Climate Dynamics

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 827–840 | Cite as

Further analysis of singular vector and ENSO predictability in the Lamont model—Part II: singular value and predictability

  • Yanjie Cheng
  • Youmin Tang
  • Peter Jackson
  • Dake Chen
  • Xiaobing Zhou
  • Ziwang Deng
Article

Abstract

This is the second part of the 148 years (1856–2003) singular vector analysis, as an extension of part I (Cheng et al. 2009 Clim Dyn, doi: 10.1007/s00382-009-0595-7), in which a fully physically based tangent linear model has been constructed for the Zebiak-Cane model LDEO5 version. In the present study, relationships between the singular values and prediction skill measures are investigated for the 148 years. Results show that at decadal/interdecadal time scales, an inverse relationship exists between the singular value (S1) and correlation-based skill measures whereas an in-phase relationship exists between the S1 and MSE-based skill measures. However, the S1 is not a good measure or predictor of prediction skill at shorter time scales such as the interannual time scale and for individual prediction. To explain these findings, S1 was decomposed into linear perturbation growth rate (L1) and linearized nonlinear perturbation growth rate (N1), which are controlled by the opposite underlying model dynamical processes (the linear warming and the nonlinear cooling). An offsetting effect was found between L1 and N1, which have opposite contributions to the S1 (i.e., S1 ≈ L1 − N1). The “negative” perturbation growth rate −N1 (denoted as NN1) probably is the consequence of the unrealistic nonlinear cooling in the LDEO5 model. Although the correlations of the actual prediction skill to both the L1 and the NN1 are good, their opposite signs lead to a weak relationship between S1 and actual prediction skill. Therefore, either L1 or N1/NN1 is better than S1 in measuring actual prediction skill for the LDEO5 model.

Keywords

ENSO Predictability Singular vector analysis Potential predictability measure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) GR7027. Yanjie Cheng is also supported by the Graduate fellowship of NSERC PGS D2-362539-2008. Dake Chen is supported by research grants from National Basic Research Program (2007CB816005) and National Science Foundation of China (40730843). We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

References

  1. An S, Jin F-F (2004) Nonlinearity and asymmetry of ENSO. J Clim 17:2399–2412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An S, Ham YG, Kug JS, Jin FF, Kang IS (2005) El Niño–La Niña asymmetry in the coupled model intercomparison project simulations. J Clim 18:2617–2627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cai M, Kalnay E, Toth Z (2003) Bred vectors of the Zebiak–Cane Model and their potential application to ENSO predictions. J Clim 16:40–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen D, Cane MA (2008) El Niño prediction and predictability. J Comput Phys 227:3625–3640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen YQ, Battisti DS, Palmer RN, Barsugli J, Sarachik E (1997) A study of the predictability of tropical Pacific SST in a coupled atmosphere/ocean model using singular vector analysis. Mon Weather Rev 125:831–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen D, Cane MA, Kaplan A, Zebiak SE, Huang D (2004) Predictability of El Niño over the past 148 years. Nature 428:733–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng Y, Tang Y, Zhou X, Jackson P, Chen D (2009) Singular vector and ENSO predictability in a coupled model—a further analysis of Lamont Model from 1856-2003, part I: singular vector and the control factors. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-009-0595-7
  8. Fan Y, Allen MR, Anderson DLT, Balmaseda MA (2000) How predictability depends on the nature of uncertainty in initial conditions in a coupled model of ENSO. J Clim 13:3298–3313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gebbie G, Eisenman I, Wittenberg A, Tziperman E (2007) Modulation of westerly wind bursts by sea surface temperature: a semistochastic feedback for ENSO. J Atmos Sci 64:3281–3295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill AE (1980) Some simple solutions for heat-induced tropical circulation. Q J R Meteorol Soc 106:447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grinsted A, Moore JC, Jevrejeva S (2004) Application of the cross wavelet transform and wavelet coherence to geophysical time series. Nonlinear Process Geophys 11:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jin F-F, Neelin JD, Ghil M (1994) El Niño on the devil’s staircase: annual subharmonic steps to chaos. Science 264:70–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jin F-F, Lin L, Timmermann A, Zhao J (2007) Ensemble-mean dynamics of the ENSO recharge oscillator under state-dependent stochastic forcing. Geophys Res Lett 34:L03807. doi: 10.1029/2006GL027372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jin EK, Kinter JL III, Wang B, Park CK, Kang IS, Kirtman BP, Kug JS, Kumar A, Luo JJ, Schemm J, Shukla J, Yamagata T (2008) Current status of ENSO prediction skill in coupled ocean–atmosphere model. Clim Dyn 31:647–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirtman BP, Schopf PS (1998) Decadal variability in ENSO predictability and prediction. J Clim 11:2804–2822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleeman R (2002) Measuring dynamical prediction utility using relative entropy. J Atmos Sci 59:2057–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kleeman R, Moore AM (1997) A theory for the limitation of ENSO predictability due to stochastic atmospheric transients. J Atmos Sci 54:753–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Latif M, Anderson D, Barnett T, Cane M, Kleeman R, Leetma A, O’Brien J, Rosati A, Schneither E (1998) A review of the predictability and prediction of ENSO. J Geophys Res 103(C7):14375–14393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenz EN (1965) A study of the predictability of a 28-variable atmospheric model. Tellus 17:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore AM, Kleeman R (1998) Skill assessment for ENSO using ensemble prediction. Q J R Meteorol Soc 124:557–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore AM, Kleeman R (1999) Stochastic forcing of ENSO by the intraseasonal oscillation. J Clim 12:1199–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore AM, Zavala-Garay J, Tang Y, Kleeman R, Weaver AT, Vialard J, Sahami K, Anderson DLT, Fisher M (2006) On the low-dimensionality of ENSO as evidenced by the optimal forcing patterns of coupled models. J Clim 19:4683–4699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peng P, Kumar A (2005) A large ensemble analysis of the influence of tropical SSTs on seasonal atmospheric variability. J Clim 15:1068–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Penland C, Sardeshmukh PD (1995) The optimal growth of tropical sea surface temperature anomalies. J Clim 8:1999–2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tang Y, Deng Z (2009) Low-dimensional nonlinearity of ENSO and its impact on predictability. Phys Dyn. doi: 10.1016/j.physd.2009.11.006 Google Scholar
  26. Tang Y, Kleeman R, Moore A (2005) On the reliability of ENSO dynamical predictions. J Atmos Sci 62(6):1770–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tang Y, Kleeman R, Miller S (2006) ENSO predictability of a fully coupled GCM model using singular vector analysis. J Clim 19:3361–3377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tang Y, Deng Z, Zhou X, Cheng Y, Chen D (2008a) Interdecadal variation of ENSO predictability in multiple models. J Clim 21:4811–4833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tang Y, Lin H, Moore A (2008b) Measuring the potential predictability of ensemble climate predictions. J Geophys Res 113:D04108. doi: 10.1029/2007JD008804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Torrence C, Compo GP (1998) A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79(1):61–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vecchi GA, Harrison DE (2003) On the termination of the 2002–03 El Niño event. Geophys Res Lett 30, 1946. doi: 10.1029/2003GL017564
  32. Wang B (1995) Interdecadal changes in El Niño onset in the last four decades. J Clim 8:267–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xue Y, Cane MA, Zebiak SE (1997a) Predictability of a coupled model of ENSO using singular vector analysis, part I: optimal growth in seasonal background and ENSO cycles. Mon Weather Rev 125:2043–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xue Y, Cane MA, Zebiak SE (1997b) Predictability of a coupled model of ENSO using singular vector analysis, part II: optimal growth and forecast skill. Mon Weather Rev 125:2057–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zebiak SE, Cane MA (1987) A model El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Mon Weather Rev 115:2262–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhou X, Tang Y, Deng Z (2008) The impact of nonlinear atmosphere on the fastest error growth of ENSO prediction. Clim Dyn 30:519–531. doi: 10.1007/s00382-007-0302-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanjie Cheng
    • 1
  • Youmin Tang
    • 1
  • Peter Jackson
    • 1
  • Dake Chen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiaobing Zhou
    • 1
    • 4
  • Ziwang Deng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and EngineeringUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  2. 2.Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia UniversityPalisadesUSA
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Satellite Ocean Environment DynamicsHangzhouChina
  4. 4.Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR), Bureau of MeteorologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations