4.7 Article

Tropical Indian Ocean variability in the IPCC twentieth-century climate simulations

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 19, 期 17, 页码 4397-4417

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3847.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The twentieth-century simulations using by 17 coupled ocean - atmosphere general circulation models (CGCMs) submitted to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) are evaluated for their skill in reproducing the observed modes of Indian Ocean (IO) climate variability. Most models successfully capture the IO's delayed, basinwide warming response a few months after El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) peaks in the Pacific. ENSO's oceanic teleconnection into the IO, by coastal waves through the Indonesian archipelago, is poorly simulated in these models, with significant shifts in the turning latitude of radiating Rossby waves. In observations, ENSO forces, by the atmospheric bridge mechanism, strong ocean Rossby waves that induce anomalies of SST, atmospheric convection, and tropical cyclones in a thermocline dome over the southwestern tropical IO. While the southwestern IO thermocline dome is simulated in nearly all of the models, this ocean Rossby wave response to ENSO is present only in a few of the models examined, suggesting difficulties in simulating ENSO's teleconnection in surface wind. A majority of the models display an equatorial zonal mode of the Bjerknes feedback with spatial structures and seasonality similar to the Indian Ocean dipole (IOD) in observations. This success appears to be due to their skills in simulating the mean state of the equatorial IO. Corroborating the role of the Bjerknes feedback in the IOD, the thermocline depth, SST, precipitation, and zonal wind are mutually positively correlated in these models, as in observations. The IOD - ENSO correlation during boreal fall ranges from -0.43 to 0.74 in the different models, suggesting that ENSO is one, but not the only, trigger for the IOD.

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