1 / 1

1. Background and Motivation

Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling: The Stratospheric Seasonal Cycle in CMIP5 Models Robert X. Black 1 , Brent McDaniel 2 and Yun-Young Lee 1 1 Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta ; 2 Biology and Physics, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA.

yitta
Télécharger la présentation

1. Background and Motivation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling: The Stratospheric Seasonal Cycle in CMIP5 Models Robert X. Black1 , Brent McDaniel2 and Yun-Young Lee1 1Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; 2Biology and Physics, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA Observed Boreal SFW events Simulated SFW statistics • 1. Background and Motivation • It is well established that robust dynamical coupling exists between the extra-tropical troposphere and stratospheric polar vortex (e.g., Baldwin et al. 2010, Gerber et al. 2010). • Annual cycle of the stratospheric polar vortex includes an abrupt termination (stratospheric final warming or SFW) with sizable interannual variability (Waugh et al. 1999). • SFWs help organize seasonal march of the tropospheric circulation (Black et al. 2006); SFW knowledge enhances tropospheric predictability (Hardiman et al. 2011). • Implication: Accurately representing the seasonal cycle & interannual variability of the stratospheric polar vortex is important to simulating regional tropospheric climate. • Motivating question:How well are the spatial structure, climatological seasonal cycle and interannual variability of the boreal polar vortex represented in CMIP5 models? • 2. Data and Methods • Observational data: NCEP R1, ERA Interim & JRA 25 • Pilot study of several CMIP5 simulations • HadCM3: 20th Century Historical (2 members) • HadGEM2-A: 20th Century AMIP Simulation • HadGEM2-CC: 20th Century Historical Simulation • IPSL-CM5A-LR: 20th Century Historical Simulation • (HadGEM2-CC & IPSL-CM5A-LR -> high top models) • NCEP R1 analysis: 1958-2005 • Historical simulation analyses: 1950-2005 • AMIP simulation analysis: 1979-2008 • Daily average zonal-mean zonal winds are used to assess: • a) Structure and seasonal evolution of polar vortex (PV) • b) Interannual variability in polar vortex demise (SFW) • c) Organization of tropospheric winds by SFW events 3. Polar vortex structure (zonal wind field) NCEP/NCAR HadCM3 (hist-r1) HadCM3 (hist-r3) NCEP/NCAR HadCM3 (hist-r1) HadCM3 (hist-r3) • SFW onset determination insensitive to observational dataset • Weak trend toward later boreal SFW events between 1958-2011 • SFW events are delayed in all simulations except HadGEM2-CC • Interannual variability well represented in both high-top models Left: Zonal-mean zonal wind (m s-1) time averaged over the boreal cool season (Black & McDaniel 2009). Right: Daily values of 10 hPa zonal mean zonal wind averaged from 60- 80oN. Climatological seasonal cycle (purple) and SFW composite (blue) (Black et al. 2006). HadGEM2-A (amip) HadGEM2-CC (hist) IPSL-CM5A-LR (hist) HadGEM2-A (amip) HadGEM2-CC (hist) IPSL-CM5A-LR (hist) 6. Organizing the Tropospheric Circulation • Daily evolution of zonal-mean zonal wind averaged from 60-80oN Top Row: Climatological cycle centered on Mean Date (lag 0) Bottom Row: Composite SFW time evolution (lag 0 = SFW onset) • Boreal polar vortex too weak in HadCM3 simulations • Polar vortex too strong in HadGEM2-A (amip) & IPSL • HadGEM2-CC provides best structural representation Daily evolution of zonal-mean zonal wind (m s-1) averaged from 60-80oN Left: Climatological-mean evolution centered on April 14 (denoted lag 0) (Black et al. 2006). Right: Composite time evolution of SFW events (Black et al. 2006). 4. Seasonal Evolution of the Polar Vortex HadCM3 HadGEM2-A (amip) HadGEM2-CC IPSL-CM5A-LR • PV breakdown more abrupt in HadGEM2-A & IPSL-CM5A-LR • PV breakdown considerably more abrupt in SFW composites • Tropospheric tendencies focused at Day 0 in SFW composites • All models exhibit qualitative resemblance with observations • Boreal structural evolution poor in HadCM3 simulations • Polar vortex persists too long in HadGEM2-A & IPSL • Seasonal evolution well represented in HadGEM2-CC 7. Summary • 5. Stratospheric Final Warming Events • Defined as the last time the 50 hPa zonal-mean zonal wind at 70oN drops below zero without returning to the specified positive threshold value (5 ms-1) until the following autumn (following the methods of Black et al. 2006). The criterion is applied to running 5 day averages of zonal-mean wind. • SFW events provide an organizing influence on the troposphere • CMIP5 models are capable of representing this influence, but… • PV often too strong (cold pole) and SFW delayed vs observations • Greater interannual variability observed in high top models • HadGEM2-CC closely resembles observed PV/SFW behavior • Additional work required for comprehensive model assessment Acknowledgements: This research is jointly supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant ARC-1107384 and the Department of Energy under Grant DE-SC0004942. The NCEP-NCAR reanalyses come from the NOAA Climate Diagnostics Center from their web site at http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/

More Related