4.7 Article

Stratospheric Communication of El Nino Teleconnections to European Winter

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 22, 期 15, 页码 4083-4096

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2717.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC [NE/C518206/1]
  2. Defra and MoD Integrated Climate Programme Met Office CASE [GA01101, CBC/2B/0417_Annex C5]
  3. NERC National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS)
  4. NERC [NE/C518206/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C518206/1, NE/C510383/1, ncas10009] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stratospheric role in the European winter surface climate response to El Nino-Southern Oscillation sea surface temperature forcing is investigated using an intermediate general circulation model with a well-resolved stratosphere. Under El Nino conditions, both the modeled tropospheric and stratospheric mean-state circulation changes correspond well to the observed canonical responses of a late winter negative North Atlantic Oscillation and a strongly weakened polar vortex, respectively. The variability of the polar vortex is modulated by an increase in frequency of stratospheric sudden warming events throughout all winter months. The potential role of this stratospheric response in the tropical Pacific-European teleconnection is investigated by sensitivity experiments in which the mean state and variability of the stratosphere are degraded. As a result, the observed stratospheric response to El Nino is suppressed and the mean sea level pressure response fails to resemble the temporal and spatial evolution of the observations. The results suggest that the stratosphere plays an active role in the European response to El Nino. A saturation mechanism whereby for the strongest El Nino events tropospheric forcing dominates the European response is suggested. This is examined by means of a sensitivity test and it is shown that under large El Nino forcing the European response is insensitive to stratospheric representation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据