Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 41, Issue 3–4, pp 1009–1023 | Cite as

MJO change with A1B global warming estimated by the 40-km ECHAM5

  • Ping Liu
  • Tim Li
  • Bin Wang
  • Minghua Zhang
  • Jing-jia Luo
  • Yukio Masumoto
  • Xiaocong Wang
  • Erich Roeckner
Article

Abstract

This study estimates MJO change under the A1B greenhouse gas emission scenario using the ECHAM5 AGCM whose coupled version (ECHAM5/MPI-OM) has simulated best MJO variance among fourteen CGCMs. The model has a horizontal resolution at T319 (about 40 km) and is forced by the monthly evolving SST derived from the ECHAM5/MPI-OM at a lower resolution of T63 (about 200 km). Two runs are carried out covering the last 21 years of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis products and observed precipitation are used to validate the simulated MJO during the twentieth century, based on which the twenty-first century MJO change is compared and predicted. The validation indicates that the previously reported MJO variances in the T63 coupled version are reproduced by the 40-km ECHAM5. More aspects of MJO, such as the eastward propagation, structure, and dominant frequency and zonal wavenumber in power spectrum, are simulated reasonably well. The magnitude in power, however, is still low so that the signal is marginally detectable and embedded in the over-reddened background. Under the A1B scenario, the T63 ECHAM5/MPI-OM projected an over 3 K warmer tropical sea surface that forces the 40-km ECHAM to produce wetter tropics. The enhanced precipitation variance shows more spectral enhancement in background than in most wavebands. The zonal winds associated with MJO, however, are strengthened in the lower troposphere but weakened in the upper. On the one hand, the 850-hPa zonal wind has power nearly doubled in 30–60-days bands, demonstrating relatively clearer enhancement than the precipitation in MJO with the warming. A 1-tailed Student’s t test suggests that most of the MJO changes in variance and power spectra are statically significant. Subject to a 20–100-days band-pass filtering of that wind, an EOF analysis indicates that the two leading components in the twentieth-century run have a close structure to but smaller percentage of explained-to-total variance than those in observations; the A1B warming slightly increases the explained percentage and alters the structure. An MJO index formed by the two leading principal components discloses nearly doubling in the number of prominent MJO events with a peak phase occurring in February and March. A composite MJO life cycle of these events favors the frictional moisture convergence mechanism in maintaining the MJO and the nonlinear wind-induced surface heat exchange (WISHE) mechanism also appears in the A1B warming case. On the other hand, the Slingo index based on the 300-hPa zonal wind discloses that the upper-level MJO tends to be suppressed by the A1B warming, although the loose relationship with ENSO remains unchanged. Possible cause for the different change of MJO in the lower and upper troposphere is discussed.

Keywords

MJO A1B scenario Global warming 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Pang-Chi Hsu for helping with the ECHAM5 data. The background power spectrum is derived using the package of Matthew Wheeler and George N. Kiladis. Dr. Andrew Marshall also gave some useful comments. T. Li acknowledged the support by NSF grant AGS-1106536. This study contributes to SOEST (#8742) and IPRC (#911). IPRC is sponsored by JAMSTEC, NASA and NOAA.

References

  1. Randall DA et al (2007) Climate models and their evaluation. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessmentGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengtsson L, Hodges KI, Esch M, Keenlyside N, Kornblueh L, Luo JJ, Yamagata T (2007) How may tropical cyclones change in a warmer climate? Tellus 59A:539–561Google Scholar
  3. Hendon HH, Salby ML (1994) The life cycle of the Madden–Julian oscillation. J Atmos Sci 51:2225–2237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Arkin P, Chang A, Ferraro R, Gruber A, Janowiak J, McNab A, Rudolf B, Schneider U (1997) The global precipitation climatology project (GPCP) combined precipitation dataset. Bull Am Meteor Soc 78:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Inness PM et al (2003) Simulation of the Madden–Julian oscillation in a coupled general circulation model. Part II: the role of the basic state. J Clim 16:365–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. 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
  7. Jones C, Carvalho LMV (2006) Changes in the activity of the Madden–Julian Oscillation during 1958–2004. J Clim 19:6353–6370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones C, Carvalho LMV (2011a) Will global warming modify the activity of the Madden–Julian oscillation? Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones C, Carvalho LMV (2011b) Stochastic simulations of the Madden–Julian oscillation activity. Clim Dyn 36:229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jungclaus H et al (2006) Ocean circulation and tropical variability in the coupled model ECHAM5/MPI-OM. J Clim 19:3952–3972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalnay E et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteor Soc 77:437–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiladis GN, Straub KH, Haertel PT (2005) Zonal and vertical structure of the Madden–Julian oscillation. J Atmos Sci 62:2790–2809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lau KM, Wu HT (2010) Characteristics of precipitation, cloud, and latent heating associated with the Madden–Julian oscillation. J Clim 23:504–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin JL (2007) The double-ITCZ problem in IPCC AR4 coupled GCMs: ocean-atmosphere feedback analysis. J Clim 20:4497–4525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lin JL, Mapes B, Zhang M, Newman M (2004) Stratiform precipitation, vertical heating profiles, and the Madden–Julian oscillation. J Atmos Sci 61:296–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin JL et al (2006) Tropical intraseasonal variability in 14 IPCC AR4 climate models. Part I: convective signals. J Clim 19:2665–2690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu P (2012) Changes in a modeled MJO with idealized global warming. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1323-2
  18. Liu P, Wang B, Sperber KR, Li T, Meehl GA (2005) MJO in the NCAR CAM2 with the Tiedtke convective scheme. J Clim 18:3007–3020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu P et al (2009) Tropical intraseasonal variability in the MRI-20km60L AGCM. J Clim 22:2006–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Madden RA, Julian PR (1971) Detection of a 40–50 day oscillation in the zonal wind in the tropical Pacific. J Atmos Sci 28:702–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Madden RA, Julian PR (1972) Description of global-scale circulation cells in the tropics with a 40–50 day period. J Atmos Sci 29:1109–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Majda AJ, Biello JA (2005) A new multiscale model for the Madden–Julian oscillation. J Atmos Sci 62:1694–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maloney ED, Hartmann DL (1998) Frictional moisture convergence in a composite life cycle of the Madden–Julian oscillation. J Clim 11:2387–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maloney ED, Hartmann DL (2001) The sensitivity of intraseasonal variability in the NCAR CCM3 to changes in convective parameterization. J Clim 14:2015–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maloney ED, Sobel AH (2004) Surface fluxes and ocean coupling in the tropical intraseasonal oscillation. J Clim 17:4368–4386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakicenovic N et al (2000) IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Nordeng TE (1994) Extended versions of the convective parameterization scheme at ECMWF and their impact on the mean and transient activity of the model in the tropics. ECMWF Tech Memo 206:41Google Scholar
  28. North GR, Bell TL, Cahalan RF, Moeng FJ (1982) Sampling errors in the estimation of empirical orthogonal functions. Mon Weather Rev 110:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pham M, Boucher O, Hauglustaine D (2005) Changes in atmospheric sulfur burdens and concentrations and resulting radiative forcings under IPCC SRES emission scenarios for 1990–2100. J Geophys Res 110:D06112. doi: 10.1029/2004JD005125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rayner NA et al (2006) Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in sea surface temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 data set. J Clim 19:446–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roeckner ER et al (2006) Sensitivity of simulated climate to horizontal and vertical resolution in the ECHAM5 atmosphere model. J Clim 19:3771–3791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slingo JM et al (1996) Intraseasonal oscillations in 15 atmospheric general circulation models: results from an AMIP diagnostic subproject. Clim Dyn 12:325–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slingo JM, Powell DP, Sperber KR, Nortley F (1999) On the predictability of the interannual behaviour of the Madden–Julian oscillation and its relationship with El Nino. Q J R Meteorol Soc 125:583–609Google Scholar
  34. Sperber KR (2003) Propagation and the vertical structure of the Madden–Julian oscillation. Mon Weather Rev 131:3018–3037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sperber KR (2004) Madden–Julian variability in NCAR CAM2.0 and CCSM2.0. Clim Dyn 23:259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tiedtke M (1989) A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in large-scale models. Mon Weather Rev 117:1779–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vecchi GA, Soden BJ (2007) Global warming and the weakening of the tropical circulation. J Clim 20:4316–4340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waliser DE (2006) Intraseasonal variations. In: Wang B (ed) The Asian monsoon. Springer, Heidelberg, p 787Google Scholar
  39. Waliser DE et al (1999) A statistical extended-range tropical forecast model based on the slow evolution of the Madden–Julian oscillation. J Clim 12:1918–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang B (1988) Dynamics of tropical low-frequency waves: an analysis of the moist Kelvin wave. J Atmos Sci 45:2051–2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang B, Rui H (1990) Dynamics of the coupled moist Kelvin-Rossby wave on an equatorial β-plane. J Atmos Sci 47:397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wheeler M, Hendon HH (2004) An all-season real-time multivariate MJO index: development of an index for monitoring and prediction. Monthly Weather Rev 132:1917–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wheeler M, Kiladis GN (1999) Convectively coupled equatorial waves: analysis of clouds and temperature in the wavenumber-frequency domain. J Atmos Sci 56:374–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yasunari T (1979) Cloudiness fluctuation associated with the Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 57:227–242Google Scholar
  45. Zhang C (2005) Madden–Julian oscillation. Rev Geophys 43:RG2003. doi: 10.1029/2004RG000158
  46. Zhang M, Song H (2006) Evidence of deceleration of atmospheric vertical overturning circulation over the tropical Pacific. Geophys Res Lett 33:L12701. doi: 10.1029/2006GL025942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ping Liu
    • 1
    • 3
  • Tim Li
    • 1
  • Bin Wang
    • 1
  • Minghua Zhang
    • 3
  • Jing-jia Luo
    • 2
    • 6
  • Yukio Masumoto
    • 2
  • Xiaocong Wang
    • 4
  • Erich Roeckner
    • 5
  1. 1.International Pacific Research Center, SOESTUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.Research Institution for Global ChangeJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyKanagawaJapan
  3. 3.School of Marine and Atmospheric SciencesStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  4. 4.The State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics (LASG)BeijingChina
  5. 5.Max Planck Institute for MeteorologyHamburgGermany
  6. 6.Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Bureau of MeteorologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations