Examination of multi-perturbation methods for ensemble prediction of the MJO during boreal summer
- 349 Downloads
The impact of initialization and perturbation methods on the ensemble prediction of the boreal summer intraseasonal oscillation was investigated using 20-year hindcast predictions of a coupled general circulation model. The three perturbation methods used in the present study are the lagged-averaged forecast (LAF) method, the breeding method, and the empirical singular vector (ESV) method. Hindcast experiments were performed with a prediction interval of 10 days for extended boreal summer (May–October) seasons over a 20 year period. The empirical orthogonal function (EOF) eigenvectors of the initial perturbations depend on the individual perturbation method used. The leading EOF eigenvectors of the LAF perturbations exhibit large variances in the extratropics. Bred vectors with a breeding interval of 3 days represent the local unstable mode moving northward and eastward over the Indian and western Pacific region, and the leading EOF modes of the ESV perturbations represent planetary-scale eastward moving perturbations over the tropics. By combining the three perturbation methods, a multi-perturbation (MP) ensemble prediction system for the intraseasonal time scale was constructed, and the effectiveness of the MP prediction system for the Madden and Julian oscillation (MJO) prediction was examined in the present study. The MJO prediction skills of the individual perturbation methods are all similar; however, the MP‐based prediction has a higher level of correlation skill for predicting the real-time multivariate MJO indices compared to those of the other individual perturbation methods. The predictability of the intraseasonal oscillation is sensitive to the MJO amplitude and to the location of the dominant convective anomaly in the initial state. The improvement in the skill of the MP prediction system is more effective during periods of weak MJO activity.
KeywordsMulti-perturbation ensemble prediction Perturbation methods Boreal summer intraseasonal oscillation Madden–Julian oscillation Predictability
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST) (NRF-2009-C1AAA001-2009-0093042) and also by the Brain Korea 21 project.
- Behringer DW, Xue Y (2004) Evaluation of the global ocean data assimilation system at NCEP: the Pacific Ocean In: Eighth symposium on integrated observing and assimilation systems for atmosphere, ocean, land surface. AMS 84th annual meeting, Seattle, Washington, 11–15 JanGoogle Scholar
- Kim D, Kug JS, Kang IS, Jin FF, Wittenberg AT (2008) Tropical Pacific impacts of convective momentum transport in the SNU coupled GCM. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-007-0348-4
- Lee JY, Wang B, Wheeler MC, Fu X, Waliser D, Kang IS (2013) Real-time multivariate indices for the boreal summer intraseasonal oscillation over the Asian summer monsoon region. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1544-4
- Pacanowski RC (1996) MOM 2 version 2.0 (beta) documentation user’s guide and reference model. GFDL ocean technical report 3.2, p 329Google Scholar
- Seo KH, Schemm JKE, Jones C, Moorthi S (2005) Forecast skill of the tropical intraseasonal oscillation in the NCEP GFS dynamical extended range forecasts. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-005-0035-2
- Shukla JM, Fennessy J (1994) Simulation and predictability of monsoons. In: Proceedings of the international conference on monsoon variability and prediction technical report WCRP-84, WCRP, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 567–575Google Scholar
- Simmons AS, Uppala DD, Kobayashi S (2007) ERA-interim: new ECMWF reanalysis products from 1989 onwards. ECMWF Newsl 110:29–35Google Scholar
- Slingo JM, Rowell DP, Sperber KR, Nortley F (1999) On the predictability of the interannual behavior of the Madden–Julian oscillation and its relationship with El Nino. Q J R Meteorol Soc 125:583–609Google Scholar
- Tokioka T, Yamazaki K, Kitoh A, Ose T (1988) The equatorial 30–60 day oscillation and the Arakawa–Schubert penetrative cumulus parameterization. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 66:883–901Google Scholar
- Uppala S, Dee D, Kobayashi S, Berrisford P, Simmons A (2008) Towards a climate data assimilation system: status update of ERA-interim. ECMWF Newsl 115:12–18Google Scholar