4.7 Article

Sources of Uncertainty in Multimodel Large Ensemble Projections of the Winter North Atlantic Oscillation

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 48, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021GL093258

关键词

climate change; climate models; CMIP6; internal variability; large ensembles; North Atlantic Oscillation

资金

  1. European Union [820829]
  2. NERC Independent Research Fellowship [NE/M018199/1]
  3. Leverhulme Trust [PLP-2018-278]
  4. ESGF
  5. CEDA/JASMIN
  6. CMIP5/6
  7. NERC [NE/M018199/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study using the Multimodel Large Ensemble Archive found that two-thirds of the spread in late 21st century projections of the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) can be explained by model structural differences, rather than by NAO itself. Therefore, improving understanding of the NAO alone may not constrain the reducible uncertainty in North Atlantic mean sea level pressure (MSLP) projections.
Projections of the winter North Atlantic circulation exhibit large spread. Coupled Model Intercomparison Project archives typically provide only a few ensemble members per model, rendering it difficult to quantify reducible model structural uncertainty and irreducible internal variability (IV) in projections. We estimate using the Multimodel Large Ensemble Archive that model structural differences explain two-thirds of the spread in late 21st century (2080-2099) projections of the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This estimate is biased by systematic model errors in the forced NAO response and IV. Across the North Atlantic, the NAO explains a substantial fraction of the spread in mean sea level pressure (MSLP) projections due to IV, except in the central North Atlantic. Conversely, the spread in North Atlantic MSLP projections associated with model differences is largely unexplained by the NAO. Therefore, improving understanding of the NAO alone may not constrain the reducible uncertainty in North Atlantic MSLP projections.

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