Evaluation of rainfall drivers and teleconnections in an ACCESS AMIP run

Risbey, JS; McIntosh, PC; Pook, MJ; Rashid, Ha; Hirst, AC

doi:10.22499/2.6102.001

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used this framework rather than coupled global climate models (GCMs) as previous studies have shown that coupled models underestimate the MSLP response to external forcings (Gillett et al 2003(Gillett et al , 2005Gillett and Stott 2009;Barkhordarian 2012;Bhend and Whetton 2013) and underestimate atmospheric blocking (Scaife et al 2010;Flato et al 2013). Models with lower biases, including atmosphere-only models, have been shown to perform better (Scaife et al 2010;Risbey et al 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective

Herring¹,

Hoerling²,

Kossin³

et al. 2015

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective

Herring¹,

Hoerling²,

Kossin³

et al. 2015

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rainfall over Australia is strongly affected by sea surface temperature as well as other climatic and weather drivers (Risbey et al 2011). Hence, we first compare the AMIP style simulations, 1.0A and 1.3A, to observations, thus excluding any effects of the coupled model calculated SST anomalies and associated feedbacks between the ocean and the atmosphere.…”

Section: Precipitation and Screen Temperature Biases Over Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The patterns of precipitation are very similar to the AMIP runs but overall there is more precipitation in both 1.0C and 1.3C in both seasons in the centre of the continent but not in the coastal areas and Cape York Peninsula. In 1.3C the more intense summer rainfall along the east coast has retreated showing that the more intense easterly flow events generating the rainfall (Risbey et al 2011) are not captured by the coupled model. Figure 13 compares the simulated mean screen-level temperature from the AMIP simulation with ERA-interim reanalysis.…”

Section: Precipitation and Screen Temperature Biases Over Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

The land surface model component of ACCESS: description and impact on the simulated surface climatology

Kowalczyk¹,

Stevens²,

Law³

et al. 2013

131

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The land surface component of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) is one difference between the two versions of ACCESS used to run simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The Met Office Surface Exchange Scheme (MOSES) and the Community Atmosphere Biosphere Land Exchange (CABLE) model are described and compared. The impact on the simulated present day land surface climatology is assessed, in both atmosphere only and coupled model cases. Analysis is focused on seasonal mean precipitation and screen-level temperature, both globally and for Australia. Many of the biases from observations are common across both ACCESS versions and both atmosphere only and coupled cases. Where the simulations from the two versions differ, the choice of land surface model is often only a small contributor with changes to the cloud simulation also important. Differences that can be traced to the land surface model include warm biases with CABLE due to underestimation of surface albedo, better timing of northern hemisphere snowmelt and smaller seasonal and diurnal temperature ranges with CABLE than MOSES.

show abstract

“…17(b, c)) is compared with that in the Bureau of Meteorology rainfall dataset (Fig. 17(a)); the rainfall teleconnection in the AMIP simulation with an earlier version of the ACCESS atmosphere model was investigated by Risbey et al (2011). distributions. The coupled models also do a reasonable job in simulating the ENSO-induced pressure patterns, with some exceptions.…”

Section: Enso Teleconnectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of El Niño-Southern Oscillation in the ACCESS coupled model simulations for CMIP5

Rashid¹,

Sullivan²,

Hirst³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the key performance measures for Coupled General Circulation Models (CGCMs) is their ability to realistically simulate the prominent modes of climate variability. Here, we investigate the realism of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the dominant mode of observed interannual climate variability, as simulated by the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (AC-CESS). We examine the key ENSO properties calculated from observations and from the pre-industrial control and historical simulations performed by versions 1.0 and 1.3 of the ACCESS coupled model (ACCESS-CM), as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). The ENSO properties examined are the spatial structure and timescales, phase locking to the annual cycle, growth and decay of Niño3 SST anomalies, and the coupled ENSO evolution, as well as the ENSO induced teleconnection patterns (as diagnosed by linear regressions of the three-dimensional atmospheric circulation field, rainfall, sea-level pressure, and the upper-tropospheric geopotential heights onto the Niño3 index). The coupled evolutions of SST, zonal wind stress, and the thermocline depth during a typical ENSO event are used to illustrate the essential features of ENSO dynamics. Our results show that both versions of the ACCESS-CM perform reasonably well in simulating the ENSO properties and teleconnections. In particular, the spatial structure, timescales, phase locking, and the growth and decay rates of ENSO are well simulated. The evolution of SST, zonal wind stress, and the thermocline depth during ENSO events is also reasonably well simulated, although the SST (zonal wind stress) response is found to be stronger (weaker) than observed. The simulated ENSO teleconnection patterns are also mostly realistic, despite some adverse impact of the equatorial Pacific cold SST bias on the local precipitation response. The present study shows that the ACCESS-CMs simulate the key ENSO properties (e.g. amplitude and spatial structure, timescales, and atmospheric teleconnections) better than most of the previous generations of CGCMs.

show abstract

Evaluation of rainfall drivers and teleconnections in an ACCESS AMIP run

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective

Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective

The land surface model component of ACCESS: description and impact on the simulated surface climatology

Evaluation of El Niño-Southern Oscillation in the ACCESS coupled model simulations for CMIP5

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About