Advertisement

Intraseasonal to Interannual Climate Variability and Prediction

  • Malaquias PeñaEmail author
  • L. Gwen Chen
  • Huug van den Dool
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter outlines a set of topics essential to become aware of the science, methods, and procedures for operational prediction in the intraseasonal to interannual (ISI) time range. The quality of ISI predictions rely on three basic capabilities: observing networks to sample the Earth’s climate system, an analysis scheme to summarize past and present observations into physically consistent time series of spatial fields, and a prediction method to project a present state of the climate system into the future. Observing networks provide essential data to estimate the true state of the climate system at regular time intervals and to measure physical climate processes and climate variability. Conventional observing networks are designed to sample the most relevant scales of variability and processes occurring in the climate system. Numerical analysis schemes generate physically consistent estimates of the state of the climate system based on observations; they vary in complexity from simple interpolation methods to modern data assimilation schemes. The dynamical approach to carry out ISI predictions use numerical schemes that couple atmosphere, land, ocean and cryosphere models. ISI predictions are also carried out using statistical methods or a combination of the two approaches. The computer burden associated with carrying out dynamical forecasts with comprehensive coupled models is high. Thus, operational centers perform those coupled model runs routinely out to a few seasons only.

Current prediction practices include running the coupled models in ensemble mode to account for the uncertainty in the forecasts and to filter out unpredictable signals through ensemble averaging. Furthermore, recognizing the difficulty for a single model to measure its own forecast limitations, it is common to combine ensembles from multiple independent models in a scheme called multi-model ensemble. The practice of incorporating reanalysis and hindcast data sets as tools to post-process raw forecast outputs considerably reduces forecast systematic errors, improves reliability, and enhances the estimation of potential skill and the detection of extreme events. The outputs of coupled global models often serve as input to downstream models such as limited-area high-resolution climate models, river routing, crop growth, and expanding the applicability of ISI forecasts to the regional and local level. Graphical interfaces that permit data analysis and smart decision support systems are becoming necessary to assist forecasters and decision-makers in their real-time endeavors.

As models become more skillful and reliable, the methods to generate climate numerical guidance have evolved from subjective approaches to increasingly objective and unsupervised numerical procedures. Nonetheless, human intervention typically increases the skill and value of the final products and is essential for product interpretation and communication to final users. Challenges to realistically model the climate system are many, but those highlighted by the scientific community include better model representation of fine-scale processes in clouds, ocean eddies, and surface interactions and feedbacks and better coupled integration of model climate components. More skillful ISI forecasts are also conditioned to greater computer resources, more extensive and strategic observing systems, and effective data assimilation and model initialization schemes for the coupled climate prediction systems.

Keywords

Climate variability ENSO MJO Teleconnections Seasonal predictions Predictability Earth system models Ocean-atmosphere coupling Surface local feedbacks Observing networks Multi-model ensembles Hindcasts Reanalysis 

References

  1. M.A. Balmaseda, M.K. Davey, D.L.T. Anderson, Decadal and seasonal dependence of ENSO prediction skill. J. Clim. 8, 2705–2715 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<2705:DASDOE>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. M.A. Balmaseda, D. Dee, A. Vidard, D.L.T. Anderson, A multivariate treatment of bias for sequential data assimilation: Application to the tropical oceans. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 133, 167–179 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. T.P. Barnett, R. Preisendorfer, Origins and levels of monthly and seasonal forecast skill for United States surface air temperatures determined by canonical correlation analysis. Mon. Weather Rev. 115, 1825–1850 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1987)115<1825:OALOMA>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. A.G. Barnston, Linear statistical short-term climate predictive skill in the Northern Hemisphere. J. Clim. 7, 1513–1564 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007<1513:LSSTCP>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. P. Bauer et al., The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature 525, 47–55 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. L. Bengtsson, U. Schleese, E. Roeckner, A two tiered approach to climate forecasting. Science 261, 1026–1029 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. M.B. Blumental, Predictability of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model. J. Clim. 4, 766–784 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. G. Burgers et al., The simplest ENSO recharge oscillator. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L13706–L13709 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Blunden et al., State of the Climate in 2010. Bull. Amer. Soc. 92, S1–S236, (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Cai, E. Kalnay, Z. Toth, Bred vectors of the Zebiak– Cane model and their application to ENSO predictions. J. Clim. 16, 40–55 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Y.-S. Chang, S. Zhang, A. Rosati, T.L. Delworth, W.F. Stern, An assessment of oceanic variability for 1960–2010 from the GFDL ensemble coupled data assimilation. Clim. Dyn. 40(3–4), 775 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Chen, W. Shi, P. Xie, V.B.S. Silva, V.E. Kousky, R.W. Higgins, J.E. Janowiak, Assessing objective techniques for gauge-based analyses of global daily precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D04110 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. L.-C. Chen, K.C. Mo, Q. Zhang, J. Huang, Meteorological drought prediction using a multi-model ensemble approach, in 38th NOAA Climate Diagnostics & Prediction Workshop Special Issue, Climate Prediction S&T Digest, 2013, pp. 48–50Google Scholar
  14. L.G. Chen, H. van den Dool, Combination of Multimodel Probabilistic Forecasts Using an Optimal Weighting System. Wea. Forecasting, 32, 1967–1987 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0074.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. L. Chen, H. van den Dool, E. Becker, Q. Zhang, ENSO Precipitation and Temperature Forecasts in the North American Multimodel Ensemble: Composite Analysis and Validation. J. Climate, 30, 1103–1125 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0903.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. P.A. Dirmeyer, The land surface contribution to the potential predictability of boreal summer season climate. J. Hydrometeorol. 6, 618–632 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. C. Frankignoul, N. Chouaib, Z. Liu, Estimating the observed atmospheric response to SST anomalies: Maximum covariance analysis, generalized equilibrium feedback assessment, and maximum response estimation. J. Clim. 24, 2523–2539 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3696.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R. Hagedorn, The rationale behind the success of multi-model ensembles in seasonal forecasting – I. Basic concepts. Tellus 57A, 219–233 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. B.J. Hoskins, D.J. Karoly, The steady linear response of a spherical atmosphere to thermal and orographic forcing. J. Atmos. Sci. 38, 1179–1196 (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1981)038<1179:TSLROA>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. B.P. Kirtman et al., The north American multimodel ensemble: Phase-1 seasonal-to-interannual prediction; Phase-2 toward developing intraseasonal prediction. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95, 585–601 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00050.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. B.P. Kirtman, K. Pegion, S. Kinter, Internal atmospheric dynamics and climate variability. J. Atmos. Sci. 62, 2220–2233 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. W.H. Klein, J.E. Walsh, A comparison of pointwise screening and empirical orthogonal functions in specifying monthly surface temperatures from 700 mb data. Mon. Weather Rev. 111, 669–673 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. R.D. Koster, M.J. Suarez, M. Heiser, Variance and Predictability of Precipitation at Seasonal-to-Interannual Timescales. J. Hydrometeorol. 1, 26–46, (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. R.D. Koster, S.P. Mahanama, Land surface controls on hydroclimatic means and variability. J. Hydrometeorol. 13(5), 1604–1620 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Latif et al., Climate variability in a coupled GCSM, I, the tropical Pacific. J. Clim. 6, 5–21 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. M. Latif, D. Anderson, T. Barnett, M. Cane, R. Kleeman, A. Leetmaa, J. O’Brien, A. Rosati, E. Schneider, A review of the predictability and prediction of ENSO. J. Geophys. Res. 103(C7), 14375–14393 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1029/97JC03413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. N.C. Lau, Modeling the seasonal dependence of the atmospheric response to observed El Niños 1962-1976. Mon. Weather Rev. 113, 1970–1996 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R.S. Lindzen, S. Nigam, On the role of the sea surface temperature gradients in forcing low-level winds and convergence in the tropics. J. Atmos. Sci. 44, 2440–2458 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<2418:OTROSS>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. E. Lorenz, Empirical Orthogonal Functions and Statistical Weather Prediction. Sci. Rep. No. 1, Statistical Forecasting Project, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, 1956, 48 pp.Google Scholar
  30. L. Luo, E.F. Wood, Use of Bayesian merging techniques in a multimodel seasonal hydrologic ensemble prediction system for the Eastern United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 9, 866–884 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM980.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. J.J. Luo, S. Masson, E. Roeckner, G. Madec, T. Yamagata, Reducing climatology bias in an ocean-atmosphere CGCM with improved coupling physics. J. Clim. 18, 2344–2360 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R. Madden, P. Julian, Detection of a 40–50 day oscillation in the zonal wind in the tropical Pacific. J. Atmos. Sci. 28, 702–708 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. S. Manabe, K. Bryan, Climate calculations with a combined ocean-atmosphere model. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 786–789 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. M.J. McPhaden et al., The tropical ocean-global atmosphere observing system: A decade of progress. J. Geophys. Res. 103(C7), 14169–14240 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1029/97JC02906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. F. Mesinger, G. DiMego, E. Kalnay, K. Mitchell, P.C. Shafran, W. Ebisuzaki, D. Jović, J. Woollen, E. Rogers, E.H. Berbery, M.B. Ek, Y. Fan, R. Grumbine, W. Higgins, H. Li, Y. Lin, G. Manikin, D. Parrish, W. Shi, North American regional reanalysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 87, 343–360 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. K.E. Mitchell et al., The multi-institution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): Utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system. J. Geophys. Res. 109, D07S90 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. K.C. Mo, Model-based drought indices over the United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 9, 1212–1230 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. J. Namias, Synoptic and climatological problems associated with the general circulation of the Arctic. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 39(1), 45 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. M. Peña, E. Kalnay, Separating fast and slow modes in coupled chaotic system. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 11, 319–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. M. Peña, H. van den Dool, Consolidation of multimodel forecasts by ridge regression: Application to Pacific sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 21, 6521–6538 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2226.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. M. Peña, E. Kalnay, M. Cai, Statistics of locally coupled ocean and atmosphere intraseasonal anomalies in reanalysis and AMIP data. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 10, 245–251 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-10-245-2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. C. Penland, P.D. Sardeshmukh, The optimal growth of tropical sea surface temperature anomalies. J. Clim. 8, 1999–2024 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<1999:TOGOTS>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. E.M. Rasmussen, T.H. Carpenter, Variations in tropical sea surface temperature and surface wind fields associated with the southern oscillation/El Niño. Mon. Weather Rev. 110, 354–384 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. S. Saha et al., The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91, 1015–1057 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. S. Saha et al., The NCEP climate forecast system version 2. J. Clim. 27, 2185–2208 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. L.C. Shaffrey et al., UK HiGEM: The new UK high-resolution global environment model – Model description and basic evaluation. J. Clim. 22, 1861–1896 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2508.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. J. Shukla, Dynamical predictability of monthly means. J. Atmos. Sci. 38, 2547–2572 (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1981)038<2547:DPOMM>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. M. Tippett, T. DelSole, Constructed analogs and linear regression. Mon. Weather Rev. 141, 2519–2525 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. H. Van den Dool, Searching for analogs, how long must we wait? Tellus 46A, 314–324 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. H. Van den Dool, Empirical Methods in Short-Term Climate Prediction (Oxford University, Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar
  51. H.M. Van den Dool, A.G. Barnston, 1995: Forecasts of global sea surface temperature out to a year using the constructed analogue method, in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Climate Diagnostics Workshop, 14–18 Nov 1994, College Park, pp. 416–419Google Scholar
  52. H. Van den Dool, J. Huang, Y. Fan, Performance and analysis of the constructed analogue method applied to U.S. soil moisture over 1981–2001. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D16), 8617 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. J. Vialard et al., An ensemble generation method for seasonal forecasting with an ocean–atmosphere coupled model. Mon. Weather Rev. 133, 441–453 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. J.M. Wallace, D.S. Gutzler, Teleconnections in the geopotential height field during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Mon. Weather Rev. 109, 784–812 (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1981)109<0784:TITGHF>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. A.W. Wood, E.P. Maurer, A. Kumar, D. Lettenmaier, Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. J. Geophys. Res. 107(D20), 4429 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Y. Xia et al., Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D03109 (2012a).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Y. Xia et al., Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 2. Validation of model-simulated streamflow. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D03110 (2012b).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016051CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malaquias Peña
    • 1
    Email author
  • L. Gwen Chen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Huug van den Dool
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center/Cooperative Institute for Climate and SatellitesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.CPC/NCEP/NWS/NOAACollege ParkUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Huiling Yuan
    • 1
  • Zoltan Toth
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Global Systems DivisionEarth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations