Improvements in Circumpolar Southern Hemisphere Extratropical Atmospheric Circulation in CMIP6 Compared to CMIP5

被引:48
|
作者
Bracegirdle, T. J. [1 ]
Holmes, C. R. [1 ]
Hosking, J. S. [1 ]
Marshall, G. J. [1 ]
Osman, M. [2 ]
Patterson, M. [3 ]
Rackow, T. [4 ]
机构
[1] British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England
[2] CONICET UBA, CIMA, Ctr Invest Mar & Atmosfera, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[3] Univ Oxford, Atmospher Ocean & Planetary Phys, Oxford, England
[4] Helmholtz Ctr Polar & Marine Res, Alfred Wegener Inst, Bremerhaven, Germany
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会;
关键词
EDDY-DRIVEN JET; ANNULAR MODE; CLIMATE-CHANGE; WEST ANTARCTICA; AGULHAS LEAKAGE; SENSITIVITY; OCEAN; VARIABILITY; WESTERLIES; TRENDS;
D O I
10.1029/2019EA001065
中图分类号
P1 [天文学];
学科分类号
0704 ;
摘要
One of the major globally relevant systematic biases in previous generations of climate models has been an equatorward bias in the latitude of the Southern Hemisphere (SII) mid-latitude tropospheric eddy driven westerly jet. The far-reaching implications of this for Southern Ocean heat and carbon uptake and Antarctic land and sea ice are key reasons why addressing this bias is a high priority. It is therefore of primary importance to evaluate the representation of the Si! westerly jet in the latest generation of global climate and earth system models that comprise the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). In this paper we assess the representation of major indices of SH extratropical atmospheric circulation in CMIP6 by comparison against both observations and the previous generation of CMIP5 models. Indices assessed are the latitude and speed of the westerly jet, variability of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), and representation of the Amundsen Sea Low (ASL). These are calculated from the historical forcing simulations of both CMIP5 and CMTP6 for time periods matching available observational and reanalysis data sets. From the 39 CMIP6 models available at the time of writing there is an overall reduction in the equatorward bias of the annual mean westerly jet from 1.9 degrees in CMIP5 to 0.4 degrees in CMIP6 and from a seasonal perspective the reduction is clearest in austral spring and summer. This is accompanied by a halving of the bias of SAM decorrelation timescales compared to CMIP5. However, no such overall improvements arc evident for the ASL. Plain Language Summary Computer models that simulate the position, strength, and spatio-temporal behavior of winds in the Southern Hemisphere around the continent of Antarctica often show typical errors when compared to reality. This can impact answers to very relevant questions, such as how much heat and carbon are taken up by the ocean or how the sea ice cover will evolve in the future. Here we document how the newly available next generation of global climate models that form the basis for the next Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs with respect to observed Southern Hemisphere winds. We also analyze potential improvements compared to the previous generation of computer models. Overall, some important differences to observations (biases) are much smaller than in the previous models (by up to 50%). Other diagnostics are, however, virtually unchanged, which indicates that the improvements are rather limited between model generations. However, our study could help to identify possible reasons for the remaining biases and to further reduce errors in upcoming models.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave Simulated by CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Lu, Zhichao
    Zhao, Tianbao
    Zhou, Weican
    ATMOSPHERE, 2020, 11 (09)
  • [2] Comparison of trends in the Hadley circulation between CMIP6 and CMIP5
    Xia, Yan
    Hu, Yongyun
    Liu, Jiping
    SCIENCE BULLETIN, 2020, 65 (19) : 1667 - 1674
  • [3] Improvements in Cloud and Water Vapor Simulations Over the Tropical Oceans in CMIP6 Compared to CMIP5
    Jiang, Jonathan H.
    Su, Hui
    Wu, Longtao
    Zhai, Chengxing
    Schiro, Kathleen A.
    EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE, 2021, 8 (05)
  • [4] Colombian climatology in CMIP5/CMIP6 models: Persistent biases and improvements
    Arias, Paola A.
    Ortega, Geusep
    Villegas, Laura D.
    Martinez, J. Alejandro
    REVISTA FACULTAD DE INGENIERIA-UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA, 2021, (100): : 75 - 96
  • [5] Assessment of Modes of Interannual Variability of Southern Hemisphere Atmospheric Circulation in CMIP5 Models
    Grainger, Simon
    Frederiksen, Carsten S.
    Zheng, Xiaogu
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2014, 27 (21) : 8107 - 8125
  • [6] Hydrological Projections under CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Wu, Yi
    Miao, Chiyuan
    Slater, Louise
    Fan, Xuewei
    Chai, Yuanfang
    Sorooshian, Soroosh
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2024, 105 (01) : E2374 - E2389
  • [7] CMIP5 SCIENTIFIC GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CMIP6
    Stouffer, R. J.
    Eyring, V.
    Meehl, G. A.
    Bony, S.
    Senior, C.
    Stevens, B.
    Taylor, K. E.
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2017, 98 (01) : 95 - +
  • [8] Are Cut-off Lows simulated better in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5?
    Pinheiro, Henri
    Ambrizzi, Tercio
    Hodges, Kevin
    Gan, Manoel
    Andrade, Kelen
    Garcia, Jose
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2022, 59 (7-8) : 2117 - 2136
  • [9] Drivers of the Northern Extratropical Eddy-Driven Jet Change in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Oudar, Thomas
    Cattiaux, Julien
    Douville, Herve
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (08)
  • [10] Are Cut-off Lows simulated better in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5?
    Henri Pinheiro
    Tercio Ambrizzi
    Kevin Hodges
    Manoel Gan
    Kelen Andrade
    Jose Garcia
    Climate Dynamics, 2022, 59 : 2117 - 2136