Articles | Volume 13, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1611-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1611-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) predictability in equilibrated warmer climates
Yiyu Zheng
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute of Oceanography, Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Maria Rugenstein
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Patrick Pieper
Institute of Oceanography, Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Goratz Beobide-Arsuaga
Institute of Oceanography, Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Johanna Baehr
Institute of Oceanography, Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
Laura Schaffer, Andreas Boesch, Johanna Baehr, and Tim Kruschke
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2081–2096, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2081-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2081-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a simple and effective model to predict storm surges in the German Bight, using wind data and a multiple linear regression approach. Trained on historical data from 1959 to 2022, our storm surge model demonstrates high predictive skill and performs as well as more complex models, despite its simplicity. It can predict both moderate and extreme storm surges, making it a valuable tool for future climate change studies.
Julianna Carvalho-Oliveira, Giorgia Di Capua, Leonard F. Borchert, Reik V. Donner, and Johanna Baehr
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 1561–1578, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1561-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1561-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We demonstrate with a causal analysis that an important recurrent summer atmospheric pattern, the so-called East Atlantic teleconnection, was influenced by the extratropical North Atlantic in spring during the second half of the 20th century. This causal link is, however, not well represented by our evaluated seasonal climate prediction system. We show that simulations able to reproduce this link show improved surface climate prediction credibility over those that do not.
Daniel Krieger, Sebastian Brune, Johanna Baehr, and Ralf Weisse
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1539–1554, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1539-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1539-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Previous studies found that climate models can predict storm activity in the German Bight well for averages of 5–10 years but struggle in predicting the next winter season. Here, we improve winter storm activity predictions by linking them to physical phenomena that occur before the winter. We guess the winter storm activity from these phenomena and discard model solutions that stray too far from the guess. The remaining solutions then show much higher prediction skill for storm activity.
Efi Rousi, Andreas H. Fink, Lauren S. Andersen, Florian N. Becker, Goratz Beobide-Arsuaga, Marcus Breil, Giacomo Cozzi, Jens Heinke, Lisa Jach, Deborah Niermann, Dragan Petrovic, Andy Richling, Johannes Riebold, Stella Steidl, Laura Suarez-Gutierrez, Jordis S. Tradowsky, Dim Coumou, André Düsterhus, Florian Ellsäßer, Georgios Fragkoulidis, Daniel Gliksman, Dörthe Handorf, Karsten Haustein, Kai Kornhuber, Harald Kunstmann, Joaquim G. Pinto, Kirsten Warrach-Sagi, and Elena Xoplaki
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1699–1718, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1699-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1699-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive, multi-faceted analysis of the 2018 extreme summer in terms of heat and drought in central and northern Europe, with a particular focus on Germany. A combination of favorable large-scale conditions and locally dry soils were related with the intensity and persistence of the events. We also showed that such extremes have become more likely due to anthropogenic climate change and might occur almost every year under +2 °C of global warming.
Benjamin M. Sanderson and Maria Rugenstein
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1715–1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a measure of how much long-term warming should be expected in response to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. It is generally calculated in climate models by extrapolating global average temperatures to a point of where the planet is no longer a net absorber of energy. Here we show that some climate models experience energy leaks which change as the planet warms, undermining the standard approach and biasing some existing model estimates of ECS.
Daniel Krieger, Sebastian Brune, Patrick Pieper, Ralf Weisse, and Johanna Baehr
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3993–4009, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-3993-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-3993-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate predictions of storm activity are desirable for coastal management. We investigate how well a climate model can predict storm activity in the German Bight 1–10 years in advance. We let the model predict the past, compare these predictions to observations, and analyze whether the model is doing better than simple statistical predictions. We find that the model generally shows good skill for extreme periods, but the prediction timeframes with good skill depend on the type of prediction.
Tim Rohrschneider, Johanna Baehr, Veit Lüschow, Dian Putrasahan, and Jochem Marotzke
Ocean Sci., 18, 979–996, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-18-979-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-18-979-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents an analysis of wind sensitivity experiments in order to provide insight into the wind forcing dependence of the AMOC by understanding the behavior of its depth scale(s).
Tim Rohrschneider, Jonah Bloch-Johnson, and Maria Rugenstein
Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-86, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-86, 2021
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
We question whether the timescale of long-term climate change is independent of temperature or forcing and the evolution of time. The timescale of long-term climate change depends on feedback temperature dependence and the evolution of time.
Marcel Meyer, Iuliia Polkova, Kameswar Rao Modali, Laura Schaffer, Johanna Baehr, Stephan Olbrich, and Marc Rautenhaus
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 867–891, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-867-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-867-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Novel techniques from computer science are used to study extreme weather events. Inspired by the interactive 3-D visual analysis of the recently released ERA5 reanalysis data, we improve commonly used metrics for measuring polar winter storms and outbreaks of cold air. The software (Met.3D) that we have extended and applied as part of this study is freely available and can be used generically for 3-D visualization of a broad variety of atmospheric processes in weather and climate data.
Julianna Carvalho-Oliveira, Leonard Friedrich Borchert, Aurélie Duchez, Mikhail Dobrynin, and Johanna Baehr
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 739–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-739-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-739-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work questions the influence of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, an important component of the climate system, on the variability in North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) a season ahead, particularly how this influence affects SST prediction credibility 2–4 months into the future. While we find this relationship is relevant for assessing SST predictions, it strongly depends on the time period and season we analyse and is more subtle than what is found in observations.
Cited articles
An, S.-I., Kug, J.-S., Ham, Y.-G., and Kang, I.-S.: Successive modulation of
ENSO to the future greenhouse warming, J. Climate, 21, 3–21, 2008. a
Bellenger, H., Guilyardi, É., Leloup, J., Lengaigne, M., and Vialard, J.:
ENSO representation in climate models: From CMIP3 to CMIP5, Clim. Dynam., 42, 1999–2018, 2014. a
Beobide-Arsuaga, G., Bayr, T., Reintges, A., and Latif, M.: Uncertainty of
ENSO-amplitude projections in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, Clim. Dynam., 56, 3875–3888, 2021. a
Burke, K. D., Williams, J. W., Chandler, M. A., Haywood, A. M., Lunt, D. J.,
and Otto-Bliesner, B. L.: Pliocene and Eocene provide best analogs for
near-future climates, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 115, 13288–13293, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809600115, 2018. a
Cai, W., Santoso, A., Wang, G., Yeh, S.-W., An, S.-I., Cobb, K. M., Collins, M., Guilyardi, E., Jin, F.-F., Kug, J.-S., Lengaigne, M., McPhaden, M. J., Takahashi, K., Timmermann, A., Vecchi, G., Watanabe, M., and Wu, L.: ENSO and greenhouse warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 849–859, 2015. a
Cai, W., Santoso, A., Collins, M., Dewitte, B., Karamperidou, C., Kug, J.-S., Lengaigne, M., McPhaden, M. J., Stuecker, M. F., Taschetto, A. S., Timmermann, A., Wu, L., Yeh, S.-W., Wang, G., Ng, B., Jia, F., Yang, Y., Ying, J., Zheng, X.-T., Bayr, T., Brown, J. R., Capotondi, A., Cobb, K. M., Gan, B., Geng, T., Ham, Y.-G., Jin, F.-F., Jo, H.-S., Li, X., Lin, X., McGregor, S., Park, J.-H., Stein, K., Yang, K., Zhang, L., and Zhong, W.: Changing El Niño–Southern Oscillation in a warming climate, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 2, 628–644, 2021. a
Cane, M. A., Zebiak, S. E., and Dolan, S. C.: Experimental forecasts of El Niño, Nature, 321, 827–832, 1986. a
Chapman, D., Cane, M. A., Henderson, N., Lee, D. E., and Chen, C.: A vector
autoregressive ENSO prediction model, J. Climate, 28, 8511–8520, 2015. a
Chen, D. and Cane, M. A.: El Niño prediction and predictability, J. Comput. Phys., 227, 3625–3640, 2008. a
Chen, D., Zebiak, S. E., Cane, M. A., and Busalacchi, A. J.: Initialization
and predictability of a coupled ENSO forecast model, Mon. Weather Rev., 125, 773–788, 1997. a
Christensen, J. H., Kanikicharla, K. K., Aldrian, E., An, S. I., Cavalcanti, I. F. A., de Castro, M., Dong, W., Goswami, P., Hall, A., Kanyanga, J. K., Kitoh, A., Kossin, J., Lau, N.-C., Renwick, J., Stephenson, D. B., Xie, S.-P., and Zhou, T.: Climate phenomena and their relevance for future regional climate change, in: Climate change 2013 the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, 1217–1308, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.028, 2013. a
Dommenget, D. and Vijayeta, A.: Simulated future changes in ENSO dynamics in
the framework of the linear recharge oscillator model, Clim. Dynam., 53,
4233–4248, 2019. a
Dommenget, D., Haase, S., Bayr, T., and Frauen, C.: Analysis of the Slab Ocean El Nino atmospheric feedbacks in observed and simulated ENSO dynamics,
Clim. Dynam., 42, 3187–3205, 2014. a
Fredriksen, H.-B., Berner, J., Subramanian, A. C., and Capotondi, A.: How Does El Niño–Southern Oscillation Change Under Global Warming – A First Look at CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL090640, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090640, 2020. a, b
GISTEMP Team: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, Tech. Rep. Version 4, NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/, last access: 6 March 2022. a
Guilyardi, E.: El Niño–mean state–seasonal cycle interactions in a
multi-model ensemble, Clim. Dynam., 26, 329–348, 2006. a
Guilyardi, E., Bellenger, H., Collins, M., Ferrett, S., Cai, W., and
Wittenberg, A.: A first look at ENSO in CMIP5, Clivar Exchanges, 17, 29–32, 2012. a
Guilyardi, E., Capotondi, A., Lengaigne, M., Thual, S., and Wittenberg, A. T.: ENSO Modeling, in: chap. 9, AGU – American Geophysical Union, 199–226, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164.ch9, 2020. a
Ham, Y.-G., Kim, J.-H., and Luo, J.-J.: Deep learning for multi-year ENSO
forecasts, Nature, 573, 568–572, 2019. a
Jin, E. K. and Kinter III, J. L.: Characteristics of tropical Pacific SST
predictability in coupled GCM forecasts using the NCEP CFS, Clim. Dynam., 32, 675–691, 2009. a
Khodri, M., Izumo, T., Vialard, J., Janicot, S., Cassou, C., Lengaigne, M.,
Mignot, J., Gastineau, G., Guilyardi, E., Lebas, N., Robock, A., and McPhaden, M. J.: Tropical explosive volcanic eruptions can trigger El Niño by cooling tropical Africa, Nat. Commun., 8, 1–13, 2017. a
Knaff, J. A. and Landsea, C. W.: An El Niño–Southern Oscillation climatology and persistence (CLIPER) forecasting scheme, Weather Forecast., 12, 633–652, 1997. a
Knutson, T. R., Manabe, S., and Gu, D.: Simulated ENSO in a global coupled
ocean–atmosphere model: Multidecadal amplitude modulation and CO2 sensitivity, J. Climate, 10, 138–161, 1997. a
Kumar, A., Wang, H., Wang, W., Xue, Y., and Hu, Z.-Z.: Does knowing the
oceanic PDO phase help predict the atmospheric anomalies in subsequent
months?, J. Climate, 26, 1268–1285, 2013. a
Lenssen, N. J. L., Schmidt, G. A., Hansen, J. E., Menne, M. J., Persin, A.,
Ruedy, R., and Zyss, D.: Improvements in the GISTEMP Uncertainty Model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 6307–6326, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029522, 2019. a
L'Heureux, M. L., Levine, A. F. Z., Newman, M., Ganter, C., Luo, J.-J.,
Tippett, M. K., and Stockdale, T. N.: ENSO Prediction, in: chap. 10, AGU – American Geophysical Union, 227–246, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119548164.ch10, 2020. a
Lindsey, R.: In watching for El Niño and La Niña, NOAA adapts to
global warming, Climate Watch, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/watching-el-nino-and-la-nina-noaa-adapts-global-warming
(last access: 8 November 2022), 2013. a
Lloyd, J., Guilyardi, E., Weller, H., and Slingo, J.: The role of atmosphere
feedbacks during ENSO in the CMIP3 models, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 10, 170–176, 2009. a
Lu, F., Harrison, M. J., Rosati, A., Delworth, T. L., Yang, X., Cooke, W. F.,
Jia, L., McHugh, C., Johnson, N. C., Bushuk, M., Zhang, Y., and Adcroft, A.: GFDL's SPEAR seasonal prediction system: Initialization and ocean tendency adjustment (OTA) for coupled model predictions, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2020MS002149, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002149, 2020. a
Maher, N., Matei, D., Milinski, S., and Marotzke, J.: ENSO change in climate
projections: Forced response or internal variability?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11–390, 2018. a
Martín-Rey, M., Rodríguez-Fonseca, B., and Polo, I.: Atlantic
opportunities for ENSO prediction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 6802–6810, 2015. a
Singh, M., Krishnan, R., Goswami, B., Choudhury, A. D., Swapna, P., Vellore,
R., Prajeesh, A., Sandeep, N., Venkataraman, C., Donner, R. V., Marwan, N., and Kurths, J.: Fingerprint of volcanic forcing on the ENSO–Indian monsoon coupling, Sci. Adv., 6, eaba8164, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba8164, 2020. a
Stevenson, S., Fox-Kemper, B., Jochum, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Yeager, S. G.: ENSO model validation using wavelet probability analysis, J. Climate, 23, 5540–5547, 2010. a
Sun, C., Liu, L., Li, L.-J., Wang, B., Zhang, C., Liu, Q., and Li, R.-Z.:
Uncertainties in simulated El Niño–Southern Oscillation arising from
internal climate variability, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 19, e805, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.805, 2018. a
Tang, Y., Deng, Z., Zhou, X., Cheng, Y., and Chen, D.: Interdecadal variation
of ENSO predictability in multiple models, J. Climate, 21, 4811–4833, 2008. a
Timmermann, A., An, S.-I., Kug, J.-S., Jin, F.-F., Cai, W., Capotondi, A.,
Cobb, K. M., Lengaigne, M., McPhaden, M. J., Stuecker, M. F., Stein, K., Wittenberg, A. T., Yun, K.-S., Bayr, T., Chen, H.-Ch., Chikamoto, Y., Dewitte, B., Dommenget, D., Grothe, P., Guilyardi, E., Ham, Y.-G., Hayashi, M., Ineson, S., Kang, D., Kim, S., Kim, W., Lee, J.-Y., Li, T., Luo, J.-J., McGregor, S., Planton, Y., Power, S., Rashid, H., Ren, H.-L., Santoso, A., Takahashi, K., Todd, A., Wang, G., Wang, G., Xie, R., Yang, W.-H., Yeh, S.-W., Yoon, J., Zeller, E., and Zhang, X.: El Niño–southern oscillation complexity, Nature, 559, 535–545, 2018. a
Wang, C.: A review of ENSO theories, Nat. Sci. Rev., 5, 813–825, 2018. a
Wengel, C., Lee, S.-S., Stuecker, M. F., Timmermann, A., Chu, J.-E., and
Schloesser, F.: Future high-resolution El Niño/Southern Oscillation
dynamics, Nat. Clim. Change, 11, 758–765, 2021. a
White, S. M. and Ravelo, A. C.: Dampened El Niño in the Early Pliocene Warm Period, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085504, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085504, 2020. a
Zheng, X.-T., Hui, C., and Yeh, S.-W.: Response of ENSO amplitude to global
warming in CESM large ensemble: uncertainty due to internal variability,
Clim. Dynam., 50, 4019–4035, 2018. a
Zheng, Y., Rugenstein, M., Pieper, P., Beobide-Arsuaga, G., and Baehr, J.: Dataset associated with “ENSO predictability in equilibrated warmer climates”, Colorado State University [data set], https://mountainscholar.org/handle/10217/234545, last access: 11 November 2022.
a
Zhu, X.: A missing source of uncertainty: forcing-dependent model parameter
sensitivity, Environ. Res. Commun., 3, 051006, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/abfe18, 2021. a
Short summary
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is one of the dominant climatic phenomena in the equatorial Pacific. Understanding and predicting how ENSO might change in a warmer climate is both societally and scientifically important. We use 1000-year-long simulations from seven climate models to analyze ENSO in an idealized stable climate. We show that ENSO will be weaker and last shorter under the warming, while the skill of ENSO prediction will unlikely change.
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is one of the dominant climatic phenomena in the equatorial...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint