Advertisement

Eastern North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in historical and future CMIP5 experiments: assessment with a model-independent tracking scheme

  • Samuel S. BellEmail author
  • Savin S. Chand
  • Kevin J. Tory
  • Chris Turville
  • Harvey Ye
Article
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

The sensitivity of tropical cyclone (TC) projection results to different models and the detection and tracking scheme used is well established in the literature. Here, future climate projections of TC activity in the Eastern North Pacific basin (ENP, defined from 0° to 40°N and 180° to  ~ 75°W) are assessed with a model- and basin-independent detection and tracking scheme that was trained in reanalysis data. The scheme is applied to models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) experiments forced under the historical and Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) conditions. TC tracks from the observed records and models are analysed simultaneously with a curve-clustering algorithm, allowing observed and model tracks to be projected onto the same set of clusters. The ENP is divided into three clusters, one in the Central North Pacific (CNP) and two off the Mexican coast, as in prior studies. After accounting for model biases and auto-correlation, projection results under RCP8.5 indicated TC genesis to be significantly suppressed east of 125°W, and significantly enhanced west of 145°W by the end of the twenty-first century. Regional TC track exposure was found to significantly increase around Hawaii (~ 86%), as shown in earlier studies, owing to increased TC genesis, particularly to the south-east of the island nation. TC exposure to Southern Mexico was shown to decrease (~ 4%), owing to a south-westward displacement of TCs and overall suppression of genesis near the Mexican coastline. The large-scale environmental conditions most consistent with these projected changes were vertical wind shear and relative humidity.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported through funding from the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub of the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Programme (NESP). Samuel Bell is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Stipend and RTP Fee-Offset Scholarship through Federation University Australia.

References

  1. Bell SS, Chand SS, Tory KJ, Turville C (2018a) Statistical assessment of the OWZ tropical cyclone tracking scheme in ERA-Interim. J Climate 31:2217–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell SS, Chand SS, Tory KJ, Dowdy AJ, Turville C, Ye H (2018b) Projections of Southern hemisphere tropical cyclone track density using CMIP5 models. Climate Dyn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4497-4 Google Scholar
  3. Bi D et al (2012) The ACCESS coupled model: description, control climate and evaluation. Aust Meteorol Oceanogr J 63(CMIP5 Special Issue):41–646Google Scholar
  4. Camargo SJ, Robertson AW, Barnston AG, Ghil M (2008) Clustering of eastern North Pacific tropical cyclone tracks: ENSO and MJO effects. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 9:Q06V05.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gc001861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chand SS, Tory KJ, Ye H, Walsh KJE (2017) Projected increase in El Niño-driven tropical cyclone frequency in the Pacific. Nat Climate Change 7:123–127.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen JH et al (2013) Climate phenomena and their relevance for future regional climate change. In: Stocker TF et al (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 (IPCC AR5). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Collier MA et al (2011) The CSIRO-Mk3.6.0 atmosphere-ocean GCM: participation in CMIP5 and data publication. In: 19th international congress on modelling and simulation, Perth, Australia, 12–16 December 2011. http://mssanz.org.au/modsim2011
  8. Donner LJ et al (2011) The dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component AM3 of the GFDL global coupled model CM3. J Climate 24:3484–3519.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3955.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunkerton TJ, Montgomery MT, Wang Z (2009) Tropical cyclogenesis in a tropical wave critical layer: easterly waves. Atmos Chem Phys 9:5587–5646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaffney SJ (2004) Probabilistic curve-aligned clustering and prediction with regression mixture models. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine, p 281. http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/sgaffney/outgoing/sgaffney_thesis.pdf
  11. Gent PR et al (2011) The community climate system model version 4. J Climate Spec Collect 24:4973–4991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins E, Osbourne TM, Ho CK, Challinor AJ (2013) Calibration and bias correction of climate projections for crop modelling: an idealised case study over Europe. Agric For Meteorol 170:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ho CK, Stephenson DB, Collins M, Ferro CAT, Brown SJ (2012) A source of additional uncertainty in climate change projections. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:20–26.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3110.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horn M et al (2014) Tracking scheme dependence of simulated tropical cyclone response to idealized climate simulations. J Climate 27:9197–9213.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00200.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones CD et al (2011) The HadGEM2-ES implementation of CMIP5 centennial simulations. Geosci Model Dev 4:543–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knapp KR, Kruk MC, Levinson DH, Diamond HJ, Neumann CJ (2010a) The International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) unifying tropical cyclone data. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 91:363–376.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2755.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knapp KR, Applequist S, Diamond HJ, Kossin JP, Kruk M, Schreck C (2010b) NCDC International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) Project, version 3. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Subset used: January 1970–December 2016.  https://doi.org/10.7289/V5NK3BZP. Accessed 12 Aug 2016
  18. Knutson TR et al (2010) Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nat Geosci 3:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knutson TR, Sirutis JJ, Zhao M, Tuleya RE, Bende M, Vecchi GA, Villarini G, Chavas D (2015) Global projections of intense tropical cyclone activity for the late 21st century from dynamical downscaling of CMIP5/RCP4.5 scenarios. J Climate.  https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-15-0129.1 Google Scholar
  20. Knutti R, Masson D, Gettelman A (2013) Climate model genealogy: generation CMIP5 and how we got there. Geophys Res Lett 40:1194–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murakami H, Mizuta R, Shindo E (2012a) Future changes in tropical cyclone activity projected by multi-physics and multi-SST ensemble experiments using the 60-km-mesh MRI-AGCM. Climate Dyn 39:2569–2584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murakami H et al (2012b) Future changes in tropical cyclone activity projected by the new high-resolution MRI-AGCM. J Climate 25:3237–3260.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00415.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murakami H, Wang B, Li T, Kitoh A (2013) Projected increase in tropical cyclones near Hawaii. Nat Climate Change 3:749–754.  https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1890 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murakami H, Hsu P-C, Arakawa O, Li T (2014) Influence of model biases on projected future changes in tropical cyclone frequency of occurrence. J Climate 27:2159–2181.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00436.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Okubo A (1970) Horizontal dispersion of floatable particles in the vicinity of velocity singularities such as convergences. Deep Sea Res 17:445–454Google Scholar
  26. Riahi K, Rao S, Krey V, Cho C, Chirkov V, Fischer G, Kindermann G, Nakicenovic N, Rafai P (2011) RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim Change 109:33–57.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberts MJ, Vidale PL, Mizielinski MS, Demory M-E, Schiemann R, Strachan J, Hodges K, Bell R, Camp J (2015) Tropical cyclones in the UPSCALE ensemble of high-resolution global climate models. J Climate 28:574–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanderson B, Knutti R, Caldwell P (2015) A representative democracy to reduce interdependency in a multimodel ensemble. J Climate 28:5171–5194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sugi M, Murakami H, Yoshida K (2016) Projection of future changes in the frequency of intense tropical cyclones. Climate Dyn 49:619–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteor Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tory KJ, Dare RA (2015) Sea surface temperature thresholds for tropical cyclone formation. J Climate 28:8171–8183.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00637.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tory KJ, Dare RA, Davidson NE, McBride JL, Chand SS (2013a) The importance of low-deformation vorticity in tropical cyclone formation. Atmos Chem Phys 13:2115–2132.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2115-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tory KJ, Chand SS, Dare RA, McBride JL (2013b) The development and assessment of a model-, grid-, and basin independent tropical cyclone detection scheme. J Climate 26:5493–5507.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00510.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tory KJ, Chand SS, McBride JL, Ye H, Dare RA (2013c) Projected changes in late-twenty-first-century tropical cyclone frequency in 13 coupled climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. J Climate 26:9946–9959.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00010.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tory KJ, Ye H, Dare RA (2018) Understanding the geographic distribution of tropical cyclone formation for applications in climate models. Climate Dyn 50:2489–2512.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3752-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Vuuren DP et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109:5–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Voldoire A et al (2012) The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model: description and basic evaluation. Climate Dyn 40:2091–2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walsh KJE, McBride JL, Klotzbach PJ, Balachandran S, Camargo SJ, Holland G, Knutson TR, Kossin JP, Lee TC, Sobel A, Sugi M (2016) Tropical cyclones and climate change. WIREs Climate Change 7:65–89.  https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Watanabe M et al (2010) Improved climate simulation by MIROC5: mean states, variability, and climate sensitivity. J Climate 23:6312–6335.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3679.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weinkle J, Maue R, Pielke R (2012) Historical global tropical cyclone landfalls. J Climate 25:4729–4735.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00719.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss J (1991) The dynamics of enstrophy transfer in two-dimensional hydrodynamics. Phys D 48:273–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu T et al (2014) An overview of BCC climate system model development and application for climate change studies. J Meteorol Res 28:34–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-014-3041-7 Google Scholar
  43. Yoshida K, Sugi M, Mizuta R, Murakami H, Ishii M (2017) Future changes in tropical cyclone activity in high-resolution large-ensemble simulations. Geophys Res Lett 44:9910–9917.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel S. Bell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Savin S. Chand
    • 1
  • Kevin J. Tory
    • 2
  • Chris Turville
    • 1
  • Harvey Ye
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Informatics and Applied OptimizationFederation University AustraliaBallaratAustralia
  2. 2.Research and Development BranchBureau of MeteorologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations