,et al.  Evaluation of proxies for European and North Atlantic temperature field reconstructions , 2003 .

[16]  T. Schneider.  Analysis of Incomplete Climate Data: Estimation of Mean Values and Covariance Matrices and Imputation of Missing Values. , 2001 .

[17]  G. Hegerl,et al.  Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction , 2007 .

[18]  Eugene R. Wahl,et al.  Reply to comment by Jason E. Smerdon et al. on “Robustness of proxy‐based climate field reconstruction methods” , 2008 .

[19]  G. Faluvegi,et al.  Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly , 2009, Science.

[20]  Eduardo Zorita,et al.  Response to Comment on "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data" , 2006, Science.

[21]  Gordon C. Jacoby,et al.  Tree ring width and density evidence of climatic and potential forest change in Alaska , 1995 .

[22]  Francis W. Zwiers,et al.  Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods , 2008 .

[23]  Eduardo Zorita,et al.  Assessment of three temperature reconstruction methods in the virtual reality of a climate simulation , 2009 .

[24]  P. Hansen.  Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems: Numerical Aspects of Linear Inversion , 1987 .

[25]  J. Smerdon,et al.  Reply to “Comments on ‘Erroneous Model Field Representations in Multiple Pseudoproxy Studies: Corrections and Implications’” , 2010 .

[26]  M. Hughes,et al.  Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries , 1998 .

[27]  Eduardo Zorita,et al.  Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data , 2004, Science.

[28]  Eduardo Zorita,et al.  Simulation and inversion of borehole temperature profiles in surrogate climates: Spatial distribution and surface coupling , 2006 .