Climatic Change

, Volume 131, Issue 4, pp 705–718 | Cite as

Testing competing models of the temperature hiatus: assessing the effects of conditioning variables and temporal uncertainties through sample-wide break detection

  • Felix Pretis
  • Michael L. Mann
  • Robert K. Kaufmann
Article

Abstract

Explaining the recent slowdown in the rise of global mean surface temperature (the hiatus in warming) has become a major focus of climate research. Efforts to identify the causes of the hiatus that compare simulations from experiments run by climate models raise several statistical issues. Specifically, it is necessary to identify whether an experiment’s inability to simulate the hiatus is unique to this period or reflects a more systematic failure throughout the sample period. Furthermore, efforts to attribute the hiatus to a particular factor by including that mechanism in an experimental treatment must improve the model’s performance in a statistically significant manner at the time of the hiatus. Sample-wide assessments of simulation errors can provide an accurate assessment of whether or not the control experiment uniquely fails at the hiatus, and can identify its causes using experimental treatments. We use this approach to determine if the hiatus constitutes a unique failure in simulated climate models and to re-examine the conclusion that the hiatus is uniquely linked to episodes of La Niña-like cooling (Kosaka and Xie 2013). Using statistical techniques that do not define the hiatus a priori, we find no evidence that the slowdown in temperature increases are uniquely tied to episodes of La Niña-like cooling.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1391_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
ESM 1(PDF 1.26 MB)

References

  1. Bai J (1997). Estimation of a change point in multiple regression models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(4):551–563Google Scholar
  2. Bai J, Perron P (1998) Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66(1):47–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bai J, Perron P (2003) Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. J Appl Econ 18(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castle JL, Doornik JA, Hendry DF, Pretis F (2015) Detecting location shifts during model selection by step-indicator saturation. Econometrics (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Christiano LJ (1992) Searching for a break in GNP. J Bus Econ Stat 10(3):237–250Google Scholar
  6. Delworth T et al (2006) GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models. Part I: formulation and simulation characteristics. J Clim 19:643–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doornik JA (2009) An object-oriented matrix programming language Ox 6. Timberlake Consultants Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Doornik JA, Hendry DF (2009) Empirical econometric modelling using PcGive: volume I. Timberlake Consultants Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Estrada F, Perron P, Martínez-López B (2013) Statistically derived contribtuions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes. Nat Geosci. doi:10.1038/ngeo1999 Google Scholar
  10. Gonzalo J, Gadea L (2015) Trend or no trend in distributional characteristics: existence of global warming. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  11. Haavelmo T (1940) The inadequacy of testing dynamic theory by comparing theoretical solutions and observed cycles. Econometrica 8(4):312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hendry DF, Johansen S (2014) Model discovery and Trygve Haavelmo’s legacy. Econ Theory. doi:10.1017/S0266466614000218 Google Scholar
  13. Hendry DF, Richard JF (1982) On the formulation of empirical models in dynamic econometrics. J Econ 20(1):3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johansen S, Nielsen B (2013) Outlier detection in regression using an iterated one-step approximation to the Huber-skip estimator. Econometrics 1(1):53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaufmann RK, Kauppi H, Mann ML, Stock JH (2011) Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(29):11790–11793. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102467108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendall MG (1976) Rank correlation methods. 4th ed. GriffinGoogle Scholar
  17. Kosaka Y, Xie SP (2013) Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mann HB (1945) Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica: J Econ Soc 13(3):245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meehl GA, Arblaster JM, Fasullo JT, Aixue H, Trenberth KE (2011) Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nat Clim Chang 1(7):360–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morice CP, Kennedy JJ, Rayner NA, Jones PD (2012) Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set. J Geophys Res: Atmos. (1984–2012), 117(D8)Google Scholar
  21. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263(5147):641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perron P (2006) Dealing with structural breaks. Palgrave Handb Econ 1:278–352Google Scholar
  23. Perron P, Yabu T (2009) Testing for shifts in trend with an integrated or stationary noise component. J Bus Econ Stat 27:369–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perron P, Zhu X (2005) Structural breaks with deterministic and stochastic trends. J Econ 129(1):65–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pretis F, Schneider L, Smerdon JE (2014a) Detecting breaks by designed functions applied to volcanic impacts on hemispheric surface temperatures. University of Oxford Department of Economics Discussion PaperGoogle Scholar
  26. Pretis F, Reade J, Sucarrat G (2014b) gets. An R package for testing for general to specific model selection and indicator saturationGoogle Scholar
  27. Santer BD, Bonfils C, Painter JF, Zelinka MD, Mears C, Solomon S, Schmidt GA et al (2014) Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat Geosci 7(3):185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Santos C, Hendry DF, Johansen S (2008) Automatic selection of indicators in a fully saturated regression. Comput Stat 23(2):317–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zivot E, Andrews WKD (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 20(1):25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Pretis
    • 1
  • Michael L. Mann
    • 2
  • Robert K. Kaufmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Programme for Economic Modelling, Institute for New Economic Thinking, Oxford Martin SchoolUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of GeographyGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Earth and Environment, Center for Energy & Environmental StudiesBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations