Reply to "Comment on 'comparison of low-frequency internal climate variability in CMIP5 Models and Observations'"

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text


In a comment on a 2017 paper by Cheung et al., Kravtsov states that the results of Cheung et al. are invalidated by errors in the method used to estimate internal variability in historical surface temperatures, which involves using the ensemble mean of simulations from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) to estimate the forced signal. Kravtsov claims that differences between the forced signals in the individual models and as defined by the multimodel ensemble mean lead to errors in the assessment of internal variability in both model simulations and the instrumental record. Kravtsov proposes a different method, which instead uses CMIP5 models with at least four realizations to define the forced component. Here, it is shown that the conclusions of Cheung et al. are valid regardless of whether the method of Cheung et al. or that of Kravtsov is applied. Furthermore, many of the points raised by Kravtsov are discussed in Cheung et al., and the disagreements of Kravtsov appear to be mainly due to a misunderstanding of the aims of Cheung et al.




Cheunga, A. H., Mann, M. E., Steinman, B. A., Frankcombe, L. M., England, M. H., & Miller, S. K. (2017). Reply to “Comment on ‘comparison of low-frequency internal climate variability in CMIP5 Models and Observations.’” Journal of Climate, 30(23), 9773–9782.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free