z-logo
Premium
Interpreting the nature of Northern and Southern Annular Mode variability in CMIP5 Models
Author(s) -
Schenzinger V.,
Osprey S. M.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-8996
pISSN - 2169-897X
DOI - 10.1002/2014jd022989
Subject(s) - coupled model intercomparison project , climatology , context (archaeology) , mode (computer interface) , anomaly (physics) , spectral line , geopotential height , geopotential , environmental science , interim , atmospheric sciences , statistical physics , geology , physics , meteorology , climate change , climate model , geography , precipitation , computer science , paleontology , oceanography , condensed matter physics , astronomy , operating system , archaeology
Characteristic timescales for the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and Southern Annular Mode (SAM) variability are diagnosed in historical simulations submitted to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and are compared to the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts ERA‐Interim data. These timescales are calculated from geopotential height anomaly spectra using a recently developed method, where spectra are divided into low‐frequency (Lorentzian) and high‐frequency (exponential) parts to account for stochastic and chaotic behaviors, respectively. As found for reanalysis data, model spectra at high frequencies are consistent with low‐order chaotic behavior, in contrast to an AR1 process at low frequencies. This places the characterization of the annular mode timescales in a more dynamical rather than purely stochastic context. The characteristic high‐frequency timescales for the NAM and SAM derived from the model spectra at high frequencies are ∼5 days, independent of season, which is consistent with the timescales of ERA‐Interim. In the low‐frequency domain, however, models are slightly biased toward too long timescales, but within the error bars, a finding which is consistent with previous studies of CMIP3 models. For the SAM, low‐frequency timescales in November, December, January, and February are overestimated in the models compared to ERA‐Interim. In some models, the overestimation in the SAM austral summer timescale is partly due to interannual variability, which can inflate these timescales by up to ∼40% in the models but only accounts for about 5% in the ERA‐Interim reanalysis.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here