Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 42, Issue 9–10, pp 2783–2799 | Cite as

Climate mean, variability and dominant patterns of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime mean atmospheric circulation in the NCEP CFSv2

  • Peitao PengEmail author
  • Arun Kumar
  • Bhaskar Jha
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)

Abstract

In this study, the climate mean, variability, and dominant patterns of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime mean 200 hPa geopotential height (Z200) in a CMIP and a set of AMIP simulations from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2) are analyzed and compared with the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. For the climate mean, it is found that a component of the bias in stationary waves characterized with wave trains emanating from the tropics into both the hemispheres can be attributed to the precipitation deficit over the Maritime continent. The lack of latent heating associated with the precipitation deficit may have served as the forcing of the wave trains. For the variability of the seasonal mean, both the CMIP and AMIP successfully simulated the geographical locations of the major centers of action, but the simulated intensity was generally weaker than that in the reanalysis, particularly for the center over the Davis Strait-southern Greenland area. It is also noted that the simulated action center over Aleutian Islands was southeastward shifted to some extent. The shift was likely caused by the eastward extension of the Pacific jet. Differences also existed between the CMIP and the AMIP simulations, with the center of actions over the Aleutian Islands stronger in the AMIP and the center over the Davis Strait-southern Greenland area stronger in the CMIP simulation. In the mode analysis, the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) teleconnection pattern in each dataset was first removed from the data, and a rotated empirical orthogonal function (REOF) analysis was then applied to the residual. The purpose of this separation was to avoid possible mixing between the ENSO mode and those generated by the atmospheric internal dynamics. It was found that the simulated ENSO teleconnection patterns from both model runs well resembled that from the reanalysis, except for a small eastward shift. Based on the REOF modes of the residual data, six dominant modes of the reanalysis data had counterparts in each model simulation, though with different rankings in explained variance and some distortions in spatial structure. By evaluating the temporal coherency of the REOF modes between the reanalysis and the AMIP, it was found that the time series associated with the equatorially displaced North Atlantic Oscillation in the two datasets were significantly correlated, suggesting a potential predictability for this mode.

Keywords

Model bias Climate variability Dominant modes of circulation Predictability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drs. Mingyue Chen, Hui Wang for CPC internal reviewing and Z.-Z. Hu and Wanqiu Wang for helpful discussions. We would very appreciate the comments and suggestions from Prof. Edwin Schneider and two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Barnston A, Livezey RE (1987) Classification, seasonality and persistence of low-frequency circulation pattern. Mon Weather Rev 115:1083–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branstator G (1992) The maintenance of low-frequency atmospheric anomalies. J Atmos Sci 49:1924–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bretherton CS, Battisti DS (2000) An interpretation of the results from atmospheric general circulation models forced by the time history of the observed sea surface temperature distribution. Geophys Res Lett 27:767–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeWeaver E, Nigam S (2004) On the forcing of ENSO teleconnections by anomalous heating and cooling. J Clim 17:3225–3235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fan M, Schneider E (2012) Observed decadal North Atlantic tripole SST variability. Part I: weather noise forcing and coupled response. J Atmos Sci 69:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frankignoul C (1985) Sea surface temperature anomalies, planetary waves and air–sea feedback in the middle latitudes. Rev Geophys 23:357–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gill A (1982) Atmosphere-ocean dynamics. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Held IM, Lyons SW, Nigam S (1989) Transients and the extratropical response to El Niño. J Atmos Sci 46:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Held IM, Ting M, Wang H (2002) Northern winter stationary waves: theory and modeling. J Clim 15:2125–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoerling MP, Kumar A (2002) Atmospheric response patterns associated with tropical forcing. J Clim 15:2184–2203Google Scholar
  11. Hoerling MP, Kumar A, Zhong M (1997) El Niño, La Niña, and the nonlinearity of their teleconnections. J Clim 10:1769–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horel JD (1981) A rotated Principal component analysis of the interannual variability of the northern hemisphere 500 mb height field. Mon Weather Rev 110:2080–2092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoskins BJ, James IN, White GH (1983) The shape, propagation and mean-flow interaction of large-scale weather systems. J Atmos Sci 40:1595–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu Z–Z, Huang B, Pegion K (2008) Low-cloud errors over the southeastern Atlantic in the NCEP CFS and their association with lower-tropospheric stability and air-sea interaction. J Geophys Res 113:D12114. doi: 10.1029/2007JD009514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang B, Hu Z–Z, Jha B (2007) Evolution of model systematic errors in the tropical Atlantic basin from the NCEP coupled hindcasts. Clim Dyn 28(7/8):661–682. doi: 10.1007/s00382-006-0223-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jha B, Hu Z–Z, Kumar A (2013) SST and ENSO variability and change simulated in historical experiments of CMIP5 models. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1803-z
  17. Kalnay E et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteor 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kang I-S, Lau N-C (1986) Principal modes of atmospheric variability in model atmospheres with and without anomalous sea surface temperature forcing in the tropical Pacific. J Atmos Sci 43:2719–2735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar A, Hoerling MP (2000) Analysis of a conceptual model of seasonal climate variability and implications for seasonal prediction. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 81:255–264Google Scholar
  20. Kumar A, Zhang Q, Peng P, Jha B (2005) SST-forced atmospheric variability in an atmospheric general circulation model. J Clim 18:3953–3967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar A, Chen M, Zhang L, Wang W, Xue Y, Wen C, Marx L, Huang B (2012) An analysis of the nonstationarity in the bias of sea surface temperature forecasts for the NCEP climate forecast system (CFS) version 2. Mon Weather Rev 140:3003–3016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kushnir Y, Wallace JM (1989) Low-frequency variability in the Norther Hemisphere winter: geographical distribution, structure and time-scale dependence. J Atmos Sci 46:3122–3142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kushnir Y, Robinson WA, Bladé I, Hall NMJ, Peng S, Sutton R (2002) Atmospheric GCM response to extratropical SST anomalies: synthesis and evaluation. J Clim 16:2233–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linkin ME, Nigam S (2008) The North Pacific Oscillation-West Pacific teleconnection pattern: mature-phase structure and winter impacts. J Clim 21:1979–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mo KC, Livezey RE (1986) Tropical-extratropical geopotential height teleconnections during the northern hemisphere winter. Mon Weather Rev 114:2488–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman M, Sardeshmukh PD (1998) The impact of the annual cycle on the north pacific/North American response to remote low-frequency forcing. J Atmos Sci 55:1336–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nigam S, Held IM, Lyons SW (1986) Linear simulation of the stationary eddies in a general circulation model. Part I: the no-mountain model. J Atmos Sci 43:2944–2961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nigam S, Held IM, Lyons SW (1988) Linear simulation of the stationary eddies in a general circulation model. Part II: the “mountain” model. J Atmos Sci 45:1433–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Lenic A, Livezey RE (1988) Considerations in the use of rotated principal component analysis (RPCA) in diagnostic studies of upper-air height fields. Mon Weather Rev 116:1682–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peña M, Cai M, Kalnay E (2004) Life span of subseasonal coupled anomalies. J Clim 17:1597–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peng P (1995) Dynamics of stationary wave anomalies associated with ENSO in the COLA GCM. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 180 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Peng P, Kumar A (2005) A large ensemble analysis of the influence of tropical SSTs on seasonal atmospheric variability. J Clim 18:1068–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peng P, Barnston AG, Kumar A (2013) A comparison of skill between two versions of the NCEP climate forecast system (CFS) and CPC’s operational short-lead seasonal outlooks. Weather Forecast 28:445–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saha S et al (2014) The NCEP climate forecast system version 2. J Clim 27:2185–2208Google Scholar
  35. Sardeshmukh PD, Brian JH (1988) The generation of global rotational flow by steady idealized tropical divergence. J Atmos Sci 45:1228–1251Google Scholar
  36. Smith TM, Reynolds RW, Peterson TC, Lawrimore J (2008) Improvements to NOAA’s historical merged land-ocean surface temperature analysis (1880–2006). J Clim 21:2283–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Straus DM, Shukla J (2002) Does ENSO Force the PNA? J Clim 15:2340–2358Google Scholar
  38. Ting Mingfang (1996) Steady linear response to tropical heating in Barotropic and Baroclinic models. J Atmos Sci 53:1698–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ting M, Sardeshmukh PD (1993) Factors determining the extratropical response to equatorial diabatic heating anomalies. J Atmos Sci 50:907–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trenberth KE, Branstrator GW, Karoly D, Kumar A, Lau N-C, Ropelewski C (1998) Progress during TOGA in understanding and modeling global teleconnections associated with tropical sea surface temperatures. J Geophys Res 103(C7):14291–14324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van den Dool HM, Peng P, Johansson Å, Chelliah M, Shabbar A, Saha S (2006) Seasonal-to-decadal predictability and prediction of North American climate—the Atlantic influence. J Clim 19:6005–6024Google Scholar
  42. Wallace JM, Blackmon ML (1983) Large-scale dynamical processes in the atmosphere by B. Hoskins and R. Pearce. Academic Press, London, pp 55–91Google Scholar
  43. Wallace JM, Gutzler DS (1981) Teleconnections in the geopotential height field during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Mon Weather Rev 109:784–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang H, Kumar A, Wang W, Xue Y (2012) Influence of ENSO on Pacific decadal variability: an analysis based on the NCEP climate forecast system. J Clim 25:6136–6151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xie P, Akin PA (1996) Analysis of global monthly precipitation using gauge observations, satellite estimates, and numerical model predictions. J Clim 9:840–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xie P, Wang W, Higgins WR, Arkin PA, Cronin M, Weller R (2006) An examination of the bias in the NCEP GFS, CFS simulations associated with the marine stratus clouds. In: AMS 18th conference on climate variability and global change, Jan. 29–Feb. 2, 2006. Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Climate Prediction Center, NCWCPNECP/NOAACollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.INNOVIM, LLCGreenbeltUSA

Personalised recommendations