Abstract
This study explores the decadal potential predictability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) as represented in the IPSL-CM5A-LR model, along with the predictability of associated oceanic and atmospheric fields. Using a 1000-year control run, we analyze the prognostic potential predictability (PPP) of the AMOC through ensembles of simulations with perturbed initial conditions. Based on a measure of the ensemble spread, the modelled AMOC has an average predictive skill of 8 years, with some degree of dependence on the AMOC initial state. Diagnostic potential predictability of surface temperature and precipitation is also identified in the control run and compared to the PPP. Both approaches clearly bring out the same regions exhibiting the highest predictive skill. Generally, surface temperature has the highest skill up to 2 decades in the far North Atlantic ocean. There are also weak signals over a few oceanic areas in the tropics and subtropics. Predictability over land is restricted to the coastal areas bordering oceanic predictable regions. Potential predictability at interannual and longer timescales is largely absent for precipitation in spite of weak signals identified mainly in the Nordic Seas. Regions of weak signals show some dependence on AMOC initial state. All the identified regions are closely linked to decadal AMOC fluctuations suggesting that the potential predictability of climate arises from the mechanisms controlling these fluctuations. Evidence for dependence on AMOC initial state also suggests that studying skills from case studies may prove more useful to understand predictability mechanisms than computing average skill from numerous start dates.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aumont O, Bopp L (2006) Globalizing results from ocean in situ iron fertilization studies. Global Biogeochem Cycles 20, GB2017, doi:10.1029/2005GB002591
Boer GJ (2001) Decadal potential predictability in coupled models. CLIVAR exchanges, vol. 129, no. 3
Boer GJ (2004) Long-timescale potential predictability in an ensemble of coupled climate models. Clim Dyn 23:29–44
Boer GJ (2011) Decadal potential predictability of twenry-first century climate. Clim Dyn 36:1119–1133. doi:10.1007/s00382-010-0747-9
Boer GJ, Lambert SJ (2008) Multi-model decadal potential predictability of precipitations and temperature. Geophys Res Lett 35:L05706. doi:10.1029/2008GL033234
Branstator G, Teng H, Meehl G, Kimoto M, Knight J, Latif M, Rosati A (2012) Systematic estimates of initial value decadal predictability for six AOGCMs. J Climate 25:1827–1846
Brearley JA, Pickart RS, Valdimarsson H, Jonsson S, Schmitt RW, Haine TWN (2012) The East Greenland boundary current system south of Denmark Strait. Deep Sea Res Part I 63:1–19. doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2012.01.001
Bretherton CS et al (1999) The effective number of spatial degrees of freedom of a time-varying field. J Clim 12:1990–2009
Chen D, Cane MA, Kaplan A, Zebiak SE, Huang D (2004) Predictability of El Niño over the past 148 years. Nature 428:733–736
Chiang JCH, Cheng W, Bitz CM (2008) Fast teleconnections to the tropical Atlantic sector from the Atlantic thermohaline adjustment. Geophys Res Lett 35:L07704. doi:10.1029/2008GL033292
Collins M (2002) Climate predictability on interannual to decadal timescales: the initial value problem. Clim Dyn 19:671–692
Collins M, Sinha B (2003) Predictable Decadal Variations in the Thermohaline Circulation and Climate. Geophys Res Lett 30(6). doi:10.1029/2002GLO16504
Collins M, Botzet M, Carril A, Drange H, Jouzeau A, Latif M, Otteraa OH, Pohlmann H, Sorteberg A, Sutton R, Terray L (2006) Interannual to decadal climate predictability in the North Atlantic: a multi-model ensemble study. J Clim 19:1195–1203
Curry R, Dickson B, Yashayaev I (2003) A change in the freshwater balance of the Atlantic Ocean over the past four decades. Nature 426:826–829
Delworth TL, Mann ME (2000) Observed and simulated multi-decadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Clim Dyn 16:661–676
Dufresne JL et al. (2012) climate change projections using the ISPL-CM5 earth system model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim Dyn (in revision)
Dunstone NJ, Smith DM, Eade R (2011) Multi-year predictability of the tropical Atlantic atmosphere driven by the high latitude North Atlantic Ocean. Geophys Res Lett 38(14):L14701. doi:10.1029/2011GL047949
Escudier R, Mignot J, Swingedouw D (2012) A coupled ocean-sea ice-atmosphere decadal variability mode in the North Atlantic in an AOGCM. Clim Dyn (accepted)
Fichefet T, Maqueda MAM (1997) Sensitivity of a global sea ice model to the treatment of ice thermodynamics and dynamics. J Geophys Res 102:2609–2612
Fisher RA (1921) On the ‘probable error’ of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron 1(4):3–32
Folland CK, Parker DE, Palmer TN (1986) Sahel rainfall and worldwide sea temperatures, 1901–85. Nature 320:602–607
Frankignoul C (1985) Sea surface temperature anomalies, planetary waves, and air-sea feedback in the middle latitudes. Rev Geo phys 23:357–390
Frankignoul C, Hasselmann K (1977) Stochastic climate models. Part II: application to sea-surface temperature variability and thermocline variability. Tellus 29:284–305
Frankignoul C, Kestenare E, Mignot J (2002) The surface heat flux feedback. Part II: direct and indirect estimates in the ECHAM4/OPA8 coupled GCM. Clim Dyn 19:649–655
Gastineau G, D’Andrea F, Frankignoul C (2012) Atmospheric response to the North Atlantic Ocean variability on seasonal to decadal timescales in IPSL-CM5. Clim dyn (accepted)
Griffies SM, Bryan K (1997) Predictability of North Atlantic multidecadal climate variability. Science 275(5297):181–184
Hawkins E, Sutton R (2008) Potential predictability of rapid changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Geophys Res Lett 35:L11603. doi:10.1029/2008GL034059
Hawkins E, Robson J, Sutton R, Smith D, Keenlyside N (2011) Evaluating the potential for statistical decadal predictions of sea surface temperatures with a perfect model approach. Clim Dyn. doi:10.1007/s00382-011-1023-3
Hermanson L, Sutton RT (2009) Climate predictability in the second year. Philos Trans R Soc A 367:913–916
Hourdin F, Foujols MA, Codron F, Guemas V, Dufresne JL, Bony S, Denvil S, Guez L, Lott F, Ghattas J, Braconnot P, Marti O, Meurdesoif Y, Bopp L (2012) Climate and sensitivity of the IPSL-CM5A coupled model: impact of the LMDZ atmospheric grid configuration. Clim Dyn (in revision)
Hurrell J, Meehl G, Bader D, Delworth T, Kirtman B, Wielicki B (2009) A unified modeling approach to climate system prediction. Bull Am Meteor Soc 90:1819–1832. doi:10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1
Kerr RA (2000) A north Atlantic climate pacemaker for the centuries. Science 288(5473):1984
Knight JR, Allan RJ, Folland CK, Vellinga M, Mann ME (2005) A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophys Res Lett 32:L20708. doi:10.1029/2005GL024233
Knight J, Folland CK, Scaife AA (2006) Climate impacts of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Geophys Res Lett 33:L17706. doi:10.1029/2006GL026242
Krinner GN, et al. (2005) A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Glob Biogeochem Cyc 19. doi:10.1029/2003GB002199
Kushnir Y (1994) Interdecadal variations in north Atlantic sea surface temperature and associated atmospheric conditions. J Clim 7(1):142–157
Latif M, Roeckner E, Botzet M, Esch M, Haak H, Hagemann S, Jungclaus J, Legutke S, Marsland S, Mikolajewicz U (2004) Reconstructing, monitoring, and predicting multidecadal-scale changes in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation with sea surface temperature. J Clim 17:1605–1614
Livezey RE, Chen WY (1983) Statistical field significance and its determination by Monte Carlo techniques. Mon Weather Rev 111:46–59
Madden RA (1976) Estimates of the natural variability of time-averaged sea-level pressure. Mon Weather Rev 104:942–952
Madec G (2008) NEMO ocean engine, note du Pole de modelisation, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL)
Meehl GA, Goddard L, Murphy J, Stouffer RJ, Boer G, Danabasoglu G, Dixon K, Giorgetta MA, Greene A, Hawkins E, Hegerl G, Karoly D, Keenlyside N, Kimoto M, Kirtman B, Navarra A, Pulwarty R, Smith D, Stammer D, Stockdale T (2009) Decadal prediction: can it be skillful? Bull Am Meteor Soc 90:1467–1485
Msadek R, Frankignoul C (2009) Atlantic multidecadal oceanic variability and its influence on the atmosphere in a climate model. Clim Dyn. doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0452-0
Msadek R, Dixon KW, Delworth TL, Hurlin W (2010) Assessing the predictability of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and associated fingerprints. Geophys Res Lett 37:L19608. doi:10.1029/2010GL044517
National Research Council; Committee on Assessment of Intraseasonal to Interannual Climate Predition and Predictability (2010) Assessment of Intraseasonal to Interannual Climate Prediction and Predictability. National Academy of Science, Washington, p 192
Newman M, Sardeshmukh PD, Winkler CR, Whitaker JS (2003) A study of subseasonal predictability. Mon Weather Rev 131:1715–1732
Persechino A, Marsh R, Sinha B, Megann A, Blaker A, New A (2012) Decadal-timescale changes of the Atlantic overturning circulation and climate in a coupled climate model with a hybrid-coordinate ocean component. Clim Dyn 39(3):1021–1042
Pohlmann H, Botzet M, Latif M, Roesch A, Wild M, Tschuck P (2004) Estimating the decadal predictability of a coupled AOGCM. J Clim 17:4463–4472
Quenouille MH (1952) Associated measurements. Butterworths, p 242
Rowell DP (1998) Assessing potential seasonal predictability with an ensemble of multidecadal GCM simulations. J Clim 11:109–120
Rowell DP, Folland CK, Maskell K, Ward MN (1995) Variability of summer rainfall over tropical North-Africa (1906–92) observations and modeling. Q J R Meteorol Soc 121:669–704
Smith DM, Eade R, Dunstone NJ, Fereday D, Murphy JM, Pohlmann H, Scaife AA (2010) Skilful multi-year predictions of Atlantic hurricane frequency. Nat Geosci. doi:10.1038/NGEO1004
Solomon A, et al. (2011) Distinguishing the roles of natural and anthropogenically forced decadal climate variability: implications for prediction US CLIVAR Decadal Predictability Working Group. Bull Am Meteor Soc 92(2). doi:10.1175/2010BAMS29621
Sutton RT, Hodson DLR (2005) Atlantic Ocean forcing of North American and European summer climate. Science 309:115–118
Swingedouw D, Braconnot P, Delecluse P, Guilyardi E, Marti O (2007) The impact of global freshwater forcing on the thermohaline circulation: adjustment of North Atlantic convection sites in a CGCM. Clim Dyn 28:291–305
Swingedouw D, Mignot J, Braconnot P, Mosquet E, Kageyama M, Alkama R (2009) Impact of freshwater release in the North Atlantic under different climate conditions in an OAGCM. J Clim 22:6377–6403
Swingedouw D, Mignot J, Labetoule S, Guilyardi E, Madec G (2012) Initialisation and predictability of the AMOC over the last 50 years in a climate model. Clim Dyn (in revision)
Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GE (2009) A summary of the CMIP5 experiment design. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Rep, p 32
Teng H, Branstator G, Meehl GA (2011) Predictability of the Atlantic overturning circulation and associated surface patterns in two CCSM3 climate change ensemble experiments. J Clim 24:6054–6076
Ting M, Kushnir Y, Seager R, LIC (2009) Forced and internal twentieth century SST trends in the North Atlantic. J Climate 22:1469–1481
Valcke S (2006) OASIS3 user guide (prism_2-5), technical report TR/CMGC/06/73, PRISM Report No 2. CERFACS, Toulouse, p 60
Vellinga M, Wu P (2004) Low-latitude freshwater influence on centennial variability of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. J Clim 17:4498–4511
Xie SP, Okumura Y, Miyama T, Timmermann A (2008) Influences of Atlantic climate change on the tropical Pacific via the Central American Isthmus. J Clim 21:3914–3928
Zhang R, Delworth TL (2006) Impact of Atlantic multidecadal oscillations on India/Sahel rainfall and Atlantic hurricanes. Geophys Res Lett 33:L17712
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the “Gestion des Impacts du Changement Climatique” Programme (GICC) under the EPIDOM project funded by MEDDTL (French Ministery of Ecology and sustained development). The authors are grateful to Bablu Sinha, Roland Séférian and Lisl Weynans for their useful comments. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is a contribution to the special issue on the IPSL and CNRM global climate and Earth System Models, both developed in France and contributing to the 5th coupled model intercomparison project.
Appendices
Appendix 1: diagnostic potential predictability (DPP) approach
The DPP approach attempts to quantify the fraction of long-term variability (considered as predictable) as compared to the internal variability (considered as chaotic and unpredictable). The long-term variability that rises above this noise is deemed to arise from processes operating in the physical system that are assumed to be, at least potentially, predictable. Boer (2004) defined the potential predictability variance fraction (ppvf) as an estimate of DPP. Here, we use its non-biased estimation (see Boer 2004 for further details) defined as:
where σ 2 N represents the variance of N-year means, and σ2 represents the interannual variance of the variable X considered. The ppvf varies between 0 and 1; a ppvf close to 0 implies no long-term variability and thus no potential predictability. Conversely, ppvf close to 1 implies large predictability. Statistical significance of ppvf is judged using a F-test at the 95 % confidence level. A threshold for “useful” potential predictability is however hard to define, as it is likely to be purpose and situation dependent. Nevertheless, it remains an easy statistical way to estimate the average predictive skill in a model.
Prognostic potential predictability (PPP) approach
Prognostic predictability studies consist in performing ensemble experiments with a single coupled model by perturbing the initial conditions (ICs) supposed to represent atmospheric chaotic noise or uncertainty in the present climate state. Ensemble Correlation (EC) and Ensemble spread (ES) are the two deterministic measures used here to quantify the predictability of the simulated climate.
2.1 Ensemble correlation (EC)
In the forecast framework, correlation addresses the question: “to what extent are the forecasts varying coherently with the observed variability?”. In the “perfect ensemble” approach, the definition of “observed variability” differs from one study to another: it can refer to the variability of the ensemble mean (i.e. the average of all members for an individual ensemble) as in Msadek et al. 2010 (M10) or to the variability of an individual member as in Collins and Sinha 2003 (CS03). In other words, in the M10 approach, predictability skill is evaluated by correlating each member of the ensemble to the ensemble mean whereas in the CS03 approach each member is correlated to each other. If M is the number of members, we therefore obtain M (resp. M(M-1)/2) individual correlations for M10 (resp. CS03). Independently of the approach used, the formula for the individual correlation of any pairs p is:
where T is the number of years over which we want the correlation for, and A and B are the members forming the pair p. Once the individual correlations of all pairs have been calculated (M pairs for M10, M(M-1)/2 pairs for CS03), EC of the ensemble is computed as the mean of all individual correlations through a Fisher Transformation (Fisher 1921). We will consider the two definitions presented above to evaluate possible differences in their respective score of predictive skills. Statistical significance of the resulting EC is judged using a one-tailed Student’s t-distribution test at the 90 % confidence level with degree of freedom corresponding to the average degree of freedom of all individual correlations. The degree of freedom of these latter takes into account the persistence in the two timeseries following Bretherton et al. (1999). In order to gain confidence in the estimation of the EC significativity, we also evaluated its significance by using the “field significance” approach (e.g. Livezey and Chen 1983). The statistical significance of EC obtained with this test is very similar to the ones obtained from the average degree of freedoom of all individual correlations.
2.2 Ensemble spread (ES)
ES or Root Mean Squared Error RMSE or again the Mean Squared Skill Score MSSS (as defined by the US CLIVAR working group on Decadal Predictability, http://clivar-dpwg.iri.columbia.edu) addresses the question: “how large are the typical errors in the forecast (among members) relative to those implied by baseline?”. Consistently with EC, we consider the two definitions of the baseline which arise from the literature: for a given lead-time LT, ES of an ensemble of individual members i is defined respectively as:
where we define: \( \bar{X}(LT) = \frac{1}{M}\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{M} {X_{i} (LT)} \)
We demonstrate below that there actually exists a relationship of proportionality between (3) and (4). Let consider the two following definitions of Mean Squared Error:
By expanding \( (X_{i} - \bar{X})^{2} \) in (5) and after a few rearrangements we show that:
Then, if we introduce:
We show by a recurrence reasoning that:
By expanding (X i − X j )2 in (8) and after a few rearrangements, we show that:
By combining (7), (9) and (10), we obtain the following relationship:
Therefore
And there exists a factor of proportionality \( \sqrt {\frac{2M}{M - 1}} \) between the ensemble spread of both CS03 and M10 definitions.
Generally, the trajectories of individual members diverge with time and thus ES increases with LT. When ES saturates at the control RMSE, we consider that there is no more potential predictability: the spread of the forecast is of similar magnitude as the natural spread of the modelled climate, and no predictability can be inferred. In CS03 (M10) the control RMSE is defined as σ√2 (σ√[(M − 1)/M]), where σ is the standard deviation of the control integration. Statistical significance of ES as compared to the respective threshold (or control RMSE) is judged using a F-test at the 95 % confidence level. The maximum LT at which a variable is said to be potentially predictable is the last LT before ES persistently exceeds the threshold.
2.3 Relationship between ES and EC
We consider here centred and normalized (by the standard deviation) data in time t.
We consider the CS03 definition of ES and EC:
where the discrete time correlation using centred and normalized data is:
We consider the average of ES over the period of time T: \( < ES^{2} >_{T} = \frac{1}{T}\sum\nolimits_{t = 1}^{T} {ES^{2} } (t) \)
By expanding (X i (t) − X j (t))2 in (13) and after a few rearrangments we can show that:
Since the variables are centred and normalized:
Hence, we obtain the following result:
For the real case, where the data are not normalized and centred, which is more appropriate for ES estimation, no such simple relationship can be found analytically, but we hypothesize that ES and EC remain related. A few illustrations of such link are evidenced in the manuscript (see Sect. 4.1.2) and plead in favour of this hypothesis.
Appendix 2
We present the individual correlation maps for temperature (Fig. 11) and precipitation (Fig. 12) for each starting date in the PPP protocol. These individual results are aggregated in Figs. 9 and 10.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Persechino, A., Mignot, J., Swingedouw, D. et al. Decadal predictability of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and climate in the IPSL-CM5A-LR model. Clim Dyn 40, 2359–2380 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1466-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1466-1