Poleward propagation of boreal summer intraseasonal oscillations in a coupled model: role of internal processes
The study compares the simulated poleward migration characteristics of boreal summer intraseasonal oscillations (BSISO) in a suite of coupled ocean–atmospheric model sensitivity integrations. The sensitivity experiments are designed in such a manner to allow full coupling in specific ocean basins but forced by temporally varying monthly climatological sea surface temperature (SST) adopted from the fully coupled model control runs (ES10). While the local air–sea interaction is suppressed in the tropical Indian Ocean and allowed in the other oceans in the ESdI run, it is suppressed in the tropical Pacific and allowed in the other oceans in the ESdP run. Our diagnostics show that the basic mean state in precipitation and easterly vertical shear as well as the BSISO properties remain unchanged due to either inclusion or exclusion of local air–sea interaction. In the presence of realistic easterly vertical shear, the continuous emanation of Rossby waves from the equatorial convection is trapped over the monsoon region that enables the poleward propagation of BSISO anomalies in all the model sensitivity experiments. To explore the internal processes that maintain the tropospheric moisture anomalies ahead of BSISO precipitation anomalies, moisture and moist static energy budgets are performed. In all model experiments, advection of anomalous moisture by climatological winds anchors the moisture anomalies that in turn promote the northward migration of BSISO precipitation. While the results indicate the need for realistic simulation of all aspects of the basic state, our model results need to be taken with caution because in the ECHAM family of coupled models the internal variance at intraseasonal timescales is indeed very high, and therefore local air–sea interactions may not play a pivotal role.
KeywordsRossby Wave Precipitation Anomaly Equatorial Indian Ocean Northern Indian Ocean Moist Static Energy
RSA is supported by the Global Atmosphere–Ocean Prediction and Predictability research network, funded by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. H. Annamalai is supported by the IPRC through its institutional grants from NOAA, NASA and JAMSTEC.
- Annamalai H (2009) Moist dynamical linkage between the equatorial Indian Ocean and the south Asian monsoon trough. J Atmos Sci. doi: 10.1175/2009JAS2991.1
- Jin EK, Kinter JL, 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. doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0397-3
- Luo JJ, Zhang R, Behera S, Masumoto Y, Jin FF, Lukas R, Yamagata T (2009) Interaction between El Niño and extreme Indian ocean dipole. J Clim. doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI3104.1
- Madec G, Delecluse P, Imbard M, Lvy C (1998) Opa 8.1 Ocean general circulation model reference manual. Tech. Rep. Note 11, LODYC/IPSL, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Roeckner E, Arpe K, Bengtsson L, Christoph M, Claussen M, Dmenil L, Esch M, Giorgetta M, Schlese U, Schulzweida U (1996) The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM-4: model description and simulation of present-day climate. The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany, report no:218, 90 ppGoogle Scholar
- Valcke S, Terray L, Piacentini A (2000) Oasis 2.4 ocean atmosphere soil user’s guide. Tech. Rep. TR/CGMC/00-10, CERFACS, 42 Avenue Coriolis, 31057 Toulouse, 85 pp. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/valcke00oasis.html
- Yamagata T, and Y. Hayashi (1984) A simple diagnostic model for the 30–50 day oscillation in the tropics. J Meteor Soc Jpn 62(5):709–7117Google Scholar
- Yamagata T, Behera SK, Luo JJ, Masson S, Jury MR, Rao SA (2004) Coupled ocean–atmosphere variability in the tropical Indian Ocean. In: Wang C, Xie SP, Carton JA (eds) In earth climate: the ocean–atmosphere interaction. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol 147. AGU, Washington, DC, pp 189–212Google Scholar