Climate Dynamics

, Volume 49, Issue 5–6, pp 1495–1511 | Cite as

Uncertainty in twenty-first century projections of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in CMIP3 and CMIP5 models

  • Annika Reintges
  • Thomas Martin
  • Mojib Latif
  • Noel S. Keenlyside
Article

Abstract

Uncertainty in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is analyzed in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3) and Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections for the twenty-first century; and the different sources of uncertainty (scenario, internal and model) are quantified. Although the uncertainty in future projections of the AMOC index at 30°N is larger in CMIP5 than in CMIP3, the signal-to-noise ratio is comparable during the second half of the century and even larger in CMIP5 during the first half. This is due to a stronger AMOC reduction in CMIP5. At lead times longer than a few decades, model uncertainty dominates uncertainty in future projections of AMOC strength in both the CMIP3 and CMIP5 model ensembles. Internal variability significantly contributes only during the first few decades, while scenario uncertainty is relatively small at all lead times. Model uncertainty in future changes in AMOC strength arises mostly from uncertainty in density, as uncertainty arising from wind stress (Ekman transport) is negligible. Finally, the uncertainty in changes in the density originates mostly from the simulation of salinity, rather than temperature. High-latitude freshwater flux and the subpolar gyre projections were also analyzed, because these quantities are thought to play an important role for the future AMOC changes. The freshwater input in high latitudes is projected to increase and the subpolar gyre is projected to weaken. Both the freshening and the gyre weakening likely influence the AMOC by causing anomalous salinity advection into the regions of deep water formation. While the high model uncertainty in both parameters may explain the uncertainty in the AMOC projection, deeper insight into the mechanisms for AMOC is required to reach a more quantitative conclusion.

Keywords

Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) North Atlantic Ocean Climate change uncertainty Climate projections 

Supplementary material

382_2016_3180_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1733 kb)

References

  1. Ba J, Keenlyside NS, Latif M, Park W, Ding H, Lohmann K, Mignot J, Menary M, Otterå OH, Wouters B, Salas y Melia D D, Oka A, Bellucci A, Volodin E (2014) A multi-model comparison of Atlantic multidecadal variability. Clim Dyn 43:2333–2348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins M, Knutti R, Arblaster J, Dufresne J-L, Fichefet T, Friedlingstein P, Gao X, Gutowski WJ, Johns T, Krinner G, Shongwe M, Tebaldi C, Weaver AJ, Wehner M (2013) Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013. The physical science basis, contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Danabasoglu G (2008) On Multidecadal variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in the community climate system model version 3. J Clim 21:5524–5544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Boer AM, Gnanadesikan A, Edwards NR, Watson AJ (2010) Meridional density gradients do not control the atlantic overturning circulation. J Phys Oceanogr 40:368–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delworth TL, Zeng F (2012) Multicentennial variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and its climatic influence in a 4000 year simulation of the GFDL CM2.1 climate model. Geophys Res Lett 39:L13702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delworth T, Manabe S, Stouffer RJ (1993) Interdecadal variations of the thermohaline circulation in a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J Clim 6:1993–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickson RR, Brown J (1994) The production of North Atlantic Deep Water: sources, rates, and pathways. J Geophys Res 99:12319–12341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ganachaud A, Wunsch C (2003) Large-scale ocean heat and freshwater transports during the World Ocean Circulation Experiment. J Clim 16:696–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gnanadesikan A (1999) A simple predictive model for the structure of the oceanic pycnocline. Science 283:2077–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greatbatch RJ, Fanning AF, Goulding AD, Levitus S (1991) A diagnosis of interpentadal circulation changes in the North Atlantic. J Geophys Res 96:22009–22023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gulev SK, Latif M, Keenlyside N, Park W, Koltermann KP (2013) North Atlantic Ocean control on surface heat flux on multidecadal timescales. Nature 499:464–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:1095–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2011) The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change. Clim Dyn 37:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knight JR, Allan RJ, Folland CK, Vellinga M, Mann ME (2005) A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophys Res Lett 32:L20708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuhlbrodt T, Griesel A, Montoya M, Levermann A, Hofmann M, Rahmstorf S (2007) On the driving processes of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Rev Geophys 45:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Latif M, Keenlyside NS (2011) A perspective on decadal climate variability and predictability. Deep Sea Res II 58:1880–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latif M, Roeckner E, Botzet M, Esch M, Haak H, Hagemann S, Jungclaus J, Legutke S, Marsland S, Mikolajewicz U, Mitchell J (2004) Reconstructing, monitoring, and predicting multidecadal-scale changes in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation with sea surface temperature. J Clim 17:1605–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Masson D, Knutti R (2011) Climate model genealogy. Geophys Res Lett 38:L08703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCarthy G, Frajka-Williams E, Johns WE, Baringer MO, Meinen CS, Bryden HL, Rayner D, Duchez A, Roberts C, Cunningham SA (2012) Observed interannual variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation at 26.5 N. Geophys Res Lett 39:L19609Google Scholar
  20. Mecking JV, Keenlyside NS, Greatbatch RJ (2014) Stochastically-forced multidecadal variability in the North Atlantic: a model study. Clim Dyn 43:271–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2007a) The WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset: a new era in climate change research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1383–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao Z-C (2007b) Global climate projections. 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
  23. Park W, Latif M (2008) Multidecadal and multicentennial variability of the meridional overturning circulation. Geophys Res Lett 35:L22703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park W, Latif M (2012) Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation response to idealized external forcing. Clim Dyn 39:1709–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park T, Park W, Latif M (2016) Correcting North Atlantic sea surface salinity biases in the Kiel Climate Model: influences on ocean circulation and Atlantic Multidecadal Variability. Clim Dyn. doi:10.1007/s00382-016-2982-1 Google Scholar
  26. Roberts CD, Jackson L, McNeall D (2014) Is the 2004–2012 reduction of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation significant? Geophys Res Lett 41:3204–3210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robson J, Hodson D, Hawkins E, Sutton R (2014) Atlantic overturning in decline? Nature 7:2–3Google Scholar
  28. Schmittner A, Latif M, Schneider B (2005) Model projections of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for the 21st century assessed by observations. Geophys Res Lett 32:L23710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider B, Latif M, Schmittner A (2007) Evaluation of different methods to assess model projections of the future evolution of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. J Clim 20:2121–2132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shakespeare CJ, Hogg AM (2012) An analytical model of the response of the meridional overturning circulation to changes in wind and buoyancy forcing. J Phys Oceanogr 42:1270–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sijp WP, Bates M, England MH (2006) Can isopycnal mixing control the stability of the thermohaline circulation in ocean climate models? J Clim 19:5637–5651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sijp WP, Gregory JM, Tailleux R, Spence P (2012) The key role of the western boundary in linking the AMOC strength to the North-South pressure gradient. J Phys Oceanogr 42:628–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smeed DA, McCarthy GD, Cunningham SA, Frajka-Williams E, Rayner D, Johns WE, Meinen CS, Baringer MO, Moat BI, Duchez A, Bryden HL (2014) Observed decline of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation 2004–2012. Ocean Sci 10:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Srokosz M, Baringer M, Bryden H, Cunningham S, Delworth T, Lozier S, Marotzke J, Sutton R (2012) Past, present and future change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:1663–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stommel H (1961) Thermohaline convection with two stable regimes of flow. Tellus 13(2):224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sutton RT, Hodson DLR (2005) North Atlantic forcing of North American and European summer climate. Science 309:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thorpe RB, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Wood RA, Mitchell JFB (2001) Mechanisms determining the Atlantic thermohaline circulation response to greenhouse gas forcing in a non-flux-adjusted coupled climate model. J Clim 14:3102–3116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Visbeck M, Chassignet EP, Curry R, Delworth T, Dickson B, Krahmann G (2003) The ocean’s response to North Atlantic oscillation variability. In: Hurrell JW, Kushnir Y, Ottersen G, Visbeck M (eds) The North Atlantic oscillation: climatic significance and environmental impact, geophysical monograph series. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 113–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang C, Zhang L, Lee S, Wu L, Mechoso CR (2014) A global perspective on CMIP5 climate model biases. Nat Clim Change 4:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weaver AJ, Sedláček J, Eby M, Alexander K, Crespin E, Fichefet T, Philippon-Berthier G, Joos F, Kawamiya M, Matsumoto K, Steinacher M, Tachiiri K, Tokos K, Yoshimori M, Zickfeld K (2012) Stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: a model intercomparison. Geophys Res Lett 39:L20709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yip S, Ferro CAT, Stephenson DB, Hawkins E (2011) A simple, coherent framework for partitioning uncertainty in climate predictions. J Clim 24:4634–4643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang R, Delworth TL (2006) Impact of Atlantic multidecadal oscillations on India/Sahel rainfall and Atlantic hurricanes. Geophys Res Lett 33:L17712CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Reintges
    • 1
  • Thomas Martin
    • 1
  • Mojib Latif
    • 1
    • 2
  • Noel S. Keenlyside
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Kiel UniversityKielGermany
  3. 3.Geophysical Institute and Bjerknes Centre for Climate ResearchUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  4. 4.Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing CenterBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations