Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 52, Issue 3–4, pp 1983–2003 | Cite as

Eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature annual cycle in the Kiel Climate Model: simulation benefits from enhancing atmospheric resolution

  • C. WengelEmail author
  • M. Latif
  • W. Park
  • J. Harlaß
  • T. Bayr
Article

Abstract

A long-standing difficulty of climate models is to capture the annual cycle (AC) of eastern equatorial Pacific (EEP) sea surface temperature (SST). In this study, we first examine the EEP SST AC in a set of integrations of the coupled Kiel Climate Model, in which only atmosphere model resolution differs. When employing coarse horizontal and vertical atmospheric resolution, significant biases in the EEP SST AC are observed. These are reflected in an erroneous timing of the cold tongue’s onset and termination as well as in an underestimation of the boreal spring warming amplitude. A large portion of these biases are linked to a wrong simulation of zonal surface winds, which can be traced back to precipitation biases on both sides of the equator and an erroneous low-level atmospheric circulation over land. Part of the SST biases also is related to shortwave radiation biases related to cloud cover biases. Both wind and cloud cover biases are inherent to the atmospheric component, as shown by companion uncoupled atmosphere model integrations forced by observed SSTs. Enhancing atmosphere model resolution, horizontal and vertical, markedly reduces zonal wind and cloud cover biases in coupled as well as uncoupled mode and generally improves simulation of the EEP SST AC. Enhanced atmospheric resolution reduces convection biases and improves simulation of surface winds over land. Analysis of a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) reveals that in these models, very similar mechanisms are at work in driving EEP SST AC biases.

Keywords

Annual cycle SST Equatorial Pacific Kiel Climate Model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grant SACUS (03G0837A) and EU FP7/2007–2013 under Grant agreement no. 603521, project PREFACE, and SFB 754 “Climate-Biochemistry Interactions in the tropical Ocean”. We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and feedbacks on this work. The climate model integrations were performed at the Computing Centre of Kiel University. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modeling groups (listed in Table 2 of this paper) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP the U.S. Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals.

Supplementary material

382_2018_4233_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3052 KB)

References

  1. Carton JA, Giese BS (2008) A reanalysis of ocean climate using simple ocean data assimilation (SODA). Mon Weather Rev 136:2999–3017.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR1978.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen Y-Y, Jin F-F (2017) Dynamical diagnostics of the SST annual cycle in the eastern equatorial Pacific: Part II analysis of CMIP5 simulations. Clim Dyn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3550-z Google Scholar
  3. Covey C, Abe-Ouchi A, Boer GJ et al (2000) The seasonal cycle in coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models. Clim Dyn 16:775–787.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820000081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Szoeke SP, Xie S-P (2008) The tropical eastern pacific seasonal cycle: assessment of errors and mechanisms in IPCC AR4 coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models*. J Clim 21:2573–2590.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1975.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dee DP, Uppala SM, Simmons AJ et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597.  https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeWitt DG, Schneider EK (1999) The processes determining the annual cycle of equatorial sea surface temperature: a coupled general circulation model perspective. Mon Weather Rev 127:381–395. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127<0381:TPDTAC>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giese BS, Carton JA (1994) The seasonal cycle in a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J Clim 7:1208–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harlaß J, Latif M, Park W (2015) Improving climate model simulation of tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature: the importance of enhanced vertical atmosphere model resolution. Geophys Res Lett 42:2401–2408.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harlaß J, Latif M, Park W (2017) Alleviating tropical Atlantic sector biases in the Kiel climate model by enhancing horizontal and vertical atmosphere model resolution: climatology and interannual variability. Clim Dyn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3760-4 Google Scholar
  10. Kessler WS, McPhaden MJ, Weickmann KM (1995) Forcing of intraseasonal Kelvin waves in the equatorial Pacific. J Geophys Res 100:10613.  https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC00382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Latif M, Graham NE (1992) How much predictive skill is contained in the thermal structure of an oceanic GCM? J Phys Oceanogr 22:951–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Latif M, Sperber K, Arblaster J et al (2001) ENSIP: the El Niño simulation intercomparison project. Clim Dyn 18:255–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820100174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin JL (2007) The double-ITCZ problem in IPCC AR4 coupled GCMs: ocean–atmosphere feedback analysis. J Clim 20:4497–4525.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4272.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma C-C, Mechoso CR, Robertson AW, Arakawa A (1996) Peruvian stratus clouds and the tropical pacific circulation: a coupled ocean–atmosphere GCM study. J Clim 9:1635–1645. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<1635:PSCATT>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Madec G, Delecluse P, Imbard M, Lévy C (1998) OPA 8.1 ocean general circulation model reference manual. Note du Pole de modélisation 11, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, 91 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Mechoso CR, Robertson AW, Barth N et al (1995) The Seasonal cycle over the tropical pacific in coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models. Mon Weather Rev 123:2825–2838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell TP, Wallace JM (1992) The annual cycle in equatorial convection and sea surface temperature. J Clim 5:1140–1156. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1992)005<1140:TACIEC>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moum JN, Perlin A, Nash JD, McPhaden MJ (2013) Seasonal sea surface cooling in the equatorial Pacific cold tongue controlled by ocean mixing. Nature 500:64–67.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neelin JD (1991) The slow sea surface temperature mode and the fast-wave limit: analytic theory for tropical interannual oscillations and experiments in a hybrid coupled model. J Atmos Sci 48:584–606. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1991)048<0584:TSSSTM>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Park W, Keenlyside N, Latif M et al (2009) Tropical Pacific climate and its response to global warming in the Kiel climate model. J Clim 22:71–92.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2261.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Philander SGH, Gu D, Lambert G, et al (1996) Why the ITCZ is mostly north of the equator. J Clim 9:2958–2972. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<2958:WTIIMN>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reynolds RW, Rayner NA, Smith TM, et al (2002) An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate. J Clim 15:1609–1625. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1609:AIISAS>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roeckner E, Baeuml G, Bonaventura L et al (2003) The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM 5. PART I: model description. Max Planck Inst Meteorol Rep 349:127Google Scholar
  24. Song ZY, Liu HL, Wang CZ et al (2014) Evaluation of the eastern equatorial Pacific SST seasonal cycle in CMIP5 models. Ocean Sci 10:837–843.  https://doi.org/10.5194/os-10-837-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stein K, Timmermann A, Schneider N (2011) Phase Synchronization of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation with the Annual Cycle. Phys Rev Lett 107:128501.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.128501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stockdale T, Latif M, Burgers G, Wolff J-O (1994) Some sensitivities of a coupled ocean–atmosphere GCM. Tellus A Dyn Meteorol Oceanogr 46:367–380.  https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v46i4.15486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor KE, Williamson D, Zwiers F (2000) The Sea surface temperature and sea–ice concentration boundary conditions for AMIP II simulations. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory PCMDI Rep. 60, p 28Google Scholar
  28. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498.  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Valcke S (2006) OASIS3 user guide. PRISM Tech Rep No 3:64Google Scholar
  30. Wentz FJ, Scott J, Hoffman R, Leidner M, Atlas R, Ardizzone J (2015) Remote sensing systems cross-calibrated multi-platform (CCMP) 6-hourly ocean vector wind analysis product on 0.25 deg grid, Version 2.0. Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA. www.remss.com/measurements/ccmp. Accessed Feb 2016Google Scholar
  31. Xie S-P (1994) On the genesis of the equatorial annual cycle. J Clim 7:2008–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xie S-P (2005) The shape of continents, air–sea interaction, and the rising branch of the Hadley circulation. In: Diaz HF, Bradley RS (eds) The Hadley circulation: past, present and future, vol 21, advances in global change research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 121–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2944-8_5 Google Scholar
  33. Xie P, Arkin PA (1997) Global precipitation: a 17-year monthly analysis based on gauge observations, satellite estimates, and numerical model outputs. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 78:2539–2558. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<2539:GPAYMA>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xie S-P, Miyama T, Wang Y et al (2007) A regional ocean–atmosphere model for eastern Pacific climate: toward reducing tropical biases. J Clim 20:1504–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4080.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yu J-Y, Mechoso CR (1999a) A discussion on the errors in the surface heat fluxes simulated by a coupled GCM. J Clim 12:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yu J-Y, Mechoso CR (1999b) Links between annual variations of Peruvian stratus clouds and of SST in the eastern equatorial Pacific. J Clim 23:305–318Google Scholar
  37. Yu L, Weller RA (2007) Objectively analyzed air–sea heat fluxes for the global ice-free oceans (1981–2005). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:527–539.  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-4-527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yu Y, He J, Zheng W, Luan Y (2013) Annual cycle and interannual variability in the tropical pacific as simulated by three versions of FGOALS. Adv Atmos Sci 30:621–637.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-013-2184-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research KielKielGermany
  2. 2.University of KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations