Abstract
An ensemble data assimilation approach for El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting is proposed by embedding nonlinear forcing singular vector-data assimilation (NFSV-DA) in the Zebiak–Cane model. This approach generalizes the NFSV-DA performed over a long time series of sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA) to an ensemble NFSV-DA (EnNFSV-DA) that combines useful precursory signals existed additionally on different decades for ENSO predictions. With the EnNFSV-DA of the Zebiak–Cane model, the SSTA associated with ENSO events during 1961–2020 is predicted. It is shown that the ENSO forecasts made by the EnNFSV-DA outperform the control forecasts generated by a coupled initialization procedure and also the forecasts made by the NFSV-DA, and with the lead times of skillful forecasting being extended from less than 6 months in the control forecast and 10 months in the NFSV-DA to more than 12 months in the EnNFSV-DA. Furthermore, the “spring predictability barrier” (SPB) that severely limits ENSO forecasting becomes very weak in the predictions generated by the EnNFSV-DA of the Zebiak–Cane model. It is also encouraging that the use of the EnNFSV-DA can identify the warm signal in the equatorial central Pacific at a lead time of 8 months, which has a strong capacity to distinguish the types of El Niño events in predictions. Therefore, the EnNFSV-DA could be a useful DA approach to address both initial and model error effects and to significantly reduce the SPB phenomenon, especially in recognizing the types of El Niño in predictions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the study are stored on computers at the State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics (LASG; https://www.lasg.ac.cn) and will be available to researchers upon request.
References
Alexander MA, Blade I, Newman M, Lanzante JR, Lau NC, Scott JD (2002) The atmospheric bridge: the influence of ENSO teleconnections on air–sea interaction over the global oceans. J Clim 15:2205–2231. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<2205:Tabtio>2.0.Co;2
Ashok K, Behera SK, Rao SA, Weng HY, Yamagata T (2007) El Nino Modoki and its possible teleconnection. J Geophys Res Oceans 112:27. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006jc003798
Barkmeijer J, Iversen T, Palmer TN (2003) Forcing singular vectors and other sensitive model structures. Q J R Meteorol Soc 129:2401–2423. https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.02.126
Barnston AG, Tippett MK, L’Heureux ML, Li SH, DeWitt DG (2012) Skill of real-time seasonal ENSO model predictions during 2002–11 is our capability increasing? Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 93:631–651. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-11-00111.1
Birgin EG, Martinez JM, Raydan M (2000) Nonmonotone spectral projected gradient methods on convex sets Siam. J Optim 10:1196–1211. https://doi.org/10.1137/s1052623497330963
Blumenthal MB (1991) Predictability of a coupled ocean atmosphere model. J Clim 4:766–784. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1991)004<0766:Poacom>2.0.Co;2
Bretherton CS, Smith C, Wallace JM (1992) An intercomparison of methods for finding coupled patterns in climate data. J Clim 5:541–560. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1992)005<0541:Aiomff>2.0.Co;2
Cane MA (1984) Oceanographic events during El Niño. Science 222:1189–1195
Chen D, Cane MA (2008) El Nino prediction and predictability. J Comput Phys 227:3625–3640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.05.014
Chen DK, Zebiak SE, Cane MA, Busalacchi AJ (1997) Initialization and predictability of a coupled ENSO forecast model. Mon Weather Rev 125:773–788. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<0773:Iapoac>2.0.Co;2
Chen D, Cane MA, Kaplan A, Zebiak SE, Huang DJ (2004) Predictability of El Nino over the past 148 years. Nature 428:733–736. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02439
Duan WS, Wei C (2013) The ‘spring predictability barrier’ for ENSO predictions and its possible mechanism: results from a fully coupled model. Int J Climatol 33:1280–1292. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3513
Duan WS, Zhou FF (2013) Non-linear forcing singular vector of a two-dimensional quasi-geostrophic model. Tellus Ser A Dyn Meteorol Oceanol 65:20. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v65i0.18452
Duan WS, Zhao P (2015) Revealing the most disturbing tendency error of Zebiak–Cane model associated with El Nino predictions by nonlinear forcing singular vector approach. Clim Dyn 44:2351–2367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2369-0
Duan W, Mu M (2018) Predictability of El Niño–Southern oscillation events. Oxf Res Encycl Clim Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.80
Duan WS, Tian B, Xu H (2014) Simulations of two types of El Nino events by an optimal forcing vector approach. Clim Dyn 43:1677–1692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1993-4
Duan WS, Li XQ, Tian B (2018) Towards optimal observational array for dealing with challenges of El Nino-Southern oscillation predictions due to diversities of El Nino. Clim Dyn 51:3351–3368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4082-x
Duan WS, Feng R, Yang LC, Jiang L (2022) A new approach to data assimilation for numerical weather forecasting and climate prediction. J Appl Anal Comput 12:1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.11948/20220098
Gao C, Wu XR, Zhang RH (2016) Testing a four-dimensional variational data assimilation method using an improved intermediate coupled model for ENSO analysis and prediction. Adv Atmos Sci 33:875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-016-5249-1
Ham YG, Kug JS (2012) How well do current climate models simulate two types of El Nino? Clim Dyn 39:383–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1157-3
Hendon HH, Lim E, Wang GM, Alves O, Hudson D (2009) Prospects for predicting two flavors of El Nino. Geophys Res Lett 36:6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009gl040100
Hou MY, Duan WS, Zhi XF (2019) Season-dependent predictability barrier for two types of El Nino revealed by an approach to data analysis for predictability. Clim Dyn 53:5561–5581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04888-w
Huang B et al (2017) NOAA extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST), version 5. NOAA Natl Cent Environ Inf 30:8179–8205
Jeong HI et al (2012) Assessment of the APCC coupled MME suite in predicting the distinctive climate impacts of two flavors of ENSO during boreal winter. Clim Dyn 39:475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1359-3
Kao HY, Yu JY (2009) Contrasting Eastern-Pacific and Central-Pacific types of. ENSO J Clim 22:615–632. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2309.1
Keenlyside N, Latif M, Botzet M, Jungclaus J, Schulzweida U (2005) A coupled method for initializing El Nino Southern Oscillation forecasts using sea surface temperature. Tellus Ser A Dyn Meteorol Oceanol 57:340–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2005.00107.x
Kim ST, Yu JY, Kumar A, Wang H (2012) Examination of the two types of ENSO in the NCEP CFS model and its extratropical associations. Mon Weather Rev 140:1908–1923. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-11-00300.1
Kirtman BP, Zebiak SE (1997) ENSO simulation and prediction with a hybrid coupled model. Mon Weather Rev 125:2620–2641. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<2620:Esapwa>2.0.Co;2
Kleeman R, Moore AM (1997) A theory for the limitation of ENSO predictability due to stochastic atmospheric transients. J Atmos Sci 54:753–767. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<0753:Atftlo>2.0.Co;2
Kramer W, Dijkstra HA (2013) Optimal localized observations for advancing beyond the ENSO predictability barrier. Nonlinear Process Geophys 20:221–230. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-20-221-2013
Kug JS, Jin FF, An SI (2009) Two types of El Nino events: Cold Tongue El Nino and warm Pool El. Nino J Clim 22:1499–1515. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2624.1
Langland RH (2005) Issues in targeted observing. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:3409–3425. https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.130
Lopez H, Kirtman BP (2014) WWBs, ENSO predictability, the spring barrier and extreme events. J Geophys Res Atmos 119:25. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jd021908
McPhaden MJ, Zebiak SE, Glantz MH (2006) ENSO as an integrating concept Earth Sci. Science 314:1740–1745. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132588
Moore AM, Kleeman R (1999) Stochastic forcing of ENSO by the intraseasonal oscillation. J Clim 12:1199–1220. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<1199:Sfoebt>2.0.Co;2
Mu M, Duan WS, Chen DK, Yu WD (2015) Target observations for improving initialization of high-impact ocean-atmospheric environmental events forecasting. Natl Sci Rev 2:226–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwv021
Murphy AH, Epstein ES (1989) Skill scores and correlation-coefficients in model verification. Mon Weather Rev 117:572–581. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<0572:SSACCI>2.0.CO;2
Nicolis C, Perdigao RAP, Vannitsem S (2009) Dynamics of prediction errors under the combined effect of initial Condition and Model errors. J Atmos Sci 66:766–778. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jas2781.1
Qi QQ, Duan WS, Zheng F, Tang YM (2017) On the “spring predictability barrier” for strong El Nio events as derived from an intermediate coupled model ensemble prediction system. Sci China Earth Sci 60:1614–1631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-017-9087-2
Ren HL, Zuo JQ, Deng Y (2019) Statistical predictability of Nino indices for two types of. ENSO Clim Dyn 52:5361–5382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4453-3
Snyder C (1996) Summary of an informal workshop on adaptive observations and FASTEX. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 77:953–961
Tang YM, Kleeman R, Moore AM (2004) SST assimilation experiments in a tropical Pacific Ocean model. J Phys Oceanogr 34:623–642. https://doi.org/10.1175/3518.1
Tang YM, Deng ZW, Zhou XB, Cheng YJ, Chen D (2008) Interdecadal variation of ENSO predictability in multiple models. J Clim 21:4811–4833. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2193.1
Tang YM et al (2018) Progress in ENSO prediction and predictability study. Natl Sci Rev 5:826–839. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwy105
Tao LJ, Duan WS (2019) Using a nonlinear forcing singular vector approach to reduce model error effects in ENSO. Forecast Weather Forecast 34:1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1175/waf-d-19-0050.1
Tao LJ, Gao C, Zhang RH (2019) Model parameter-related optimal perturbations and their contributions to El Nino prediction errors. Clim Dyn 52:1425–1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4202-7
Tao LJ, Duan WS, Vannitsem S (2020) Improving forecasts of El Nino diversity: a nonlinear forcing singular vector approach. Clim Dyn 55:739–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05292-5
Tao LJ, Duan WS, Jiang L (2022) Model errors of an intermediate model and their effects on realistic predictions of El Nino diversity. Int J Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7656
Vannitsem S, Toth Z (2002) Short-term dynamics of model errors. J Atmos Sci 59:2594–2604. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<2594:Stdome>2.0.Co;2
Webster PJ, Yang S (1992) Monsoon and ENSO—selectively interactive systems. Q J R Meteorol Soc 118:877–926. https://doi.org/10.1256/smsqj.50704
Wu DH, Anderson DLT, Davey MK (1993) ENSO variability and external impacts. J Clim 6:1703–1717. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006<1703:Evaei>2.0.Co;2
Xu H, Duan WS, Wang JC, IEEE (2006) The tangent linear model and adjoint of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model and its application to the predictability of ENSO. In: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Denver, CO, Jul 31–Aug 04 2006. IEEE International Symposium on Geoscience and Remote Sensing IGARSS. pp 640-+.https://doi.org/10.1109/igarss.2006.168
Xue Y, Cane MA, Zebiak SE, Blumenthal MB (1994) On the prediction of ENSO—a study with a low-order Markov model. Tellus Ser A Dyn Meteorol Oceanol 46:512–528. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0870.1994.00013.x
Yu JY, Kim ST (2011) Relationships between extratropical sea level pressure variations and the central Pacific and Eastern Pacific types of ENSO. J Clim 24:708–720. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010jcli3688.1
Yu LS, Weller RA, Liu WT (2003) Case analysis of a role of ENSO in regulating the generation of westerly wind bursts in the Western Equatorial Pacific. J Geophys Res Oceans 108:20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jc001498
Zebiak SE, Cane MA (1987) A model el niñ–southern oscillation. Mon Weather Rev 115:2262–2278
Zheng F, Yu JY (2017) Contrasting the skills and biases of deterministic predictions for the two types of El Nino. Adv Atmos Sci 34:1395–1403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-017-6324-y
Funding
The study was jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41930971 and 42288101).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
WD and YZ contributed to the conception of the study; YZ performed the experiment and the data analyses; YZ and WD prepared all figures and tables and wrote the manuscript; LT and JM helped perform the analysis with constructive discussions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
-
(1)
Anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC)
The anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC) is used to test the deterministic prediction skills and is the correlation coefficient between the forecast anomaly and the observed anomaly. ACC is defined as Eq. (9).
where \(O_i\) is the observed anomaly, \(x_i\) is the forecast anomaly, and \(\bar{O}_{i}\) and \(\bar{x}_{i}\) are the time averages of the observation and forecast, respectively. \(M\) is the total length of time. The larger the ACC is, the higher the forecasting skill. It is generally considered that when ACC > 0.6, the forecast is skillful.
-
(B)
Root mean square error (RMSE)
The root mean square error is also used to test deterministic forecasting skills, and it gives the average magnitude of the error in forecasts that deviate from observations. The RMSE is defined as Eq. (10):
where \(M\) is the number of forecast results, that is, the total time length, \({x}_{i}\) is the result of the \({i}^{th}\) forecast time, and \({O}_{i}\) is the observation value of the \({i}^{th}\) forecast time. The smaller the RMSE is, the smaller the forecast error, and the more accurate the forecast.
-
(C)
Noise-to signal-ratio (NS)
The noise-to signal- (NS) ratio in the present study measures ratio of the RMSE of the forecasted SSTA to the observed SSTA, it is defined as Eq. (11)
where the RMSE, M, and Oi are all as in Root mean square error (RMSE).
-
(D)
Seasonal growth rate
The seasonal growth rate of prediction errors is expressed as the slope \(k\) of the time-dependent prediction error \(E\left(t\right)\), which is defined as Eq. (12)
where t is the lead time. For the predicted SSTA in the present study, the approximation \(k\approx \frac{E\left({t}_{0}+\varDelta t\right)-E\left({t}_{0}\right)}{\varDelta t}\) is adopted, where \(\varDelta t\) is 1 month.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zheng, Y., Duan, W., Tao, L. et al. Using an ensemble nonlinear forcing singular vector data assimilation approach to address the ENSO forecast uncertainties caused by the “spring predictability barrier” and El Niño diversity. Clim Dyn 61, 4971–4989 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06834-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06834-3