1 / 28

Siegfried Schubert, Max Suarez, Philip Pegion, Randal Koster and Julio Bacmeister

Potential Predictability of Drought and Pluvial Conditions over the Central United States on Interannual to Decadal Time Scales. 29th Annual Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop Madison, Wisconsin 18-22 October 2004. Siegfried Schubert, Max Suarez, Philip Pegion,

amal
Download Presentation

Siegfried Schubert, Max Suarez, Philip Pegion, Randal Koster and Julio Bacmeister

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Potential Predictability of Drought and Pluvial Conditions over the Central United States on Interannual to Decadal Time Scales 29th Annual Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop Madison, Wisconsin 18-22 October 2004 Siegfried Schubert, Max Suarez, Philip Pegion, Randal Koster and Julio Bacmeister Global Modeling and Assimilation Office Earth Sciences Directorate

  2. Problem and Approach Does the predictability of Great Plains precipitation change on inter-annual and longer time scales? If so - why? Examine the spread of an ensemble of century-long simulations forced with observed SSTs

  3. AGCM: NSIPP-1 (NASA S-I Prediction Project) Climatology and Skill (Bacmeister et al. 2000, Pegion et al. 2000, Schubert et al. 2002) Great Plains drought (Schubert et al. 2003; 2004) Global grid point dynamical core, 4rth Order (Suarez and Takacs 1995) Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert Convection (Moorthi and Suarez 1992) Shortwave/Longwave Radiation (Chou et al. 1994, 1999) Mosaic interactive land model (Koster and Suarez 1992, 1996) 1st Order PBL Turbulence Closure (Louis et al. 1982) C20C AGCM runs with Specified SST HadISST and sea ice dataset (1902-1999) 22 ensemble members - same SST, different ICs (14 with fixed CO2, 8 with time varying CO2) Model resolution: 3 degree latitude by 3.75 degree longitude (34 levels) Idealized AGCM runs forced with composite SST patterns

  4. C20C runs Model ensemble mean Observations

  5. CO2 runs in blue

  6. Quantities m - ensemble mean s2 - intra-ensemble variance (s/m)2 - intra-ensemble coefficient of variation

  7. Great Plains Precipitation (Normalized m, Normalized s2 )

  8. Great Plains Precipitation (Normalized m, Normalized s2 )

  9. Great Plains Precipitation (Normalized m, Normalized (s/m)2)

  10. Great Plains Precipitation (Normalized m, Normalized (s/m)2)

  11. (s2,m) ((s/ m)2,m) (s2,nino3) ((s/ m)2,nino3) (m,nino3) JFM 0.11-.33 0.02 -.15.37 FMA 0.03-.53 0.02 -.35 .71 MAM -.26 -.67 -.12 -.41 .75 AMJ -.55 -.76 -.23 -.38 .67 MJJ -.52 -.73 -.23 -.33 .53 JJA -.39 -.73 -.12 -.26 .45 JAS -.08 -.71 .04 -.26 .49 ASO 0.33-.53 .19 -.29 .59 SON 0.54-.46 .38 -.30 .70 OND 0.56-.38 .32 -.30 .70 NDJ 0.41-.28 .27 -.13 .61 DJF 0.19-.23 .00 -.11 .23 Summary of Correlations

  12. Results show that periods of less rain have greater relative variability than periods of more rain • implies that droughts are less predictable than pluvial conditions • How do the SST influence precipitation variability in the Great Plains? • atmospheric variability • land/atmosphere coupling

  13. Correlation Between Ensemble Mean (m) GP Precipitation and SST

  14. Correlation between SST and GP Precipitation (s/m)2

  15. Correlation between SST and GP Precipitation (s/m)2

  16. Composites based on Great Plains Precipitation (s/m)2

  17. 200mb Z Composites Based On Largest/Smallest Values of Coefficient of Variation of GP Precipitation Largest Smallest

  18. Difference in Composites of (s/m)2of 200mb Z Dimensionless

  19. Difference in Composites of (s/m)2of Evaporation

  20. Model Runs with Idealized SST • Focus on AMJ • Force model with 2 composite SST patterns • Positive: GP precip (s/m)2> +1 STD • Negative: GP precip (s/m)2< +1 STD • 100 ensemble members (March 1 - June30) for each composite • Initial soil moisture conditions are from AMIP runs • Repeat both sets of runs with fixed soil moisture (fixed beta)

  21. SST Forcing Fields GP precip (s/m)2> +1 STD GP precip (s/m)2< +1 STD °C

  22. Differences in Idealized Runs-Precipitation Fixed Beta Interactive soil

  23. Differences in Idealized Runs-Evaporation Interactive soil Fixed Beta

  24. From C20C Runs Soil Moisture

  25. Idealized run +1std Idealized run -1std DE DE DW DW W (soil moisture)

  26. Idealized run +1std Idealized run -1std C20C runs Fixed Beta Interactive soil

  27. Conclusions and Implications • In the Great Plains, simulated droughts are less predictable than pluvial conditions • Differences in ensemble spread are associated with changes in the strength of the atmosphere/land coupling • Should also be true in other “hot spots” • Future work - seasonality, model dependence, other regions (e.g. SW US), SST uncertainty

  28. JJA Land-Atmosphere Coupling Strength, Averaged Across AGCMs

More Related