@misc{RisbeyLewandowskyCowtanetal.2018, author = {Risbey, James S. and Lewandowsky, Stephan and Cowtan, Kevin and Oreskes, Naomi and Rahmstorf, Stefan and Jokim{\"a}ki, Ari and Foster, Grant}, title = {A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context}, series = {Environmental research letters}, volume = {13}, journal = {Environmental research letters}, number = {12}, publisher = {IOP Publ. Ltd.}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {1748-9326}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aaf342}, pages = {23}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This work reviews the literature on an alleged global warming 'pause' in global mean surface temperature (GMST) to determine how it has been defined, what time intervals are used to characterise it, what data are used to measure it, and what methods used to assess it. We test for 'pauses', both in the normally understood meaning of the term to mean no warming trend, as well as for a 'pause' defined as a substantially slower trend in GMST. The tests are carried out with the historical versions of GMST that existed for each pause-interval tested, and with current versions of each of the GMST datasets. The tests are conducted following the common (but questionable) practice of breaking the linear fit at the start of the trend interval ('broken' trends), and also with trends that are continuous with the data bordering the trend interval. We also compare results when appropriate allowance is made for the selection bias problem. The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a 'pause' in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing.}, language = {en} } @misc{RisbeyLewandowskyCowtanetal.2018, author = {Risbey, James S. and Lewandowsky, Stephan and Cowtan, Kevin and Oreskes, Naomi and Rahmstorf, Stefan and Jokim{\"a}ki, Ari and Foster, Grant}, title = {A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, volume = {13}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {1023}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-46804}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-468041}, pages = {26}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This work reviews the literature on an alleged global warming 'pause' in global mean surface temperature (GMST) to determine how it has been defined, what time intervals are used to characterise it, what data are used to measure it, and what methods used to assess it. We test for 'pauses', both in the normally understood meaning of the term to mean no warming trend, as well as for a 'pause' defined as a substantially slower trend in GMST. The tests are carried out with the historical versions of GMST that existed for each pause-interval tested, and with current versions of each of the GMST datasets. The tests are conducted following the common (but questionable) practice of breaking the linear fit at the start of the trend interval ('broken' trends), and also with trends that are continuous with the data bordering the trend interval. We also compare results when appropriate allowance is made for the selection bias problem. The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a 'pause' in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlbrodtTitzFeudeletal.2001, author = {Kuhlbrodt, Till and Titz, Sven Holger and Feudel, Ulrike and Rahmstorf, Stefan}, title = {A simple model of seasonal open ocean convection. Part II: Labrador Sea stability and stochastic forcing}, issn = {1616-7341}, year = {2001}, abstract = {Aspects of open ocean deep convection variability are explored with a two-box model. In order to place the model in a region of parameter space relevant to the real ocean, it is fitted to observational data from the Labrador Sea. A systematic fit to OWS Bravo data allows us to determine the model parameters and to locate the position of the Labrador Sea on a stability diagram. The model suggests that the Labrador Sea is in a bistable regime where winter convection can be either ?on? or ?off?, with both these possibilities being stable climate states. When shifting the surface buoyancy forcing slightly to warmer or fresher conditions, the only steady solution is one without winter convection. We then introduce short-term variability by adding a noise term to the surface temperature forcing, turning the box model into a stochastic climate model. The surface forcing anomalies generated in this way induce jumps between the two model states. These state transitions occur on the interannual to decadal timescale. Changing the average surface forcing towards more buoyant conditions lowers the frequency of convection. However, convection becomes more frequent with stronger variability in the surface forcing. As part of the natural variability, there is a non-negligible probability for decadal interruptions of convection. The results highlight the role of surface forcing variability for the persistence of convection in the ocean.}, language = {en} } @misc{LentonRockstroemGaffneyetal.2019, author = {Lenton, Timothy M. and Rockstroem, Johan and Gaffney, Owen and Rahmstorf, Stefan and Richardson, Katherine and Steffen, Will and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim}, title = {Climate tipping points - too risky to bet against : Comment}, series = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science}, volume = {575}, journal = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science}, number = {7784}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {0028-0836}, doi = {10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0}, pages = {592 -- 595}, year = {2019}, language = {en} } @book{RahmstorfSchellnhuber2020, author = {Rahmstorf, Stefan and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim}, title = {Der Klimawandel}, series = {Schriftenreihe / Bundeszentrale f{\"u}r politische Bildung ; Band 10520}, journal = {Schriftenreihe / Bundeszentrale f{\"u}r politische Bildung ; Band 10520}, publisher = {Bundeszentrale f{\"u}r politische Bildung}, address = {Bonn}, isbn = {978-3-7425-0520-0}, pages = {144}, year = {2020}, language = {de} } @book{RahmstorfSchellnhuber2006, author = {Rahmstorf, Stefan and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim}, title = {Der Klimawandel}, series = {Becksche Reihe}, volume = {2366}, journal = {Becksche Reihe}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {3-406-50866-9}, pages = {144 S.}, year = {2006}, language = {de} } @misc{LewandowskyCowtanRisbeyetal.2019, author = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Cowtan, Kevin and Risbey, James S. and Mann, Michael E. and Steinman, Byron A. and Oreskes, Naomi and Rahmstorf, Stefan}, title = {Erratum: The 'pause' in global warming in historical context: II. Comparing models to observations (Environmental research letters. - Vol 13, (2018) 123007)}, series = {Environmental research letters}, volume = {14}, journal = {Environmental research letters}, number = {4}, publisher = {IOP Publ. Ltd.}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {1748-9326}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aafbb7}, pages = {2}, year = {2019}, abstract = {We review the evidence for a putative early 21st-century divergence between global mean surface temperature (GMST) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections. We provide a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections using historical versions of GMST products and historical versions of model projections that existed at the times when claims about a divergence were made. The comparisons are conducted with a variety of statistical techniques that correct for problems in previous work, including using continuous trends and a Monte Carlo approach to simulate internal variability. The results show that there is no robust statistical evidence for a divergence between models and observations. The impression of a divergence early in the 21st century was caused by various biases in model interpretation and in the observations, and was unsupported by robust statistics.}, language = {en} } @article{HortonKhanCahilletal.2020, author = {Horton, Benjamin P. and Khan, Nicole S. and Cahill, Niamh and Lee, Janice S. H. and Shaw, Timothy A. and Garner, Andra J. and Kemp, Andrew C. and Engelhart, Simon E. and Rahmstorf, Stefan}, title = {Estimating global mean sea-level rise and its uncertainties by 2100 and 2300 from an expert survey}, series = {npj Climate and Atmospheric Science}, volume = {3}, journal = {npj Climate and Atmospheric Science}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, address = {London}, issn = {2397-3722}, doi = {10.1038/s41612-020-0121-5}, pages = {1 -- 8}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Sea-level rise projections and knowledge of their uncertainties are vital to make informed mitigation and adaptation decisions. To elicit projections from members of the scientific community regarding future global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise, we repeated a survey originally conducted five years ago. Under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, 106 experts projected a likely (central 66\% probability) GMSL rise of 0.30-0.65 m by 2100, and 0.54-2.15 m by 2300, relative to 1986-2005. Under RCP 8.5, the same experts projected a likely GMSL rise of 0.63-1.32 m by 2100, and 1.67-5.61 m by 2300. Expert projections for 2100 are similar to those from the original survey, although the projection for 2300 has extended tails and is higher than the original survey. Experts give a likelihood of 42\% (original survey) and 45\% (current survey) that under the high-emissions scenario GMSL rise will exceed the upper bound (0.98 m) of the likely range estimated by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is considered to have an exceedance likelihood of 17\%. Responses to open-ended questions suggest that the increases in upper-end estimates and uncertainties arose from recent influential studies about the impact of marine ice cliff instability on the meltwater contribution to GMSL rise from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.}, language = {en} } @misc{HortonKhanCahilletal.2020, author = {Horton, Benjamin P. and Khan, Nicole S. and Cahill, Niamh and Lee, Janice S. H. and Shaw, Timothy A. and Garner, Andra J. and Kemp, Andrew C. and Engelhart, Simon E. and Rahmstorf, Stefan}, title = {Estimating global mean sea-level rise and its uncertainties by 2100 and 2300 from an expert survey}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {1}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51678}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-516788}, pages = {10}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Sea-level rise projections and knowledge of their uncertainties are vital to make informed mitigation and adaptation decisions. To elicit projections from members of the scientific community regarding future global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise, we repeated a survey originally conducted five years ago. Under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, 106 experts projected a likely (central 66\% probability) GMSL rise of 0.30-0.65 m by 2100, and 0.54-2.15 m by 2300, relative to 1986-2005. Under RCP 8.5, the same experts projected a likely GMSL rise of 0.63-1.32 m by 2100, and 1.67-5.61 m by 2300. Expert projections for 2100 are similar to those from the original survey, although the projection for 2300 has extended tails and is higher than the original survey. Experts give a likelihood of 42\% (original survey) and 45\% (current survey) that under the high-emissions scenario GMSL rise will exceed the upper bound (0.98 m) of the likely range estimated by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is considered to have an exceedance likelihood of 17\%. Responses to open-ended questions suggest that the increases in upper-end estimates and uncertainties arose from recent influential studies about the impact of marine ice cliff instability on the meltwater contribution to GMSL rise from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.}, language = {en} } @article{KornhuberPetoukhovPetrietal.2016, author = {Kornhuber, Kai and Petoukhov, Vladimir and Petri, Stefan and Rahmstorf, Stefan and Coumou, Dim}, title = {Evidence for wave resonance as a key mechanism for generating high-amplitude quasi-stationary waves in boreal summer}, series = {Climate dynamics : observational, theoretical and computational research on the climate system}, volume = {49}, journal = {Climate dynamics : observational, theoretical and computational research on the climate system}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {0930-7575}, doi = {10.1007/s00382-016-3399-6}, pages = {1961 -- 1979}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Several recent northern hemisphere summer extremes have been linked to persistent high-amplitude wave patterns (e.g. heat waves in Europe 2003, Russia 2010 and in the US 2011, Floods in Pakistan 2010 and Europe 2013). Recently quasi-resonant amplification (QRA) was proposed as a mechanism that, when certain dynamical conditions are fulfilled, can lead to such high-amplitude wave events. Based on these resonance conditions a detection scheme to scan reanalysis data for QRA events in boreal summer months was implemented. With this objective detection scheme we analyzed the occurrence and duration of QRA events and the associated atmospheric flow patterns in 1979-2015 reanalysis data. We detect a total number of 178 events for wave 6, 7 and 8 and find that during roughly one-third of all high amplitude events QRA conditions were met for respective waves. Our analysis reveals a significant shift for quasi-stationary waves 6 and 7 towards high amplitudes during QRA events, lagging first QRA-detection by typically one week. The results provide further evidence for the validity of the QRA hypothesis and its important role in generating high amplitude waves in boreal summer.}, language = {en} }