Climate Dynamics

, Volume 48, Issue 7–8, pp 2153–2172 | Cite as

Finding the driver of local ocean–atmosphere coupling in reanalyses and CMIP5 climate models

  • Alfredo Ruiz-Barradas
  • Eugenia Kalnay
  • Malaquías Peña
  • Amir E. BozorgMagham
  • Safa Motesharrei
Article

Abstract

Identification of the driver of coupled anomalies in the climate system is of great importance for a better understanding of the system and for its use in predictive efforts with climate models. The present analysis examines the robustness of a physical method proposed three decades ago to identify coupled anomalies as of atmospheric or oceanic origin by analyzing 850 mb vorticity and sea surface temperature anomalies. The method is then used as a metric to assess the coupling in climate simulations and a 30-year hindcast from models of the CMIP5 project. Analysis of the frequency of coupled anomalies exceeding one standard deviation from uncoupled NCEP/NCAR and ERA-Interim and partially coupled CFSR reanalyses shows robustness in the main results: anomalies of oceanic origin arise inside the deep tropics and those of atmospheric origin outside of the tropics. Coupled anomalies occupy similar regions in the global oceans independently of the spatiotemporal resolution. Exclusion of phenomena like ENSO, NAO, or AMO has regional effects on the distribution and origin of coupled anomalies; the absence of ENSO decreases anomalies of oceanic origin and favors those of atmospheric origin. Coupled model simulations in general agree with the distribution of anomalies of atmospheric and oceanic origin from reanalyses. However, the lack of the feedback from the atmosphere to the ocean in the AMIP simulations reduces substantially the number of coupled anomalies of atmospheric origin and artificially increases it in the tropics while the number of those of oceanic origin outside the tropics is also augmented. Analysis of a single available 30-year hindcast surprisingly indicates that coupled anomalies are more similar to AMIP than to coupled simulations. Differences in the frequency of coupled anomalies between the AMIP simulations and the uncoupled reanalyses, and similarities between the uncoupled and partially coupled reanalyses, support the notion that the nature of the coupling between the ocean and the atmosphere is transmitted into the reanalyses via the assimilation of observations.

Keywords

Ocean–atmosphere coupling Coupled anomalies Driver of coupled anomalies SST Vorticty CMIP5 

References

  1. Barsugli JJ, Battisti DS (1998) The basic effects of atmosphere-ocean thermal coupling on midlatitude variability. J Atmos Sci 55:477–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellenger H, Guilyardi E, Leloup J, Lengaigne M, Vialard J (2014) ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim Dyn 42:1999–2018. doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1783-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjerknes J (1969) Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. Mon Wea Rev 97:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan K, Stouffer R (1991) A note on Bjerknes’ hypothesis for North Atlantic variability. J Marine Syst 1:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins WJ et al (2008) Evaluation of the HadGEM2 model. Met Office Hadley Centre Technical Note no. HCTN 74, available from Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3 PB. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/HCTN/index.html
  6. Davini P, Cagnazzo C (2013) On the misinterpretation of the North Atlantic Oscillation in CMIP5 models. Clim Dyn 43:1497–1511. doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1970-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dee DP et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597. doi:10.1002/qj.828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deser C, Alexander MA, Xie S-P, Phillips A (2010) Sea surface temperature variability: patterns and mechanisms. Annu Rev Marine Sci 2:115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donner LJ et al (2011) The dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component of the GFDL global coupled model CM3. J Clim 24:3484–3519. doi:10.1175/2011JCLI3955.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gates WL (1992) AMIP: the atmospheric model intercomparison project. Bull Am Meteor Soc 73:1962–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gent PR et al (2011) The Community Climate System Model Version 4. J Clim 24:4973–4991. doi:10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffies SM et al (2011) The GFDL CM3 coupled climate model: characteristics of the ocean and sea ice simulations. J Clim 24:3520–3544. doi:10.1175/2011JCLI3964.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurrell JW (1995) Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation: regional temperatures and precipitation. Science 269:676–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalnay E, Mo KC, Paegle J (1986) Large-amplitude, short-scale stationary Rossby waves in the Southern Hemisphere: observations and mechanistic experiments to determine their origin. J Atmos Sci 43:252–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalnay E et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteor Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar A, Zhang L, Wang W (2013) Sea surface temperature-precipitation relationship in different reanalyses. Mon Wea Rev 141:1118–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsland SJ, Haak H, Jungclaus JH, Latif M, Roeske F (2003) The Max-Planck-Institute global ocean/sea ice model with orthogonal curvilinear coordinates. Ocean Model 5:91–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin GM et al (2011) The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model climate configurations. Geosci Model Dev 4(723–757):2011Google Scholar
  20. Meehl GA, Washington WM, Arblaster JM, Hu A (2004) Factors affecting climate sensitivity in global coupled models. J Climate 17:1584–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2007) The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: a new era in climate change research. Bull Am Meteor Soc 88:1383–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mo KC, Kalnay E (1991) Impact of sea surface temperature anomalies on the skill of monthly forecasts. Mon Wea Rev 119:2771–2793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mo KC, Pfaendtner J, Kalnay E (1987) A GCM study on the maintenance of the June 1982 blocking in the Southern Hemisphere. J Atmos Sci 44:1123–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peña M, Kalnay E, Cai M (2003) Statistics of locally coupled ocean and atmosphere intraseasonal anomalies in Reanalysis and AMIP data. Nonlinear Proc Geoph 10:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peña M, Cai M, Kalnay E (2004) Life span of subseasonal coupled anomalies. J Climate 17:1597–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raddatz T, Reick C, Knorr W, Kattge J, Roeckner E, Schnur R, Schnitzler KG, Wetzel P, Jungclaus J (2007) Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century? Clim Dyn 29:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayner NA, Parker DE, Horton EB, Folland CK, Alexander LV, Rowell DP, Kent EC, Kaplan A (2003) Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J Geophys Res 108(D14):4407. doi:10.1029/2002JD002670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reynolds RW, Rayner NA, Smith TM, Stokes DC, Wang W (2002) An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate. J Clim 15:1609–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saha S et al (2010) The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bull Am Meteor Soc 91:1015–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2011) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteor Soc 93:485–498. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang C, Xie S-P, Carton JA (2004) A global survey of ocean–atmosphere interaction and climate variability. In: Wang C et al (eds) Earth’s climate: the ocean–atmosphere interaction. Geophysical Monograph Series, V 147, AGU, pp 414Google Scholar
  32. Wang C, Zhenya S, Fangli Q, Shenfu D (2009) What signals are removed and retained by using an anomaly field in climatic research? Int J Oceanogr. doi:10.1155/2009/329754
  33. Xie S-P, Philander SGH (1994) A coupled ocean–atmosphere model of relevance to the ITCZ in the eastern Pacific. Tellus 46A:340–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yeager S, Karspeck A, Danabasoglu G, Tribbia J, Teng H (2012) A decadal prediction case study: late twentieth-century North Atlantic Ocean heat content. J Clim 25:5173–5189. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00595.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu J, Shukla J (2013) The role of air–sea coupling in seasonal prediction of Asia-Pacific summer monsoon rainfall. J Clim 26:5689–5697. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00190.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfredo Ruiz-Barradas
    • 1
  • Eugenia Kalnay
    • 1
    • 2
  • Malaquías Peña
    • 3
  • Amir E. BozorgMagham
    • 4
  • Safa Motesharrei
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.The Institute of Physical Science and TechnologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.IMSG at EMC/NCEP/National Weather ServiceCollege ParkUSA
  4. 4.Northern Virginia Community CollegeLoudounUSA
  5. 5.Department of PhysicsUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  6. 6.National Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations