the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Validation of boreal summer tropical-extratropical causal links in seasonal forecasts
Dim Coumou
Bart van der Hurk
Antje Weissheimer
Andrew G. Turner
Reik V. Donner
Abstract. Much of the forecast skill in the mid-latitudes on seasonal timescales originates from deep convection in the tropical belt. For boreal summer, such tropical-extratropical teleconnections are less well understood as compared to winter. Here we validate the representation of boreal tropical – extratropical teleconnections in a general circulation model in comparison with observational data. To characterise variability between tropical convective activity and mid-latitude circulation, we identify the South Asian monsoon (SAM) – circumglobal teleconnection (CGT) pattern and the western North Pacific summer monsoon (WNPSM) – North Pacific high (NPH) pairs as the leading modes of tropical-extratropical coupled variability in both reanalysis (ERA5) and seasonal forecast (SEAS5) data. We calculate causal maps, an application of the PCMCI causal discovery algorithm which identifies causal links in a 2D field, to show the causal effect of each of these patterns on circulation and convection in the Northern Hemisphere. The spatial patterns and signs of the causal links in SEAS5 closely resemble those seen in ERA5, independent of the initialization date of SEAS5. However, the strength of causal links in SEAS5 is often too weak (about two thirds of those in ERA5). By performing a subsampling (over time) experiment, we identify those regions for which SEAS5 data well reproduce ERA5 values, e.g. South-eastern US, and highlight those where the bias is more prominent, e.g. North Africa. We demonstrate that different El Niño – Southern Oscillation phases have only a marginal effect on the strength of these links. Finally, we discuss the potential role of model mean-state biases in explaining differences between SEAS5 and ERA5 causal links.
- Preprint
(4712 KB) -
Supplement
(4823 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Giorgia Di Capua et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wcd-2022-48', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Sep 2022
This paper examines the representation of tropical-extratropical teleconnections in the ECMWF SEAS5 seasonal forecast model. They use causal effect analysis techniques to examine how the South Asian monsoon and western north Pacific summer monsoon affect the circulation in the extratropics, and vice versa. They show that while the model has an overall good representation of these links, they are generally too weak in SEAS5, and also show which links in particular suffer from the largest biases. The manuscript is well written and logically laid out. I like the use of the CEN and PCMCI analysis to diagnose the potential causes of weak teleconnections in SEAS5, and believe that this work will be useful for helping identify areas which require improvement if the representation of tropical-extratropical teleconnections is to be improved in seasonal forecast models.
Almost all of my comments are minor clarifications or typos. The only more general comment that I have is that this work ties in nicely with recent work by Beverley et al 2021. They explored the SAM-CGT connection by performing thermal forcing experiments in ECMWF System 4 by applying a heating over the Indian subcontinent. Their results are consistent with those shown here – that SAM heating in the model is effective at driving a CGT-like wave train between Eurasia and North America, and they also hypothesize that this wave train is reinforced by the westward response associated with the Rodwell and Hoskins mechanism. Some discussion of how this work is linked to the present study would be appreciated.
Other minor comments/typos:
Line 43: It would be good to define the PCMCI acronym here
Line 100: Change to “…at the beginning of July”
Line 108: Change to “…they allow one to identify…”
Line 141: Change to “As for ERA5, SEAS5 data are also regridded…”
Line 188: Remove “for”
Line 236: “Remover” -> “Removed”
Line 237: “were” -> “where”
Line 256: I think this should be the eastern side of the Caspian Sea, rather than western side
Line 264: “chose” -> “chosen”
Line 267 and Table 2: Are these spatial correlations calculated over the relevant regions e.g. 15S-30N/25-75N? It would be good to clarify this in the text and/or table caption
Line 284: “ERA-SMCA” -> “ERA-S MCA”
Line 290: I think SAM and CGT should be the other way around in this sentence “the effect of ERA-S CGT and SAM on Z200…”
Line 295: It seems a bit of a stretch to call this a wave train from looking at Fig 3e, although maybe this is just because it doesn’t show up well with the significance?
Line 301: I think this should reference Fig 3c not 3e
Line 306: As with line 290, I think WNPSM and NPH should be the other way around
Line 317: Change to “…while the effect of the mid-latitude CGT pattern…” ?
Line 339: “ERA-S in larger” -> “ERA-S is larger”
Line 400: “line” -> “lines”
Line 423: Remove “figures”
Line 434: I think this should be “west of the African continent”
Line 444: I think the negative and positive are the wrong way around in this sentence. I assume the authors are referring to precip in having it this way around, but the figures are for OLR, which has the opposite sign (i.e. positive OLR bias = negative precip bias)
Line 455: How many samples are there under each of these criteria?
Line 489: Remove “can be noticed”
Line 495: I think this should be eastern central Africa?
Line 499: Regions (1) and (2), rather than (1) to (3)?
Line 514: I think this figure reference should be to S11i and S11l
Line 516: I think the two figure references in this sentence are the wrong way around i.e. S12i and S12l should come first
Line 517: I think this should be “stronger during ENSO phases”, rather than neutral phases?
Line 541: Remove “in total”
Line 547: “to generate” -> “generating”
Line 592: I think this should be eastern Africa, rather than western Africa
Line 628: Change to “…confirm these results and their implications. Finally…”
Figures:
Figure 2a has two “actor2” – presumably one should be actor1
Figure 3 caption: It may be good to mention what the boxes are in this caption
Figure 4 caption: Same as Fig 3
Figure 9: I would plot these on the same projection as the other maps (i.e. 15S-75N) – this might make the different features a bit easier to see
Reference:
Beverley, J. D., S. J. Woolnough, L. H. Baker, S. J. Johnson, A. Weisheimer and C. H. O'Reilly, 2021: Dynamical mechanisms linking Indian monsoon precipitation and the circumglobal teleconnection. Climate Dynamics, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05825-6
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2022-48-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Giorgia Di Capua, 09 Nov 2022
We thank the anonymous reviewer #1 for their positive and helpful review. We have addressed all comments and suggestions and the manuscript is now improved in readability and a few minor mistakes have been corrected. As suggested, we now discuss the results shown in Beverley et al (2021) in the discussion section. “In general, our results also show good agreement with what is shown in Beverley et al. (2021), in which the interaction between the CGT and the SAM is explored by applying a heating source of the Indian subcontinent in ECMWF System 4. Their results show that the heating source induced by SAM convective activity is effective at driving a CGT-like wave train in northern mid-latitudes, however the response in the model is weak compared to the observed patterns.” lines 531-535
A point by point response to all minor comments is provided in the attached pdf file.
(Note that we are prevented from uploading the revised manuscript at this stage of the review process)
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Giorgia Di Capua, 09 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on wcd-2022-48', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Oct 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Giorgia Di Capua, 09 Nov 2022
We thank the anonymous reviewer #2 for the careful and insightful review comments. We have revised our manuscript taking into account all suggestions and we find that the manuscript has improved in its clarity and that the analysis itself is now more robust. The most critical comment is #1, where the anonymous reviewer suggests testing the subsampling using 24 years instead of 60 years as previously done. Addressing this comment shows that the strength of the β values in SEAS5 is less underestimated than what has been shown in the first version of the manuscript. Thus, considering causal maps obtained with time series of the same length does represent an important improvement in the manuscript, i.e., we can be more optimistic about the capability of SEAS5 in reproducing the strength of the observed causal links. Nevertheless, qualitatively the main message of the paper does not change, i.e. (a) SEAS5 can reproduce the sign and spatial patterns of the tropical – extratropical teleconnection in boreal summer although (b) in some regions, e.g. North Africa, the Maritime continent and North America, the strength of the β values is strongly underestimated.
A detailed response to each comment is found in the attached pdf. Note that at this stage of the review we are prevented from uploading the revised manuscipt. - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Giorgia Di Capua, 09 Nov 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Giorgia Di Capua, 09 Nov 2022
Giorgia Di Capua et al.
Giorgia Di Capua et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
493 | 281 | 14 | 788 | 88 | 6 | 2 |
- HTML: 493
- PDF: 281
- XML: 14
- Total: 788
- Supplement: 88
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1