Large-ensemble assessment of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex morphology and disruptions

A. Kuchař, Maurice Öhlert, R. Eichinger, Christoph Jacobi
{"title":"Large-ensemble assessment of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex morphology and disruptions","authors":"A. Kuchař, Maurice Öhlert, R. Eichinger, Christoph Jacobi","doi":"10.5194/wcd-5-895-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) comprises strong westerly winds during winter in each hemisphere. Despite ample knowledge on the SPV's high variability and its frequent disruptions by sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), questions on how well current climate models can simulate these dynamics remain open. Specifically the accuracy in reproducing SPV morphology and the differentiation between split and displacement SSW events are crucial to assess the models in this regard. In this study, we evaluate the capability of climate models to simulate the NH SPV by comparing large ensembles of historical simulations to ERA5 reanalysis data. For this, we analyze geometric-based diagnostics at three pressure levels that describe SPV morphology. Our analysis reveals that no model exactly reproduces SPV morphology of ERA5 in all diagnostics at all altitudes. Concerning the SPV morphology as stretching (aspect ratio) and location (centroid latitude) parameters, most models are biased to some extent, but the strongest deviations can be found for the vortex-splitting parameter (excess kurtosis). Moreover, some models underestimate the variability of SPV strength. Assessing the reliability of the ensembles in distinguishing SSWs subdivided into SPV displacement and split events, we find large differences between the model ensembles. In general, SPV displacements are represented better than splits in the simulation ensembles, and high-top models and models with finer vertical resolution perform better. A good performance in representing the morphological diagnostics does not necessarily imply reliability and therefore a good performance in simulating displacements and splits. Assessing the model biases and their representation of SPV dynamics is needed to improve credibility of climate model projections, for example, by giving stronger weightings to better performing models.\n","PeriodicalId":383272,"journal":{"name":"Weather and Climate Dynamics","volume":"32 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Weather and Climate Dynamics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-895-2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. The stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) comprises strong westerly winds during winter in each hemisphere. Despite ample knowledge on the SPV's high variability and its frequent disruptions by sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), questions on how well current climate models can simulate these dynamics remain open. Specifically the accuracy in reproducing SPV morphology and the differentiation between split and displacement SSW events are crucial to assess the models in this regard. In this study, we evaluate the capability of climate models to simulate the NH SPV by comparing large ensembles of historical simulations to ERA5 reanalysis data. For this, we analyze geometric-based diagnostics at three pressure levels that describe SPV morphology. Our analysis reveals that no model exactly reproduces SPV morphology of ERA5 in all diagnostics at all altitudes. Concerning the SPV morphology as stretching (aspect ratio) and location (centroid latitude) parameters, most models are biased to some extent, but the strongest deviations can be found for the vortex-splitting parameter (excess kurtosis). Moreover, some models underestimate the variability of SPV strength. Assessing the reliability of the ensembles in distinguishing SSWs subdivided into SPV displacement and split events, we find large differences between the model ensembles. In general, SPV displacements are represented better than splits in the simulation ensembles, and high-top models and models with finer vertical resolution perform better. A good performance in representing the morphological diagnostics does not necessarily imply reliability and therefore a good performance in simulating displacements and splits. Assessing the model biases and their representation of SPV dynamics is needed to improve credibility of climate model projections, for example, by giving stronger weightings to better performing models.
北极平流层极地涡旋形态和扰动的大集合评估
摘要平流层极地涡旋(SPV)由两半球冬季的强西风组成。尽管人们对平流层极地涡旋的高变率及其频繁受到北半球平流层突然变暖(SSWs)的干扰有充分的了解,但关于目前的气候模式如何很好地模拟这些动态的问题仍然悬而未决。具体来说,再现 SPV 形态的准确性以及区分分裂和位移 SSW 事件对于评估这方面的模式至关重要。在这项研究中,我们通过比较大型历史模拟集合和ERA5再分析数据,评估了气候模式模拟北半球SPV的能力。为此,我们分析了描述 SPV 形态的三个压力水平的几何诊断。我们的分析表明,在所有高度的所有诊断中,没有一个模式能完全再现ERA5的SPV形态。关于 SPV 形态的拉伸(纵横比)和位置(中心纬度)参数,大多数模型都存在一定程度的偏差,但涡旋分裂参数(峰度过大)的偏差最大。此外,一些模式低估了 SPV 强度的变化。在评估模式集合在区分细分为 SPV 位移和分裂事件的 SSW 方面的可靠性时,我们发现模式集合之间存在很大差异。一般来说,在模拟集合中,SPV 位移的表现要好于分裂,高顶模型和垂直分辨率更精细的模型表现更好。在形态诊断方面的良好表现并不一定意味着可靠,因此在模拟位移和分裂方面也有良好表现。为了提高气候模式预测的可信度,需要评估模式偏差及其对 SPV 动力学的表述,例如对表现较好的模式给予更高的权重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信