English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This is the first study to show the global Cut-off Low (COL) activity in 46 models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6). The COL historical simulations for the period 1979–2005 obtained from the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models and their ensembles are compared with the ERA5 reanalysis using an objective feature-tracking algorithm. The results show that the CMIP6 models simulate the spatial distribution of COLs more realistically than the CMIP5 models. Some improvements include reduced equatorward bias and underestimation over regions of high COL density. Reduced biases in CMIP6 are mainly attributed to the improved representation of the zonal wind due to the poleward shift of the subtropical jet streams. The CMIP5 models systematically underestimate the COL intensity as measured by the T42 vorticity at 250 hPa. In CMIP6, the intensity is still underestimated in summer, but overestimated in winter in part due to increased westerlies. The overestimation is enhanced by the finer spatial resolution models that identify more of the strong systems compared to coarser resolution models. Other aspects of COLs such as their temporal and lifetime distributions are modestly improved in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5. Finally, the predictive skill of climate models is evaluated using five variables and the Taylor diagram. We find that 15 out of the 20 (75%) best coupled models belong to CMIP6, and this highlights the overall improvement compared to its predecessor CMIP5. Despite this, the use of the multi-model ensemble average seems to be better in simulating COLs than individual models.

Are Cut-off Lows simulated better in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5?