Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

A simple decomposition of European temperature variability capturing the variance from days to a decade

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read European daily temperature variability is a superposition of short-range weather, the seasonal cycle, and a 7–8 year oscillation, not long-range memory.

desk verdict A useful large-scale decomposition of European temperature variability, but the claim that it explains the anomaly scaling is not actually tested. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02212 v1 pith:KTAQSRT2 submitted 2019-08-06 physics.data-an

Philipp G Meyer , Holger Kantz This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.data-an
keywords detrendedfluctuationanalysistemperaturevariabilityEuropeanstationdataautoregressivemodelslong-rangecorrelations7-8yearoscillationseasonalcyclemacroweather
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that the apparent long-range memory commonly reported for European daily temperature records is not a dynamical necessity. It claims that temperature fluctuations from days to about a decade are captured by a superposition of three processes: a short-range AR(1) weather component with roughly 4-day relaxation, the seasonal cycle represented as a fixed sine wave, and an interannual AR(2) component that for many stations is an oscillatory mode with a period of 7–8 years. Using detrended fluctuation analysis and its superposition property, the authors fit theoretical fluctuation functions to 336 European stations and report that the three-component model describes the observed fluctuation functions accurately. If correct, this reframes the widely reported DFA scaling exponent of about 0.65 as an emergent consequence of these finite-timescale components rather than evidence for long-range correlations. The practical payoff is a compact, interpretable description of temperature variability that also isolates a geographically structured 7–8 year mode whose physical origin remains unexplained.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the DFA fluctuation function $F(s)$, a smoothed nonlinear transform of the autocorrelation function, together with the DFA superposition principle $F^2_{x+y}(s)=F^2_x(s)+F^2_y(s)$ (Eq. 2). Given the theoretical fluctuation functions of AR(1) and AR(2) processes (Eqs. C4 and C11), the authors fit each component on a separate time-scale window — days, tens of days, and half-years to years — sequentially subtracting the fitted squared fluctuation functions from the data's $F^2_T$. The separation of scales makes the superposition principle applicable, so the final model can be checked against the full fluctuation function and its parameters interpreted as weather relaxation, seasonal amplitude, and interannual oscillatory behaviour.

What would settle it

Apply the same sequential DFA decomposition to a synthetic long-range-correlated time series (e.g., fractional Gaussian noise with $\alpha\approx0.65$) and check whether the residual after removing AR(1) and seasonal fits falsely produces an AR(2) oscillation near 7–8 years; alternatively, re-analyze the European stations after subtracting a seasonally varying climatological cycle with running amplitude and test whether the 8-year peak in the conditionally averaged spectrum persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fluctuation function of raw daily European temperatures can be decomposed, in DFA space, into three well-separated processes: an AR(1) short-time relaxation ($X_t$) with relaxation times around 3–5 days, a seasonal sinusoidal component ($Y_t$) with fixed amplitude, and an interseasonal AR(2) component ($Z_t$). The decomposition is performed sequentially: fit $F^2_X$ to $F^2_T$ at short scales, subtract it, fit $F^2_Y$ to the residue at scales around 10 days, subtract it, then fit $F^2_Z$ to what remains at scales of half-years to years. The paper reports that the combined fluctuation function $F^2_{X+Y+Z}$ agrees well with the measured $F^2_T$, and that for 51% of the 336 stations the AR(2) component is an oscillatory mode with period $\tau = 7.6\pm1.8$ years. This claim is validated by comparing the averaged power spectrum of stations with and without the identified mode: a clear peak near 8 years appears only in the former. The authors conclude that the anomalous scaling $\alpha\approx0.65$ of temperature anomalies is explained by this superposition of short-time relaxation and low-pass-filtered oscillatory processes, not by genuine long-range correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three processes are independent and well separated in timescale, so that the squared fluctuation functions add (Eq. 2); if the seasonal cycle has variable amplitude or phase, or if the components interact, the sequentially fitted parameters and the reported 7–8 year period are not uniquely identifiable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed DFA scaling exponent $\alpha\approx0.65$ of European temperature anomalies can be explained without long-range correlations, as an emergent effect of short-time relaxation plus low-pass-filtered oscillatory components.
  • A single 7–8 year oscillatory AR(2) mode is significant for about half of the 336 European stations studied, with a mean period of 7.6±1.8 years and a clear regional pattern.
  • Stations with and without the 7–8 year mode can be separated algorithmically, and the conditionally averaged power spectrum confirms the mode only in the former group.
  • The method supplies six parameters per station (relaxation time, three noise standard deviations, and two AR(2) coefficients) that give a stochastic description of temperature from weather to macroweather scales.
  • For timescales up to a decade, no colored background noise such as a $1/f$ continuum is required to describe the variance; the input noise of the interannual component produces the apparent scale invariance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the superposition model generalizes, apparent long-range persistence in other climate variables (e.g., ocean temperatures) could be tested by fitting AR(1)+season+AR(2) decompositions rather than assuming fractional dynamics.
  • The large scatter in the reported periods (1.8 years) may reflect weak identifiability of the AR(2) oscillation when the mode is small; synthetic experiments with known periods could quantify the estimation error of the method.
  • The spatial pattern of the 7–8 year mode (England, southern Scandinavia, central Europe north of the Alps, parts of eastern Europe) is a candidate fingerprint for its yet-unexplained origin, but the paper does not pursue that attribution.
  • A testable implication of the emergent-scaling claim is that the scaling exponent of temperature anomalies should change if the seasonal cycle or the interannual AR(2) mode is artificially removed from the data; the paper reports only the fluctuation function of raw data, not of such filtered records.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that European daily temperature variability can be decomposed into three additive components: a short-range AR(1) process X_t for weather noise, the seasonal cycle Y_t approximated by an AR(2) process with b=-1 (equivalent to a fixed sinusoidal signal), and an interseasonal AR(2) process Z_t. Using the DFA superposition principle, the authors fit the theoretical fluctuation functions of these processes sequentially to temperature records from 336 ECA&D stations, yielding six parameters per station. They report an oscillatory interseasonal component with a period of about 7-8 years for 51% of stations, document regional spatial patterns, and validate the oscillation via conditionally averaged power spectra. They argue that the apparent long-range-correlation scaling exponent alpha about 0.65 seen in temperature anomalies is an emergent superposition effect of these few processes rather than genuine long-range memory, at least for timescales up to about a decade.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper offers a parsimonious alternative to long-range-correlation descriptions of European temperature variability and connects DFA-based scaling analyses with spectral detection of quasi-periodic modes. The strengths are the explicit analytic fluctuation functions for AR(1) and AR(2) processes, the transparent sequential fitting protocol, the large multi-station dataset, and the spatial visualizations. The power-spectrum comparison is a useful consistency check. However, the central claim about anomaly scaling is not directly tested, and the period validation has circular elements, so the significance is currently conditional rather than established.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV, Eq. (3), Fig. 1] The claim that the model explains the scale invariance of temperature anomalies is not supported by the presented analysis. The decomposition is fitted to the raw temperature series: X is fitted to F_T, Y to F_{T-X}, and Z to F_{T-X-Y}, and Fig. 1 (right) compares F_{X+Y+Z} with F_T. The anomaly fluctuation function shown in the same panel is computed after subtracting the climatological daily mean, which removes most of Y; the model prediction for this quantity is approximately F_X^2+F_Z^2, plus any residual seasonal variability. This predicted curve is never displayed or compared with F_anomaly. Because Y is large and spectrally concentrated, its removal can substantially change the shape of the fluctuation function. The paper therefore leaves its main explanatory claim unverified. I request a direct comparison of F_anomaly with F_{X+Z} over the same s range, together with a quantitative error measure.
  2. [V, Eq. (7), Appendix C, Eq. (C9)] The 7-8 year detection is partially circular. The period tau is computed from the fitted AR(2) coefficients a and b via Eq. (C9), and the same fitted coefficients determine whether a station belongs to Omega+ or Omega-. The validation in Eq. (7) averages power spectra over stations grouped by those fitted parameters. This is a consistency check, showing that the fitted modes have spectral signatures, but it cannot independently confirm the period or the classification. To make the result load-bearing, the authors should either split the data (fit on one half and validate on the other), classify stations by a method independent of the fitted AR(2) parameters (e.g., direct spectral peak detection), or provide surrogate-data significance tests.
  3. [Appendix A, Figs. 3-5] The manuscript reports no uncertainty estimates for the fitted parameters r, sigma_X, sigma_Y, a, b, and sigma_Z. The '7.6 +/- 1.8 years' in Fig. 5 is the inter-station standard deviation, not an estimate of the uncertainty of individual periods. The fitting windows (3-25 days, 8-38 ten-day intervals, 8+ half-years) are chosen ad hoc, and the paper does not test the sensitivity of the classification or the period estimate to those choices. Since the central claims concern regional patterns and the distinction between Omega+ and Omega-, bootstrap or Monte Carlo confidence intervals and a brief sensitivity analysis are needed.
  4. [IV, Eqs. (2) and (5)] The superposition principle requires the components X_t, Y_t, and Z_t to be independent and well separated in timescale, but the seasonal component is modeled as a fixed sinusoid with constant amplitude. The text acknowledges that the real annual cycle has phase fluctuations, yet Eq. (5) does not include them. If amplitude or phase modulation of the annual cycle is present, the fixed-sinusoid Y will not absorb all of the annual-cycle power, and the residual can contaminate F_{T-X-Y} and hence the AR(2) fit for Z. Please test this, for example by inspecting the spectrum of T-X-Y for residual annual peaks or by fitting Y with a modulated cycle model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The word 'Spacial' in 'Spacial patterns were described' should be 'Spatial'.
  2. [Data] The URL 'www.ecad.com' should presumably be 'www.ecad.eu', matching the acknowledgment and the ECA&D project name.
  3. [IV, Eq. (5)] The typesetting of Eq. (5) contains 'YtY' and '1year', which is confusing; the index notation should be clarified.
  4. [V, Eq. (7), Fig. 5] The normalization and construction of the conditionally averaged spectrum in Eq. (7) are not fully specified; please state whether the average is over correlation functions or spectra and define the frequency units used in Fig. 5.
  5. [Appendix A] The sentence 'We only consider one dataset for each station in cases where there are more' does not specify the selection criterion; please state whether the longest record, the most complete record, or some other rule was used.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The model's agreement with F_T is an in-sample fit and the 7–8 year mode is a fitted parameter whose spectral 'validation' reuses the same fit to select stations.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Eq. 3 and Fig. 1, right); Appendix A fitting ranges]
    "We subtract the fitted AR(1) fluctuation function F^2_X from F^2_T. ... The complete fluctuation function F^2_{X+Y+Z} is shown in figure 1 (right panel). It shows excellent agreement with the measured F^2_T."

    The fitting protocol in Appendix A makes each component a fit to a residual of F_T: X is fitted to F_T (3≤s≤25 days), Y to F_{T−X} (8–38 decades of days), and Z to F_{T−X−Y} (s > 8 half-years). Therefore F^2_{X+Y+Z} ≈ F^2_T on the fitted s-intervals by construction. Showing that this sum 'agrees' with F_T is an in-sample goodness-of-fit statement, not an independent test; no withheld data or out-of-sample residual is used to validate the decomposition.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eq. (C9), Fig. 5 right]
    "The period time τ of this oscillation can be calculated from the parameters a and b. ... We test the ability of our method to distinguish between stations with and without an observable period by looking at the conditionally averaged power spectrum P(ω) = F[⟨C(t)⟩Ω], ... The validations is successful as the stations where the period was found show a clear peak at 8 years while the others do not (see figure 5 right)."

    τ is a deterministic function of the fitted AR(2) parameters via Eq. C9, and the sets Ω+ versus Ω− are defined by whether those fitted parameters give an oscillatory mode in the chosen window. Averaging the power spectrum over stations selected by that same fit is a consistency check on the fitting data, not an independent confirmation; because both the DFA fluctuation function and the power spectrum are transformations of the same autocorrelation function, a peak near the fitted period in the selected subset is expected by construction. The 'validation' therefore does not use independent data or an a priori classification.

full rationale

The paper is not self-citation-circular in a load-bearing way: refs [25,26] supply theoretical fluctuation-function formulas and prior demonstrations, but the present paper derives the AR(1)/AR(2) fluctuation functions in Appendix C and applies them to external station data, so those citations are not themselves the target result. The two structurally circular points are the in-sample decomposition and the internal 'validation' of the fitted period. The claim that the model explains the α≈0.65 anomaly scaling is not part of the fitted reduction: no comparison of F_anomaly with F_{X+Z} is displayed, so that assertion is an unsupported extrapolation (a correctness gap) rather than a circular step. Because the central model agreement reduces to a sequential fit and the period 'validation' reuses the fitted classification, the score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions: independence and timescale separation of the three processes, a fixed-amplitude seasonal cycle, and stationarity of the records. The theoretical fluctuation functions are carried over from prior work. The free parameters are the fitted AR parameters and amplitudes, which absorb residual variance.

free parameters (5)
  • r (AR(1) relaxation time) = 3-5 days across stations
    Fit to the short-time fluctuation function (3≤s≤25 days) in Section V / Appendix A.
  • sigma_X (standard deviation of short-range process) = roughly 2-6 K
    Computed from the ratio of data to model fluctuation function via Eq. (A2) after fitting the AR(1) parameter.
  • sigma_Y (seasonal cycle amplitude) = roughly 5-12 K
    Estimated from the residual after AR(1) subtraction using Eq. (A2).
  • a, b (AR(2) parameters of interseasonal component) = values vary by station; typically period 7.6 years
    Fit to the residual fluctuation function for s > 8 half-years; period τ computed from a and b via Eq. (C9).
  • sigma_Z (standard deviation of interseasonal process) = roughly 0.2-0.8 K for oscillating stations
    Estimated from the final residual via Eq. (A2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Superposition principle for DFA fluctuation functions: for independent processes, F^2_{x+y}(s)=F^2_x(s)+F^2_y(s).
    Invoked in Eq. (2) and used for the sequential subtraction of fluctuation functions. Requires independence of the three processes.
  • domain assumption The seasonal cycle is a periodic signal with fixed frequency 1/365.25 days and can be represented by an AR(2) process with b=-1 (Eq. 5).
    Used to fit and subtract the seasonal contribution; ignores amplitude and phase fluctuations.
  • domain assumption The slower processes can be neglected when fitting short-time fluctuation functions because AR models are low-pass filters.
    Stated in Section IV to justify sequential fitting.
  • standard math Standard theoretical fluctuation functions for AR(1) and AR(2) processes (Eqs. C4, C11) are correct.
    Taken from prior work [12,13,26]; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Temperature records are stationary over the analyzed period, aside from the modeled seasonal cycle.
    Needed for the AR parameter fits and the empirical averaging over time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A simple decomposition of European temperature variability capturing the variance from days to a decade." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTAQSRT2

@misc{pith2026190802212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A simple decomposition of European temperature variability capturing the variance from days to a decade},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTAQSRT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02212}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze European temperature variability from station data with the method of detrended fluctuation analysis. This method is known to give a scaling exponent indicating long range correlations in time for temperature anomalies. However, by a more careful look at the fluctuation function we are able to explain the emergent scaling behaviour by short time relaxation, the yearly cycle and one additional process. It turns out that for many stations this interannual variability is an oscillatory mode with a period length of approximately 7-8 years, which is consistent with results of other methods. We discuss the spatial patterns in all parameters and validate the finding of the 7-8 year period by comparing stations with and without this mode.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. LEFT: Pressure (top) and temperature data (bottom) from Potsdam station. The measured values are displayed with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decomposition of the fluctuation function of Potsdam temperatures. The orange curves represent fits to the fluctuation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. LEFT: color plot of relaxation times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The standard deviation in all three processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. LEFT: Results of period times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Decomposition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (C11) Here Fgi are the fluctuation functions of the AR(1) pro- cesses with parameters g1 and g2

    +c2F 2 g2(1−g2 2)](1−b) (1 +b)(1−a−b)(1 +a−b) . (C11) Here Fgi are the fluctuation functions of the AR(1) pro- cesses with parameters g1 and g2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the data providers in the ECA&D project. Klein Tank, A.M.G. and Coauthors, 2002. Daily dataset of 20th-century surface air temperature and pre- cipitation series for the European Cli...

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Geophysical Research Letters 24(11):1351–1354

    Baliunas S, Frick P, Sokoloff D, Soon W (1997) Time scales and trends in the central england temperature data (1659–1990): A wavelet analysis. Geophysical Research Letters 24(11):1351–1354

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 108(29):11766–11771

    Chekroun MD, Kondrashov D, Ghil M (2011) Predicting stochastic systems by noise sampling, and application to the el ni˜ no-southern oscillation. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 108(29):11766–11771

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Climate Dyn 50:1091

    Deng Q, Nian D, Fu Z (2018) The impact of inter-annual variability of annual cycle on long-term persistence of sur- face air temperature in long historical records. Climate Dyn 50:1091

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Phys Rev Lett 90:108501

    Fraedrich K, Blender R (2003) Scaling of atmosphere and ocean temperature correlations in observations and cli- mate models. Phys Rev Lett 90:108501

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Physical Review E 70(3):037301

    Fraedrich K, Luksch U, Blender R (2004) 1/ f model for long-time memory of the ocean surface temperature. Physical Review E 70(3):037301

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Journal of Climate 29(4):1253–1268

    Fredriksen HB, Rypdal K (2016) Spectral characteristics of instrumental and climate model surface temperatures. Journal of Climate 29(4):1253–1268

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Journal of Climate 30(18):7157–7168

    Fredriksen HB, Rypdal M (2017) Long-range persis- tence in global surface temperatures explained by lin- ear multibox energy balance models. Journal of Climate 30(18):7157–7168

    work page 2017

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    (2002) Advanced spectral methods for climatic time series

    Ghil M, Allen M, Dettinger M, Ide K, Kondrashov D, Mann M, Robertson AW, Saunders A, Tian Y, Varadi F, et al. (2002) Advanced spectral methods for climatic time series. Reviews of geophysics 40(1):3–1

    2002

  2. [10]

    In: Robertson AW, Vitart F (eds) Sub-Seasonal to Seasonal Prediction, Elsevier, pp 119 – 142, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811714-9.00006-1

    Ghil M, Groth A, Kondrashov D, Robertson AW (2019) Extratropical sub-seasonal to seasonal oscilla- tions and multiple regimes: The dynamical systems view. In: Robertson AW, Vitart F (eds) Sub-Seasonal to Seasonal Prediction, Elsevier, pp 119 – 142, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016...

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Phys Rev Lett 89:028501

    Govindan RB, Vyushin D, Bunde A, Brenner S, Havlin S, Schellnhuber HJ (2002) Global climate models violate scaling of the observed atmospheric variability. Phys Rev Lett 89:028501

    2002

  4. [12]

    Theoretical and applied climatology 71(3-4):171–183

    Grieser J, Tr¨ omel S, Sch¨ onwiese CD (2002) Statistical time series decomposition into significant components and application to european temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology 71(3-4):171–183

    2002

  5. [13]

    Eur Phys J B 88:126

    Hoell M, Kantz H (2015) The fluctuation function of the detrended fluctuation analysis – investigation on the ar(1) process. Eur Phys J B 88:126

    2015

  6. [14]

    Eur Phys J B 88:327

    Hoell M, Kantz H (2015) The relationship between the detrendend fluctuation analysis and the autocorrelation function of a signal. Eur Phys J B 88:327

    2015

  7. [15]

    Phys Rev E 99:033305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.99.033305, URL https://link.aps

    H¨ oll M, Kiyono K, Kantz H (2019) Theoretical foun- dation of detrending methods for fluctuation analy- sis such as detrended fluctuation analysis and de- trending moving average. Phys Rev E 99:033305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.99.033305, URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysR...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Phys Rev E 64:011114

    Hu K, Ivanov PC, Chen Z, Carpena P, Stanley HE (2001) Effect of trends on detrended fluctuation analysis. Phys Rev E 64:011114

    2001

  9. [17]

    Geophys Res Lett 44:3816–3824

    Hu S, Fedorov AV (2017) The extreme el nino of 2015- 2016 and the end of global warming hiatus. Geophys Res Lett 44:3816–3824

    2017

  10. [18]

    Na- ture 441(7091):329

    Huybers P, Curry W (2006) Links between annual, mi- lankovitch and continuum temperature variability. Na- ture 441(7091):329

    2006

  11. [19]

    Geophys- ical Research Letters 43(2):902–909

    Jajcay N, Hlinka J, Kravtsov S, Tsonis AA, Paluˇ s M (2016) Time scales of the european surface air tempera- ture variability: The role of the 7–8 year cycle. Geophys- ical Research Letters 43(2):902–909

    2016

  12. [20]

    Climate Dynamics 44(11-12):3187–3210

    Lovejoy S (2015) A voyage through scales, a missing quadrillion and why the climate is not what you expect. Climate Dynamics 44(11-12):3187–3210

    2015

  13. [21]

    Scientific reports 8(1):12697

    Lovejoy S (2018) Spectra, intermittency, and extremes of weather, macroweather and climate. Scientific reports 8(1):12697

    2018

  14. [22]

    Climate dy- namics 46(1-2):263–271

    Ludescher J, Bunde A, Franzke CL, Schellnhuber HJ (2016) Long-term persistence enhances uncertainty about anthropogenic warming of antarctica. Climate dy- namics 46(1-2):263–271

    2016

  15. [23]

    Nonlin Process Geophys 11:495

    Maraun D, Rust HW, Timmer J (2004) Tempting long- memory – on the interpretation of dfa results. Nonlin Process Geophys 11:495

    2004

  16. [24]

    Geophys Res Lett 43:9243

    Massah M, Kantz H (2016) Confidence intervals for time averages in the presence of long-range correlations, a case study on earth surface temperature anomalies. Geophys Res Lett 43:9243

    2016

  17. [25]

    Phys Rev E 96:022217, doi:DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.022217

    Meyer P, Kantz H (2017) Infinite invariant densities due to intermittency in a nonlinear oscillator. Phys Rev E 96:022217, doi:DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.022217

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 123(9):4413–4422 9

    Meyer P, Hoell M, Kantz H (2018) Reproducing long- range correlations in global mean temperatures in simple energy balance models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 123(9):4413–4422 9

    2018

  19. [27]

    New Journal of Physics 21(3):033022, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab0a8a

    Meyer PG, Kantz H (2019) Inferring characteristic timescales from the effect of autoregressive dynamics on detrended fluctuation analysis. New Journal of Physics 21(3):033022, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab0a8a

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Phys- ical review letters 121(10):108701

    Moon W, Agarwal S, Wettlaufer JS (2018) Intrinsic pink- noise multidecadal global climate dynamics mode. Phys- ical review letters 121(10):108701

    2018

  21. [29]

    Physical review letters 112(7):078702

    Paluˇ s M (2014) Multiscale atmospheric dynamics: cross- frequency phase-amplitude coupling in the air tempera- ture. Physical review letters 112(7):078702

    2014

  22. [30]

    Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 11(5/6):721– 729

    Paluˇ s M, Novotn´ a D (2004) Enhanced monte carlo singu- lar system analysis and detection of period 7.8 years oscil- latory modes in the monthly nao index and temperature records. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 11(5/6):721– 729

    2004

  23. [31]

    Phys Rev E 49:1685

    Peng CK, Buldyrev SV, Havlin S, Simons M, Stanley HE, Goldberger AL (1994) Mosaic organization of dna nucleotides. Phys Rev E 49:1685

    1994

  24. [32]

    The European Physical Journal Special Topics 174(1):147–155

    Piˇ soft P, Mikˇ sovsk` y J,ˇZ´ ak M (2009) An analysis of the spatial distribution of approximate 8 years periodicity in ncep/ncar and era-40 temperature fields. The European Physical Journal Special Topics 174(1):147–155

    2009

  25. [33]

    Science 268(5211):710–713

    Plaut G, Ghil M, Vautard R (1995) Interannual and in- terdecadal variability in 335 years of central england tem- peratures. Science 268(5211):710–713

    1995

  26. [34]

    Theoretical and applied climatology 123(3-4):733–739

    Sen AK, Ogrin D (2016) Analysis of monthly, winter, and annual temperatures in zagreb, croatia, from 1864 to 2010: the 7.7-year cycle and the north atlantic oscillation. Theoretical and applied climatology 123(3-4):733–739

    2016

  27. [35]

    Science 347(6225):988–991

    Steinman BA, Mann ME, Miller SK (2015) Atlantic and pacific multidecadal oscillations and northern hemisphere temperatures. Science 347(6225):988–991

    2015

  28. [36]

    (2002) Daily dataset of 20th-century surface air temperature and precipitation series for the european climate assessment

    Tank AK, Wijngaard J, K¨ onnen G, B¨ ohm R, Demar´ ee G, Gocheva A, Mileta M, Pashiardis S, Hejkrlik L, Kern- Hansen C, et al. (2002) Daily dataset of 20th-century surface air temperature and precipitation series for the european climate assessment. International journal of cl...

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.