Tropical cyclone genesis over the western North Pacific simulated by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 models

Cong Gao, Lei Zhou. Tropical cyclone genesis over the western North Pacific simulated by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 models[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1860-9
 Citation: Cong Gao, Lei Zhou. Tropical cyclone genesis over the western North Pacific simulated by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 models[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica.

Tropical cyclone genesis over the western North Pacific simulated by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 models

Funds: The National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract Nos 42076001, 41690121, and 41690120; the Innovation Group Project of Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai) under contract No. 311020004; the Oceanic Interdisciplinary Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University under contract No. SL2020PT205.
Corresponding author:E-mail: gaocong@sjtu.edu.cn
• 关键词:
•  /
•  /
•  /
•
• Figure  1.  The observed and simulated climatological TC genesis during the period of 1980–2014 over the WNP. a. Results from IBTrACS. Black dots indicate TC genesis locations and colors represent TCGN in a regular grid with a horizontal resolution of 2.5°×2.5° (longitude×latitude). b. GPI derived using ERSSTv5 and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. R represents the CPCC between the observation and simulation, which passes the two-tailed Student’s t-test at p = 0.01.

Figure  2.  The observed and simulated annual cycle of TCGN in the period of 1980–2014 over the WNP. Red line represents the results from IBTrACS, and blue line represents the GPI derived using ERSSTv5 and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. R is the Pearson linear correlation coefficient, which passes the two-tailed Student’s t-test at p = 0.01.

Figure  3.  TC genesis during El Niño and La Niña years over the WNP. a. Results from IBTrACS. Red dots and blue dots indicate TC genesis locations in El Niño and La Niña years, respectively. b. Difference in the GPI (derived using ERSSTv5 and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis) between El Niño and La Niña years. Shaded areas represent the 99% confidence level according to the two-tailed Student’s t-test. Zonal gray line at 20°N and meridional line at 145°E divide the WNP into four subregions.

Figure  4.  Cumulative distribution function of the longitude (a) and latitude (b) of TC genesis locations over the WNP. Blue and red lines represent the results of La Niña (LN) and El Niño (EN) years, respectively. The observed TC genesis is shown in solid lines and the observed GPIs (derived using ERSSTv5 and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis) are shown in dashed lines.

Figure  5.  The simulated climatological GPIs over the WNP in CMIP6 models. a. Multi-model ensemble (MME) of 25 CMIP6 models and b–z. simulations in each of 25 CMIP6 models. The skill score of each model is shown on the upper-right corner from a to z.

Figure  6.  The GPI obtained with ERSSTv5 and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis.

Figure  7.  The impacts of the ${H}_{600}$ bias on the GPI. a. Ensemble mean impact of 25 CMIP6 models and b–z. Impacts for each of 25 CMIP6 models. The impacts shown by shaded areas is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.

Figure  8.  Annual cycle of the observed GPI (thick black line) and the simulated GPIs in 25 CMIP6 models. All GPIs are normalized by subtracting the corresponding climatological mean and dividing by the standard deviation. Numbers in the legend are the serial numbers corresponding to the 25 CMIP6 models in Table 1.

Figure  9.  Differences in GPI between El Niño and La Niña years simulated in WMME (a) and PMME (b). Shaded areas represent the 99% confidence level according to the two-tailed Student’s t-test. Contours indicate the difference in the observed GPI (Fig. 3b) between El Niño and La Niña years.

Figure  10.  Difference in GPI composites during El Niño and La Niña years caused by varying each variable in Eq. (1). Rows 1–4 show the contribution of low-level vorticity, vertical wind shear, humidity in the mid-troposphere, and potential intensity, respectively. Left column shows the results obtained with ERSSTv5 and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. Middle column shows the results from the multi-model mean of the well-simulated group. Right column shows the results from the multi-model mean of the poorly simulated group. Shaded areas represent the 99% confidence level according to the two-tailed Student’s t-test. For each panel in the middle and right columns, the CPCCs between the panel and the corresponding observations (the panel on the left column) are shown (purple) in the upper-right corner. For example, the CPCC in b is the correlation coefficient between the pattern in b and the pattern in a.

Figure  11.  Differences in SST (a, b), SAT (c, d) and CP (e and f) between El Niño and La Niña years simulated in WMME (a, c, e) and PMME (b, d, f). Shaded areas represent the 99% confidence level according to the two-tailed Student’s t-test. Contours indicate the differences in the SST from ERSSTv5, SAT from NCEP/NCAR reanalysis, and CP from ERA5 between El Niño and La Niña years. The CPCCs between the simulations and the observations are shown (purple) in the upper-right corner.

计量
• 文章访问数:  228
• HTML全文浏览量:  88
• PDF下载量:  16
• 被引次数: 0
出版历程
• 收稿日期:  2021-03-05
• 录用日期:  2021-05-08
• 网络出版日期:  2022-01-17

/

• 分享
• 用微信扫码二维码

分享至好友和朋友圈