Climate Dynamics

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

ENSO simulation in coupled ocean-atmosphere models: are the current models better?



Maintaining a multi-model database over a generation or more of model development provides an important framework for assessing model improvement. Using control integrations, we compare the simulation of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and its extratropical impact, in models developed for the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report with models developed in the late 1990s [the so-called Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-2 (CMIP2) models]. The IPCC models tend to be more realistic in representing the frequency with which ENSO occurs, and they are better at locating enhanced temperature variability over the eastern Pacific Ocean. When compared with reanalyses, the IPCC models have larger pattern correlations of tropical surface air temperature than do the CMIP2 models during the boreal winter peak phase of El Niño. However, for sea-level pressure and precipitation rate anomalies, a clear separation in performance between the two vintages of models is not as apparent. The strongest improvement occurs for the modelling groups whose CMIP2 model tended to have the lowest pattern correlations with observations. This has been checked by subsampling the multi-century IPCC simulations in a manner to be consistent with the single 80-year time segment available from CMIP2. Our results suggest that multi-century integrations may be required to statistically assess model improvement of ENSO. The quality of the El Niño precipitation composite is directly related to the fidelity of the boreal winter precipitation climatology, highlighting the importance of reducing systematic model error. Over North America distinct improvement of El Niño forced boreal winter surface air temperature, sea-level pressure, and precipitation rate anomalies to occur in the IPCC models. This improvement is directly proportional to the skill of the tropical El Niño forced precipitation anomalies.


Root Mean Square Difference Pattern Correlation CMIP2 Model Large Pattern Correlation Precipitation Rate Anomaly 



We thank Drs Ben Santer, Karl Taylor, and Jim Boyle for helpful conversations regarding sampling issues. We wish to thank Matt Collins and one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and suggestions. We acknowledge the international modelling groups for providing their data for analysis, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) for collecting and archiving the model data, the JSC/CLIVAR Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) and their Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) and Climate Simulation Panel for organizing the model data analysis activity, and the IPCC WG1 TSU for technical support. The IPCC Data Archive at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is supported by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy. This work was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy Office of Science, Climate Change Prediction Program by University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.


  1. AchutaRao K, Sperber KR (2002) Simulation of the El Niño Southern Oscillation: Results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Clim Dynam 19:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annamalai H, Hamilton K, Sperber KR (2006) South Asian summer monsoon and its relationship with ENSO in the IPCC AR4 simulations. J Clim (submitted)Google Scholar
  3. Barnston A, Livezey RE (1987) Classification, seasonality, and persistence of low-frequency circulation patterns. Mon Wea Rev 115:1083–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjerknes J (1966) A possible response of the atmospheric Hadley circulation to equatorial anomalies of ocean temperature. Tellus 18:820–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjerknes J (1969) Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. Mon Wea Rev 97:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capotondi A, Wittenberg A, Masina S (2006) Spatial and temporal structure of ENSO in 20th century coupled simulations. Ocean Modeling (accepted)Google Scholar
  7. Collins M, The CMIP modelling groups (2005) El Niño- or La Niña-like climate change. Clim Dynam 24:89–104Google Scholar
  8. Davey MK, et al. (2002) STOIC: a study of coupled model climatology and variability in tropical ocean regions. Clim Dynam 18:403–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, JK, Kallberg P, Uppala S, Hernandez A, Nomura A, Serrano E (1997) ERA Description. ECMWF Reanalysis Project Report Series 1, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, p 66Google Scholar
  10. Guilyardi E (2006) El Niño – mean state – seasonal cycle interactions in a multi-model ensemble. Clim Dynam (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Guilyardi E, Gualdi S, Slingo J, Navarra A, Delecluse P, Cole J, Madec G, Roberts M, Latif M, Terray L (2004) Representing El Niño in coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs: the dominant role of the atmospheric component. J Clim 17:4623–4629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoerling MP, Kumar A (2002) Atmospheric response patterns associated with tropical forcing. J Clim 15:2184–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horel JD, Wallace JM (1981) Planetary scale atmospheric phenomena associated with the Southern Oscillation. Mon Wea Rev 109:813–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskall K, Johnson CA (2001) Climate Change (2001) The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 881Google Scholar
  15. Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Rudolf B, Schneider U (1995) Global precipitation estimates based on a technique for combining satellite-based estimates, rain gauge analysis, and NWP model precipitation information. J Clim 8:1284–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Arkin P, Chang A, Ferraro R, Gruber A, Janowiak J, McNab A, Rudolf B, Schneifer U (1997) The global precipitation climatology project (GPCP) combined precipitation dataset. BAMS 78:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joseph R, Nigam S (2006) ENSO evolution and teleconnections in IPCC’s 20th century climate simulations: realistic representation? J Clim (accepted)Google Scholar
  18. Kallberg P, Berrisford P, Hoskins B, Simmons A, Uppala S, Lamy-Thepaut S, Hine R (2005) ERA40 Atlas. ECMWF Re-Analysis Project Report Series 19. ECMWF, Shinfield Park, p 191Google Scholar
  19. Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, Collins W, Deaven D, Gandin L, Iredell M, Saha S, White G, Woollen J, Zhu Y, Chelliah M, Ebisuzaki W, Higgins W, Janowiak J, Mo KC, Ropelewski C, Wang J, Leetma A, Reynolds R, Jenne R, Joseph D (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Amer Met Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar A, Hoerling MP (1997) Interpretation and implications of the observed inter-El Nino variability. J Clim 10:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latif M, et al. (2001) ENSIP: the El Niño simulation intercomparison project. Clim Dynam 18:255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meehl GA, Gent PR, Arblaster JM, Otto-Bliesner BL, Brady EC, Craig A (2001) Factors that affect the amplitude of El Nino in global coupled climate models. Clim Dynam 17:515–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merryfield WJ (2006) Changes to ENSO under CO2 doubling in a multi-model ensemble. J Clim (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Neelin JD, et al. (1992) Tropical air-sea interaction in general circulation models. Clim Dynam 7:73–104Google Scholar
  25. Rayner NA, Parker DE, Horton EB, Folland CK, Alexander LV, Rowell DP, Kent EC, Kaplan A (2003) Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J Geophys Res 108(D14):4407, DOI:10.1029/2002JD002670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider EK (2002) Understanding differences between the equatorial Pacific as simulated by two coupled GCMs. J Clim 15:449–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sperber KR, Palmer TN (1996) Interannual tropical rainfall variability in general circulation model simulations associated with the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project. J Clim 9:2727–2750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sperber KR, Hameed S, Gates WL, Potter GL (1987) Southern oscillation simulated in a global climate model. Nature 329:140–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sperber KR, participating AMIP modelling groups (1999) Are revised models better? A skill score assessment of regional interannual variability. Geophys Res Lett 26:1267–1270Google Scholar
  30. Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res 106:7183–7192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trenberth KE, Caron JM (2000) The Southern Oscillation revisited: sea level pressures, surface temperatures and precipitation. J Clim 13:4358–4365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turner AG, Inness PM, Slingo JM (2005) The role of the basic state in the ENSO-monsoon relationship and implications for predictability. Quart J Roy Meteor Soc 131:781–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Uppala S, et al. (2006) The ERA-40 Re-Analysis. ECMWF Re-Analysis Project Report Series (in press)Google Scholar
  34. van Loon H, Madden RA (1981) The Southern Oscillation. Part I: global associations with pressure and temperature in the northern winter. Mon Wea Rev 109:1150–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Oldenborgh GJ, Philip S, Collins M (2005) El Niño in a changing climate: a multi-model study. Ocean Sci Discussions 2:267–298Google Scholar
  36. Walker GT, Bliss EW (1930) World Weather IV: some applications to seasonal foreshadowing. Mem Royal Meteorol Soc 3:81–95Google Scholar
  37. Wittenberg AT, Rosati A, Lau N-C, Ploshay JJ (2006) GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models. Part 3: tropical Pacific climate and ENSO. J Clim (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and IntercomparisonLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations