Blocking Simulations in GFDL GCMs for CMIP5 and CMIP6

被引:5
|
作者
Liu, Ping [1 ]
Reed, Kevin A. [1 ]
Garner, Stephen T. [2 ]
Zhao, Ming [2 ]
Zhu, Yuejian [3 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Stony Brook, Sch Marine & Atmospher Sci, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA
[2] NOAA, GFDL, Princeton, NJ 20230 USA
[3] NOAA, EMC, NCEP, NWS,Environm Modeling Ctr, Camp Springs, MD USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Anticyclones; Blocking; Numerical analysis; modeling; NORTHERN-HEMISPHERE BLOCKING; ATMOSPHERIC BLOCKING; CLIMATE; CIRCULATION; PERSPECTIVE; PREDICTION; MODELS; BIASES;
D O I
10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0456.1
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
The frequency of atmospheric blocking has been largely underestimated by general circulation models (GCMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Errors in the onset, persistence, barotropicity, geographical preference, seasonality, intensity, and moving speed of global blocking were diagnosed in 10 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) GCMs for recent CMIP5 and CMIP6 using a detection approach that combines zonal eddies and the reversal of zonal winds. The blocking frequency, similar at 500 and 250 hPa, is underestimated by 50% in the Atlantic-Europe region during December-February but is overestimated by 60% in the Pacific-North America region during that season and by 70% in the southwest Pacific during July-August. These blocking biases at 500 hPa were investigated in the five CMIP6 models that showed improvements over the CMIP5 versions. The Atlantic-Europe underestimate corresponds to lower instantaneous blocking rates, lower persistent blocking rates, and higher persistent stationary ridge rates; the number of blocks with a duration of 4-5 days is only 40%-65% of that in observations. In contrast, the overestimate consists of excessive blocks with a duration longer than 12 days in the Pacific-North America and up to twice as many 4-6-day events in the southwest Pacific. Simulated December-February blocks up to 12 days in the Pacific-North America region tend to be stronger and to move more slowly than those in observations. Diagnostic sensitivity tests indicated that the zonal mean and zonal eddy components of the mean state play a key role, as replacing each with that of observations substantially reduced many of the outstanding biases in these GCMs.
引用
收藏
页码:5053 / 5070
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Evaluation of the seasonal to decadal variability in dynamic sea level simulations from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Jin, Chenyang
    Liu, Hailong
    Lin, Pengfei
    GEOSCIENCE LETTERS, 2023, 10 (01)
  • [32] Simulations of the North Tropical Atlantic Mode-ENSO Connection in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Tian, Qi
    Ding, Ruiqiang
    Li, Jianping
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2023, 128 (16)
  • [33] Model uncertainties in climate change impacts on Sahel precipitation in ensembles of CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations
    Paul-Arthur Monerie
    Caroline M. Wainwright
    Moussa Sidibe
    Akintomide Afolayan Akinsanola
    Climate Dynamics, 2020, 55 : 1385 - 1401
  • [34] Inter-comparison of historical simulation and future projections of rainfall and temperature by CMIP5 and CMIP6 GCMs over Egypt
    Hamed, Mohammed Magdy
    Nashwan, Mohamed Salem
    Shahid, Shamsuddin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 42 (08) : 4316 - 4332
  • [35] Assessment of the Decadal Prediction Skill of Sahel Rainfall in CMIP5 and CMIP6
    He, Yujun
    Wang, Bin
    Liu, Juanjuan
    Wang, Yong
    Li, Lijuan
    Liu, Li
    Xu, Shiming
    Huang, Wenyu
    Lu, Hui
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2024, 37 (08) : 2471 - 2490
  • [36] Evaluating Diurnal Rainfall Signal Performance from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Lee, Yu-Chi
    Wang, Yi-Chi
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (18) : 7607 - 7623
  • [37] Assessment of Sea Ice Extent in CMIP6 With Comparison to Observations and CMIP5
    Shu, Qi
    Wang, Qiang
    Song, Zhenya
    Qiao, Fangli
    Zhao, Jiechen
    Chu, Min
    Li, Xinfang
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (09)
  • [38] Revisiting the Influence of ENSO on the Arctic Stratosphere in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Hu, Jinggao
    Shen, Yifan
    Deng, Jiechun
    Jia, Yanpei
    Wang, Zixu
    Li, Anqi
    ATMOSPHERE, 2023, 14 (05)
  • [39] Tracking Improvement in Simulated Marine Biogeochemistry Between CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Seferian, Roland
    Berthet, Sarah
    Yool, Andrew
    Palmieri, Julien
    Bopp, Laurent
    Tagliabue, Alessandro
    Kwiatkowski, Lester
    Aumont, Olivier
    Christian, James
    Dunne, John
    Gehlen, Marion
    Ilyina, Tatiana
    John, Jasmin G.
    Li, Hongmei
    Long, Matthew C.
    Luo, Jessica Y.
    Nakano, Hideyuki
    Romanou, Anastasia
    Schwinger, Jorg
    Stock, Charles
    Santana-Falcon, Yeray
    Takano, Yohei
    Tjiputra, Jerry
    Tsujino, Hiroyuki
    Watanabe, Michio
    Wu, Tongwen
    Wu, Fanghua
    Yamamoto, Akitomo
    CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTS, 2020, 6 (03) : 95 - 119
  • [40] Uncertainty of ENSO-amplitude projections in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Beobide-Arsuaga, Goratz
    Bayr, Tobias
    Reintges, Annika
    Latif, Mojib
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2021, 56 (11-12) : 3875 - 3888