Importance of oceanic resolution and mean state on the extra-tropical response to El Niño in a matrix of coupled models
- 335 Downloads
The extra-tropical response to El Niño in configurations of a coupled model with increased horizontal resolution in the oceanic component is shown to be more realistic than in configurations with a low resolution oceanic component. This general conclusion is independent of the atmospheric resolution. Resolving small-scale processes in the ocean produces a more realistic oceanic mean state, with a reduced cold tongue bias, which in turn allows the atmospheric model component to be forced more realistically. A realistic atmospheric basic state is critical in order to represent Rossby wave propagation in response to El Niño, and hence the extra-tropical response to El Niño. Through the use of high and low resolution configurations of the forced atmospheric-only model component we show that, in isolation, atmospheric resolution does not significantly affect the simulation of the extra-tropical response to El Niño. It is demonstrated, through perturbations to the SST forcing of the atmospheric model component, that biases in the climatological SST field typical of coupled model configurations with low oceanic resolution can account for the erroneous atmospheric basic state seen in these coupled model configurations. These results highlight the importance of resolving small-scale oceanic processes in producing a realistic large-scale mean climate in coupled models, and suggest that it might may be possible to “squeeze out” valuable extra performance from coupled models through increases to oceanic resolution alone.
KeywordsNorth Pacific Extra-tropical SST ENSO GCM Basic state
The models described were developed from the Met Office Hadley Centre Model by the UK High-Resolution Modelling (HiGEM) Project and the UK Japan Climate Collaboration (UJCC). HiGEM is supported by a NERC High Resolution Climate Modelling Grant (R8/H12/123). UJCC was supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Global Opportunities Fund, and jointly funded by NERC and the DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101). Some model integrations were performed using the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, supported by JAMSTEC. NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data were provided by the NOAA/OAR/ERSL PSD, Boulder Colorado, USA, from their web site at http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/. The UKMO HadISST data were provided by the British Atmospheric Data Centre, from their website at http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/hadisst/. AD was supported by a NERC PhD studentship. We thank two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to improve the manuscript.
- Gordon C, Cooper C, Senior CA, Banks H, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Mitchell JFB, Wood RA (2000) The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim Dyn 16(2):147–168. doi: 10.1007/s003820050010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Graham NE, Barnett TP, Wilde R, Ponater M, Schubert S (1994) On the roles of tropical and midlatitude SSTs in forcing interannual to interdecadal variability in the winter Northern Hemisphere circulation. J Clim 7(9):1416–1441. doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007<1416:OTROTA>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johns TC, Durman CF, Banks HT, Roberts MJ, McLaren AJ, Ridley JK, Senior CA, Williams KD, Jones A, Rickard GJ, Cusack S, Ingram WJ, Crucifix M, Sexton DMH, Joshi MM, Dong B-W, Spencer H, Hill RSR, Gregory JM, Keen AB, Pardaens AK, Lowe JA, Bodas-Salcedo A, Stark S, Searl Y (2006) The new Hadley Centre climate model (HadGEM1): evaluation of coupled simulations. J Clim 19(7):1327–1353. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3712.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, Collins W, Deaven D, Gandin L, Iredell M, Saha S, White G, Woolen J, Zhu Y, Leetmaa A, Reynolds B, Chelliah M, Ebisuazaki W, Higgins W, Jonowiak J, Mo KC, Ropelewski C, Wang J, Jenne R, Joseph D (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 77(3):437–471. doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0437:TNYRP>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mechoso CR, Robertson AW, Barth N, Davey MK, Delecluse P, Gent PR, Ineson S, Kirtman B, Latif M, Treut HL, Nagai T, Neelin JD, Philander SGH, Polcher J, Schopf PS, Stockdale T, Suarez MJ, Terray L, Thual O, Tribbia JJ (1995) The seasonal cycle over the tropical Pacific in coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models. Mon Weather Rev 123(9):2825–2838. doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1995)123<2825:TSCOTT>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Philander SG (1990) El Niño La Niña and the southern oscillation, 1st edn. Academic Press, London, p 287Google Scholar
- Randall DA, Wood RA, Bony S, Colman R, Fichefet T, Fyfe J, Kattsov V, Pitman A, Shukla J, Srinivasan J, Stouffer RJ, Sumi A, Taylor KE (2007) Climate Models and Their Evaluation. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Roberts MJ, Banks H, Gedney N, Gregory J, Hill R, Mullerworth S, Pardaens A, Rickard G, Thorpe R, Wood R (2004) Impact of an eddy-permitting ocean resolution on control and climate change simulations with a global coupled GCM. J Clim 17(1):3–20. doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<0003:IOAEOR>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shaffrey LC, Stevens I, Norton WA, Roberts MJ, Vidale PL, Harle JD, Jrrar A, Stevens DP, Woodage MJ, Demory M-E, Donners J, C D B, Clayton A, Cole JW, Wilson SS, Connolley WM, Davies TM, Iwi AM, Johns TC, King JC, New AL, Slingo JM, Slingo A, Steenman-Clark L, Martin GM (2009) UK-HiGEM: the new UK high resolution global environment model. Model description and basic evaluation. J Clim 22(8):1861–1896. doi: 10.1175/2008JCLI2508.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilks DS (2006) Statistical analysis in the atmospheric sciences, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London, p 627Google Scholar