4.7 Article

Improved Decadal Predictions of North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre SST in CMIP6

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2020GL091307

Keywords

climate prediction; CMIP5; CMIP6; North Atlantic; subpolar gyre

Funding

  1. CMIP6
  2. ESGF
  3. European Union [776613, 789445]
  4. Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme - BEIS
  5. Defra
  6. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [789445] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compares the performance of initialized and uninitialized historical simulations from the CMIP5 and CMIP6 in representing subpolar SST variations since 1960. The results indicate that initialized decadal hindcasts from CMIP6 can explain a large portion of observed SST variance, suggesting a more significant role of forcing in driving subpolar SST changes than previously thought.
Due to its wide-ranging impacts, predicting decadal variations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the subpolar North Atlantic remains a key goal of climate science. Here, we compare the representation of observed subpolar SST variations since 1960 in initialized and uninitialized historical simulations from the 5th and 6th phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5/6). Initialized decadal hindcasts from CMIP6 explain 88% of observed SST variance post-1980 in the subpolar gyre at lead years 5-7 (77% in uninitialized simulations) compared to 42% (8%) in CMIP5, indicating a more prominent role for forcing in driving observed subpolar SST changes than previously thought. Analysis of single-forcing experiments suggests much of this correlation is due to natural forcing, explaining similar to 55% of the observed variance. The amplitude of observed subpolar SST variations is underestimated in historical simulations and improved by initialization in CMIP6, indicating continued value of initialization for predicting North Atlantic SST.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available