Tropical intraseasonal variability in 14 IPCC AR4 climate models. Part I: Convective signals

This study evaluates the tropical intraseasonal variability, especially the fidelity of The results show that current state-of-the-art GCMs still have significant problems and display a wide range of skill in simulating the tropical intraseasonal variability. The total intraseasonal (2-128 day) variance of precipitation is too weak in most of the models. About half of the models have signals of convectively coupled equatorial waves, with Kelvin and MRG-EIG waves especially prominent. However, the variances are generally too weak for all wave modes except the EIG wave, and the phase speeds are generally too fast, being scaled to excessively deep equivalent depths. An interesting result is that this scaling is consistent within a given model across modes, in that both the symmetric and antisymmetric modes scale similarly to a certain equivalent depth. Excessively deep equivalent depths suggest that these models may not have a large enough reduction in their "effective static stability" due to diabatic heating. 3 The MJO variance approaches the observed value in only two of the 14 models, but is less than half of the observed value in the other 12 models. The ratio between the eastward MJO variance and the variance of its westward counterpart is too small in most of the models, which is consistent with the lack of highly coherent eastward propagation of the MJO in many models. Moreover, the MJO variance in 13 of the 14 models does not come from a pronounced spectral peak, but usually is associated with an overreddened spectrum, which in turn is associated with a too strong persistence of equatorial precipitation. The two models that arguably do best at simulating the MJO are the only ones having convective closures/triggers linked in some way to moisture convergence

Tropical intraseasonal variability in 14 IPCC AR4 climate models. Part I: Convective signals

This study evaluates the tropical intraseasonal variability, especially the fidelity of Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) simulations, in 14 coupled general circulation models (GCMs) participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Eight years of daily precipitation from each model’s twentieth-century climate simulation are analyzed and compared with daily satellite-retrieved precipitation. Space–time spectral analysis is used to obtain the variance and phase speed of dominant convectively coupled equatorial waves, including the MJO, Kelvin, equatorial Rossby (ER), mixed Rossby–gravity (MRG), and eastward inertio–gravity (EIG) and westward inertio–gravity (WIG) waves. The variance and propagation of the MJO, defined as the eastward wavenumbers 1–6, 30–70-day mode, are examined in detail. The results show that current state-of-the-art GCMs still have significant problems and display a wide range of skill in simulating the tropical intraseasonal variability. The total intraseasonal (2–128 day) variance of precipitation is too weak in most of the models. About half of the models have signals of convectively coupled equatorial waves, with Kelvin and MRG–EIG waves especially prominent. However, the variances are generally too weak for all wave modes except the EIG wave, and the phase speeds are generally too fast, being scaled to excessively deep equivalent depths. An interesting result is that this scaling is consistent within a given model across modes, in that both the symmetric and antisymmetric modes scale similarly to a certain equivalent depth. Excessively deep equivalent depths suggest that these models may not have a large enough reduction in their “effective static stability” by diabatic heating. The MJO variance approaches the observed value in only 2 of the 14 models, but is less than half of the observed value in the other 12 models. The ratio between the eastward MJO variance and the variance of its westward counterpart is too small in most of the models, which is consistent with the lack of highly coherent eastward propagation of the MJO in many models. Moreover, the MJO variance in 13 of the 14 models does not come from a pronounced spectral peak, but usually comes from part of an overreddened spectrum, which in turn is associated with too strong persistence of equatorial precipitation. The two models that arguably do best at simulating the MJO are the only ones having convective closures/triggers linked in some way to moisture convergence

Intraseasonal oscillations in 15 atmospheric general circulation models: results from an AMIP diagnostic subproject

The ability of 15 atmospheric GCM models (AGCM) to simulate the tropical intraseasonal oscillation has been studied as part of AMIP. Time series of the daily upper tropospheric velocity potential and zonal wind, averaged over the equatorial belt, were provided from each AGCM simulation. These data were analyzed using a variety of techniques such as time filtering and space-time spectral analysis to identify eastward and westward propagating waves. The results have been compared with an identical assessment of ECMWF analyses for the period 1982-1991. The models display a wide range of skill in simulating the intraseasonal oscillation. Most models show evidence of an eastward propagating anomaly in the velocity potential field, although in some models there is a greater tendency for a standing oscillation, and in one or two the field is rather chaotic with no preferred direction of propagation. Where a model has a clear eastward propagating signal, typical periodicities seem quite reasonable although there is a tendency for the models to simulate shorter periods than in the ECMWF analyses, where it is near 50 days. The results of the space-time spectral analysis have shown that no model has captured the dominance of the intraseasonal oscillation found in the analyses. Several models have peaks at intraseasonal time scales, but nearly all have relatively more power at higher frequencies

Simulation de l'évolution récente et future du climat par les modèles du CNRM et de l'IPSL

National audienceIn support of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that should appear in early 2007, modelling groups world-wide have performed a huge coordinated exercise of climate change runs for the 20th and 21st century. In this paper we present the results of the two french climate models, from CNRM and IPSL. In particular we emphasise the progress made since the previous IPCC report and we identify which results are comparable among models and which strongly differ.Dans le cadre de la préparation du 4e rapport du Groupe Intergouvernemental sur l'Evolution du Climat (GIEC) qui doit paraître début 2007, les principales équipes de modélisation du climat de part le monde ont réalisé un important exercice coordonné de simulation de l'évolution du climat au cours du 20e et du 21e siècle. Nous présentons ici les résultats obtenus par les modèles du CNRM et de l'IPSL, en évoquant les progrès réalisés depuis le précédent rapport du GIEC. Nous replacerons également nos résultats par rapport à ceux des autres modèles, et indiquerons les résultats qui sont communs à l'ensemble des modèles et ceux qui peuvent être différents

Development of a European Ensemble System for Seasonal to Inter-Annual Prediction (DEMETER)

Abstract not availableJRC.H-Institute for environment and sustainability (Ispra

Development of a European Ensemble System for Seasonal to Inter-Annual Prediction (DEMETER).

Abstract not availableJRC.H-Institute for environment and sustainability (Ispra