4.6 Article

Drivers and potential predictability of summer time North Atlantic polar front jet variability

期刊

CLIMATE DYNAMICS
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 3869-3887

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-016-3307-0

关键词

Polar front jet; Predictors; North Atlantic; Predictability

资金

  1. Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Programme [GA1101]
  2. University of Sheffield Project Sunshine
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (DOE INCITE) program
  4. Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
  5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Program Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The variability of the North Atlantic polar front jet stream is crucial in determining summer weather around the North Atlantic basin. Recent extreme summers in western Europe and North America have highlighted the need for greater understanding of this variability, in order to aid seasonal forecasting and mitigate societal, environmental and economic impacts. Here we find that simple linear regression and composite models based on a few predictable factors are able to explain up to 35 % of summertime jet stream speed and latitude variability from 1955 onwards. Sea surface temperature forcings impact predominantly on jet speed, whereas solar and cryospheric forcings appear to influence jet latitude. The cryospheric associations come from the previous autumn, suggesting the survival of an ice-induced signal through the winter season, whereas solar influences lead jet variability by a few years. Regression models covering the earlier part of the twentieth century are much less effective, presumably due to decreased availability of data, and increased uncertainty in observational reanalyses. Wavelet coherence analysis identifies that associations fluctuate over the study period but it is not clear whether this is just internal variability or genuine non-stationarity. Finally we identify areas for future research.

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

4.6
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