Climate Dynamics

, Volume 48, Issue 1–2, pp 523–540 | Cite as

Investigating the zonal wind response to SST warming using transient ensemble AGCM experiments

  • Erool Palipane
  • Jian Lu
  • Paul Staten
  • Gang Chen
  • Edwin K. Schneider
Article

Abstract

The response of the atmospheric circulation to greenhouse gas-induced SST warming is investigated using large ensemble experiments with two AGCMs, with a focus on the robust feature of the poleward shift of the eddy driven jet. In these experiments, large ensembles of simulations are conducted by abruptly switching the SST forcing on from January 1st to focus on the wintertime circulation adjustment. A hybrid, finite amplitude wave activity budget analysis is performed to elucidate the nonlinear and irreversible aspects of the eddy-mean flow interaction during the adjustment of the zonal wind towards a poleward shifted state. The results confirm the results from earlier more idealized studies, particularly the importance of reduced dissipation of wave activity, in which the midlatitude decrease of effective diffusivity appears to be dominant. This reduction in dissipation increases the survival of midlatitude waves. These surviving waves, when reaching the upper propagation level in the upper troposphere, are subject to the influence of the increase of reflection phase speed at the poleward side of the mean jet, and thus more waves are reflected equatorward across the jet, giving rise to a poleward transport of momentum and thus an eddy momentum flux convergence for the poleward shift. The relative importance of wave breaking-induced PV mixing versus diabatic PV source in the evolution of the Lagrangian PV gradient is also investigated. The former plays the dominant role in the PV gradient formation during the initial phase of the jet shift, while the latter actually opposes the evolution of the Lagrangian PV gradient at times.

Keywords

Greenhouse warming Finite amplitude wave activity Wave reflection Phase speed Effective diffusivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

E.P. and E.K.S. are supported by NSF Grant AGS-1064045. J.L. is also partly supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program. G.C. is supported by NSF Grant ATM- 1064079 and DOE Grant DE-FOA-0001036.

References

  1. Andrews DG, Holton JR, Leovy C (1987) Middle atmosphere dynamics. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes EA, Polvani LM (2013) Response of the midlatitude jets and of their variability to increased greenhouse gases in the CMIP5 models. J Clim. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00536.1 Google Scholar
  3. Bengtsson L, Hodges KI, Roeckner E (2006) Storm tracks and climate change. J Clim 19:3518–3543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler AH, Thompson DWJ, Birner T (2011) Isentropic slopes, downgradient eddy fluxes, and the extratropical atmospheric circulation response to tropical tropospheric heating. J Atmos Sci 68:2292–2305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen G, Held IM, Robinson WA (2007) Sensitivity of the latitude of the surface westerlies to surface friction. J Atmos Sci 64:2899–2915. doi: 10.1175/JAS3995.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen G, Lu J, Frierson DMW (2008) Phase speed spectra and the latitude of surface westerlies: interannual variability and global warming trend. J Clim 21:5942–5959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen G, Lu J, Sun L (2013) Delineating the eddy–zonal flow interaction in the atmospheric circulation response to climate forcing: uniform SST warming. J Atmos Sci 70:2214–2233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delworth T et al (2006) GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models: Part 1—formulation and simulation characteristics. J Clim 19:643–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gent P et al (2011) The Community Climate System Model, version 4. J Clim 24:4973–4991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grise KM, Polvani LM (2014) The response of midlatitude jets to increased CO2: distinguishing the roles of sea surface temperature and direct radiative forcing. Geophys Res Lett 41:6863–6871. doi: 10.1002/2014GL061638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haynes P, Shuckburgh E (2000) Effective diffusivity as a diagnostic of atmospheric transport 2. Troposphere and lower stratosphere. J Geophys Res 105:22795–22810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Held IM, Hou AY (1980) Nonlinear axially symmetric circulations in a nearly inviscid atmosphere. J Atmos Sci 37:515–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Held IM, Suarez MJ (1994) A proposal for the intercomparison of the dynamical cores of atmospheric general circulation models. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 75:1825–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holland MM, Bitz CM (2003) Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. Clim Dyn 21:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kidston J, Vallis GK (2010) Relationship between eddy-driven jet latitude and width. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2010GL044849 Google Scholar
  16. Kidston J, Dean SM, Renwick JA, Vallis GK (2010) A robust increase in the eddy length scale in the simulation of future climates. Geophys Res Lett 37:L03806. doi: 10.1029/2009GL041615 Google Scholar
  17. Kidston J, Vallis GK, Dean SM, Renwick JA (2011) Can the increase in the eddy length scale under global warming cause the poleward shift of the jet streams? J Clim 24:3764–3780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu Z, Vavrus S, He F, Wen N, Zhong Y (2005) Rethinking tropical ocean response to global warming: the enhanced equatorial warming. J Clim 18:4684–4700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenz DJ (2014a) Understanding mid-latitude jet variability and change using Rossby wave chromatography: poleward shifted jets in response to external forcing. J Atmos Sci 71:2370–2389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorenz DJ (2014b) Understanding mid-latitude jet variability and change using Rossby wave chromatography: wave-mean flow interaction. J Atmos Sci 71:3684–3705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lorenz DJ (2015) Understanding mid-latitude jet variability and change using Rossby wave chromatography: methodology. J Atmos Sci 72:369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenz DJ, DeWeaver ET (2007a) The response of the extratropical hydrological cycle to global warming. J Clim 20:3470–3484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lorenz DJ, DeWeaver ET (2007b) Tropopause height and zonal wind response to global warming in the IPCC scenario integrations. J Geophys Res 112:D10119. doi: 10.1029/2006JD008087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu J, Vecchi GA, Reichler T (2007) Expansion of the Hadley cell under global warming. Geophys Res Lett 34:L06805. doi: 10.1029/2006GL028443 Google Scholar
  25. Lu J, Chen G, Frierson D (2008) Response of the zonal mean atmospheric circulation to El Nino versus global warming. J Clim 21:5835–5851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu J, Chen G, Frierson D (2010) The position of the midlatitude storm track and eddy-driven westerlies in aquaplanet AGCMs. J Atmos Sci 17(12):3984–4000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu J, Sun L, Wu Y, Chen G (2014) The role of irreversible PV mixing in the zonal mean circulation response to global warmings. J Clim 27:2297–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manabe S, Bryan K, Spelman MJ (1990) Transient response of a global ocean–atmosphere model to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. J Phys Oceanogr 20:722–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall J, Shuckburgh E, Jones H, Hill C (2006) Estimates and implications of surface eddy diffusivity in the southern ocean derived from tracer transport. J Phys Oceanogr 36:1806–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2007) The WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset: a new era in climate change research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1383–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moorthi S, Suarez MJ (1992) Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert. A parameterization of moist convection for general circulation models. Mon Weather Rev 120:978–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nakamura N (1995) Modified Lagrangian-mean diagnostics of the stratospheric polar vortices, I., Formulation and analysis of GFDL SKYHI GCM. J Atmos Sci 52:2096–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakamura N (1996) Two-dimensional mixing, edge formation, and permeability diagnosed in an area coordinate. J Atmos Sci 53:1524–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nakamura N, Solomon A (2010) Finite-amplitude wave activity and mean flow adjustments in the atmospheric general circulation. Part I: quasigeostrophic theory and analysis. J Atmos Sci 53(11):1524–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakamura N, Zhu D (2010) Finite-amplitude wave activity and diffusive flux of potential vorticity in eddy–mean flow interaction. J Atmos Sci 67:2701–2716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neale RB et al (2010) Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 4.0). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-4851STR, 212 pp. http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/cam/docs/description/cam4_desc.pdf
  37. Pierrehumbert RT, Yang H (1993) Global chaotic mixing on isentropic surfaces. J Atmos Sci 50(15):2462–2480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plumb RA, Ferrari R (2005) Transformed Eulerian-mean theory. Part I: nonquasigeostrophic theory for eddies on a zonal mean flow. J Phys Oceanogr 35:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rivière G (2011) A dynamical interpretation of the poleward shift of the jet streams in global warming scenarios. J Atmos Sci 68:1253–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scheff J, Frierson D (2012) Twenty-first-century multimodel subtropical precipitation declines are mostly midlatitude shifts. J Clim 25:4330–4347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schneider EK (1977) Axially symmetric steady state models of the basic state for instability and climate studies. Part II: nonlinear calculations. J Atmos Sci 34:280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider EK (1984) Response of the annual and zonal mean winds and temperatures to variations in the heat and momentum sources. J Atmos Sci 41:1093–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seager R et al (2007) Model projection of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Staten PW, Reichler T (2013) On the ratio between shifts in the eddy-driven jet and the Hadley cell edge. Clim Dyn 42:1229–1242. doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1905-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Staten PW, Rutz J, Reichler T, Lu J (2012) Breaking down the tropospheric circulation response by forcing. Clim Dyn 39:2361–2375. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1267-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Staten PW, Reichler T, Lu J (2014) The transient circulation response to radiative forcings and sea surface warming. J Clim 27:9323–9336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun L, Lu J, Chen G (2013) Sensitivities and mechanisms of the zonal mean atmospheric circulation response to tropical warming. J Atmos Sci 70:2487–2504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tandon N, Gerber EP, Sobel AH, Polvani LM (2013) Understanding Hadley cell expansion vs. contraction: insights from simplified models and implications for recent observations. J Clim 26:4304–4321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams GP (2006) Circulation sensitivity to tropopause height. J Atmos Sci 63:1954–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wittman ML, Polvani LM, Charlton AJ (2007) The effect of lower stratospheric shear on baroclinic instability. J Atmos Sci 64:479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu Y, Seager R, Shaw TA, Ting M, Naik N (2012) Atmospheric circulation response to an instantaneous doubling of carbon dioxide. Part II: atmospheric transient adjustment and its dynamics. J Clim 26:918–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yin JH (2005) A consistent poleward shift of the storm tracks in simulations of 21st century climate. Geophys Res Lett 32:L18701. doi: 10.1029/2005GL023684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang GJ, McFarlane NA (1995) Sensitivity of climate simulations to the parameterization of cumulus convection in the Canadian Climate Centre general circulation model. Atmos Ocean 33:407–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA)  2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erool Palipane
    • 1
  • Jian Lu
    • 2
  • Paul Staten
    • 3
  • Gang Chen
    • 4
  • Edwin K. Schneider
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth SciencesGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geological SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Atmospheric and Earth SciencesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  5. 5.Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere StudiesInstitute of Global Environment and SocietyFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations