Journal cover Journal topic
Climate of the Past An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 3.174 IF 3.174
  • IF 5-year value: 3.841 IF 5-year 3.841
  • CiteScore value: 3.48 CiteScore 3.48
  • SNIP value: 1.078 SNIP 1.078
  • SJR value: 1.981 SJR 1.981
  • IPP value: 3.38 IPP 3.38
  • h5-index value: 42 h5-index 42
  • Scimago H index value: 58 Scimago H index 58
Volume 7, issue 2 | Copyright
Clim. Past, 7, 587-589, 2011
https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-7-587-2011
© Author(s) 2011. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

  09 Jun 2011

09 Jun 2011

Reply to Henriksson et al.'s comment on "Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity" by Annan and Hargreaves (2010)

J. D. Annan and J. C. Hargreaves J. D. Annan and J. C. Hargreaves
  • RIGC/JAMSTEC, 3173-25 Showamachi, Yokohama, Japan

Abstract. Henriksson et al. (2010), hereafter HALTL10, criticize Annan and Hargreaves (2006a) (AH06) primarily on the grounds that we assumed that different sources of data were conditionally independent given the climate sensitivity. While we consider this approximation to have been a reasonable one under the circumstances (and provided arguments to justify this approach), we also acknowledged its importance in our original paper and performed several sensitivity analyses. The alternative calculations presented by HALTL10 appear to strengthen rather than contradict our conclusion.

HALTL10 additionally criticize Annan and Hargreaves (2009) (AH09) for proposing a Cauchy type prior (as an alternative to the use of a uniform prior, which was widespread up to that time) "without sufficient support", and further claim that anticipated economic damages were used as a means of selecting the prior. We are surprised by these claims, especially considering that the proposed prior was justified at some length both on the basis of both the "Charney report" (National Research Council, 1979) and basic physical arguments, and also in light of our elementary demonstration of the pathological failings of the most commonly-used alternative. Thus, these claims are factually incorrect.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Share