1 / 18

Seasonality of the ENSO Recharge Oscillator

EGU 2005 Vienna, April 2005. Seasonality of the ENSO Recharge Oscillator.

thais
Download Presentation

Seasonality of the ENSO Recharge Oscillator

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EGU 2005 Vienna, April 2005 Seasonality of theENSO Recharge Oscillator Gerrit Burgers1, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh1 and Fei-Fei Jin21Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute2Florida State University, Tallahassee

  2. Natural variables TE 1st natural variable hequatorial zonal mean thermocline depth 2nd natural variable Jin, JAS 1997: recharge oscillator picture Kessler, GRL2002: Is ENSO a cycle or a series of events? McPhaden, GRL2003: h and persistence barriers Clarke and Van Gorder, GRL 2003: Improving ENSO forecasts

  3. ENSO Recharge oscillator From Jin JAS 1997 After Kessler GRL 2002

  4. Four- and two-variable form h=0.5(hE+hW)  • Four-variable form (, hW, hE and TE) • has pair of oscillating modes + mode that decays • On “slow” manifold, hE lin. comb. of h and TE • Two-variable form (hand TE) follows from reduction • of two-variable form to slow manifold (Burgers, van Oldenborgh and Jin, in preparation)

  5. Simplest description of ENSO From direct fit of 2-variable system to observations*). Agrees with independent fit of 4-variable system. TE and h normalized on 1. Simplest picture of ENSO *) monthly time series over 1980-2002 of TE ,  , hE , hw , h anomalies

  6. Seasonality • Niño3 peaks • around Christmas • phase locking • “spring barrier” in TE • “winter barrier” in h • (McPhaden, GRL 2003)  Let us consider seasonal recharge oscillator fit

  7. Seasonal fit on 1-month forecasts of Seasonal recharge oscillator fit NB: noise driven system then gives automatically right amplitudes TE and h seasonal cycle matrix elements seasonal cycle amplitudes

  8. Seasonal cycle in  and  , (month-1) seasonal cycle in frequency and decay constants

  9. Spring barrier in observations Spring barrier in observed seasonal correlation (after McPhaden, GRL2003):

  10. Spring barrier recharge oscillator NB: at zero lag, fit gives automatically right correl-ation TE and h  Spring barrier in seasonal correlation of seasonal recharge oscillator system obs 

  11. potential predictability *) seasonal recharge oscillator   skill ECMWF operational forecast 1987-2001  Spring barrier: predictability *) is NOT forecast skill, but predictability of linear system with parameters and noise properties from seasonal fit

  12. Residues for fit on 1-month forecasts Seasonal cycle in goodness of fit TE • dashed lines: normalized on amplitude T, h • solid lines: normalized on amplitude monthly change in T, h h In August, recharge oscillator adds very little to persistence Skill in predicting changes in spring

  13. Spectra: multiple time scales (1)? Annual mean version: single peak Seasonal version: slight shoulder around 0.7 cpy

  14. Spectra: multiple time scales (2)? 23 years 2000 years width spectral peak increases comparedtofixed ,  case simulation with phase dependent ,  [  =0.15+0.04cos ,  =0.040.06cos(/4) ]

  15. Phase dependent recharge oscillator II I I I I III IV N 99 65 41 71 start DJF JFMA 2/ 52 35 33 45 1/ 12 200 90 10  0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 III IV start = season when phase usually starts  = normalized error of seasonal dependent fit

  16. Phase as a function of time T  4 year

  17. h Phase and season T  IV III II I 1988 IV 1987 III 1986 II I

  18. TE and h natural variables • Simplest formulation of • ENSO recharge oscillator: • Seasonal recharge oscillator describes spring barrier well • Predictability estimate if ENSO would be pure recharge oscillator • 12 - 18 months, depends on season • Both variations in decay/growth  and phase propagation  • in recharge oscillator framework • - Phase propagation in spring, decay in winter • - Growth before El Nino, phase propagation at El Niño Conclusions

More Related