Dataset Information

The deglacial forest conundrum.

ABSTRACT: How fast the Northern Hemisphere (NH) forest biome tracks strongly warming climates is largely unknown. Regional studies reveal lags between decades and millennia. Here we report a conundrum: Deglacial forest expansion in the NH extra-tropics occurs approximately 4000 years earlier in a transient MPI-ESM1.2 simulation than shown by pollen-based biome reconstructions. Shortcomings in the model and the reconstructions could both contribute to this mismatch, leaving the underlying causes unresolved. The simulated vegetation responds within decades to simulated climate changes, which agree with pollen-independent reconstructions. Thus, we can exclude climate biases as main driver for differences. Instead, the mismatch points at a multi-millennial disequilibrium of the NH forest biome to the climate signal. Therefore, the evaluation of time-slice simulations in strongly changing climates with pollen records should be critically reassessed. Our results imply that NH forests may be responding much slower to ongoing climate changes than Earth System Models predict.

SUBMITTER: Dallmeyer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9562359 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The deglacial forest conundrum.

Dallmeyer Anne A Kleinen Thomas T Claussen Martin M Weitzel Nils N Cao Xianyong X Herzschuh Ulrike U

Nature communications 20221013 1

How fast the Northern Hemisphere (NH) forest biome tracks strongly warming climates is largely unknown. Regional studies reveal lags between decades and millennia. Here we report a conundrum: Deglacial forest expansion in the NH extra-tropics occurs approximately 4000 years earlier in a transient MPI-ESM1.2 simulation than shown by pollen-based biome reconstructions. Shortcomings in the model and the reconstructions could both contribute to this mismatch, leaving the underlying causes unresolved ...[more]

PMID: 36229452

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn medical research and practice, the p-value is arguably the most often used statistic and yet it is widely misconstrued as the probability of the type I error, which comes with serious consequences. This misunderstanding can greatly affect the reproducibility in research, treatment selection in medical practice, and model specification in empirical analyses. By using plain language and concrete examples, this paper is intended to elucidate the p-value confusion from its root, to explicate the difference between significance and hypothesis testing, to illuminate the consequences of the confusion, and to present a viable alternative to the conventional p-value.Main textThe confusion with p-values has plagued the research community and medical practitioners for decades. However, efforts to clarify it have been largely futile, in part, because intuitive yet mathematically rigorous educational materials are scarce. Additionally, the lack of a practical alternative to the p-value for guarding against randomness also plays a role. The p-value confusion is rooted in the misconception of significance and hypothesis testing. Most, including many statisticians, are unaware that p-values and significance testing formed by Fisher are incomparable to the hypothesis testing paradigm created by Neyman and Pearson. And most otherwise great statistics textbooks tend to cobble the two paradigms together and make no effort to elucidate the subtle but fundamental differences between them. The p-value is a practical tool gauging the "strength of evidence" against the null hypothesis. It informs investigators that a p-value of 0.001, for example, is stronger than 0.05. However, p-values produced in significance testing are not the probabilities of type I errors as commonly misconceived. For a p-value of 0.05, the chance a treatment does not work is not 5%; rather, it is at least 28.9%.ConclusionsA long-overdue effort to understand p-values correctly is much needed. However, in medical research and practice, just banning significance testing and accepting uncertainty are not enough. Researchers, clinicians, and patients alike need to know the probability a treatment will or will not work. Thus, the calibrated p-values (the probability that a treatment does not work) should be reported in research papers.

Dataset Information

The deglacial forest conundrum.

Publications

The deglacial forest conundrum.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets