4.7 Article

A closer look at the central Pacific El Nino and warm pool migration events from 1982 to 2011

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
卷 119, 期 1, 页码 165-172

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013JC009083

关键词

El Nino; remote sensing; central Pacific Ocean; HHT; EEMD

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [NSF 11-582]
  2. NASA Physical Oceanography Program
  3. EPSCoR
  4. NOAA Sea grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, it has been observed that there are different types of El Nino events. The warm events can be divided into two categories: those centered in the central Pacific (CP) and those centered in the eastern Pacific (EP). We examined the variability of western Pacific warm pool (WPWP) horizontal migration and size from January 1982 to December 2011 by applying Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD) and Hilbert-Huang Spectrum (HHS) to the optimally interpolated sea surface temperature (OISST) data set. The analysis shows that the long-term residual trend of the zonal centroid movement is migrating to the west by 3.78 degrees from the mean location during the past 30 years. The size of the warm pool has also increased 18% during this period. These analysis techniques isolated two separate time series for the migration of the zonal component of the WPWP for both CP and EP events and showed that these two types of El Nino generally operate at different time scales. The EP time series shows the strong traditional EP El Nino and the transition between strong El Nino conditions and La Nina conditions. The CP time series shows that CP El Ninos occur more often than EP El Ninos. The changes of El Nino type in conjunction with westward drift and increasing warm pool size shows an interesting multidecadal change in the warm pool. Potential mechanisms relating the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to El Nino typologies were also discussed. Key Points Analysis of 30 yrs of SST data HHT/EEMD analysis of data Investigated CP and EP time-series of El Nino

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