Blocking Simulations in GFDL GCMs for CMIP5 and CMIP6

Ping Liu aSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

Search for other papers by Ping Liu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Kevin A. Reed aSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

Search for other papers by Kevin A. Reed in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Stephen T. Garner bGFDL/NOAA, Princeton, New Jersey

Search for other papers by Stephen T. Garner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ming Zhao bGFDL/NOAA, Princeton, New Jersey

Search for other papers by Ming Zhao in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Yuejian Zhu cEMC/NCEP/NOAA/NWS, Environmental Modeling Center, Camp Springs, Maryland

Search for other papers by Yuejian Zhu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The frequency of atmospheric blocking has been largely underestimated by general circulation models (GCMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Errors in the onset, persistence, barotropicity, geographical preference, seasonality, intensity, and moving speed of global blocking were diagnosed in 10 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) GCMs for recent CMIP5 and CMIP6 using a detection approach that combines zonal eddies and the reversal of zonal winds. The blocking frequency, similar at 500 and 250 hPa, is underestimated by 50% in the Atlantic–Europe region during December–February but is overestimated by 60% in the Pacific–North America region during that season and by 70% in the southwest Pacific during July–August. These blocking biases at 500 hPa were investigated in the five CMIP6 models that showed improvements over the CMIP5 versions. The Atlantic–Europe underestimate corresponds to lower instantaneous blocking rates, lower persistent blocking rates, and higher persistent stationary ridge rates; the number of blocks with a duration of 4–5 days is only 40%–65% of that in observations. In contrast, the overestimate consists of excessive blocks with a duration longer than 12 days in the Pacific–North America and up to twice as many 4–6-day events in the southwest Pacific. Simulated December–February blocks up to 12 days in the Pacific–North America region tend to be stronger and to move more slowly than those in observations. Diagnostic sensitivity tests indicated that the zonal mean and zonal eddy components of the mean state play a key role, as replacing each with that of observations substantially reduced many of the outstanding biases in these GCMs.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding authors: Dr. Ming Zhao, ming.zhao@noaa.gov; Dr. Ping Liu, ping.liu@stonybrook.edu

Abstract

The frequency of atmospheric blocking has been largely underestimated by general circulation models (GCMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Errors in the onset, persistence, barotropicity, geographical preference, seasonality, intensity, and moving speed of global blocking were diagnosed in 10 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) GCMs for recent CMIP5 and CMIP6 using a detection approach that combines zonal eddies and the reversal of zonal winds. The blocking frequency, similar at 500 and 250 hPa, is underestimated by 50% in the Atlantic–Europe region during December–February but is overestimated by 60% in the Pacific–North America region during that season and by 70% in the southwest Pacific during July–August. These blocking biases at 500 hPa were investigated in the five CMIP6 models that showed improvements over the CMIP5 versions. The Atlantic–Europe underestimate corresponds to lower instantaneous blocking rates, lower persistent blocking rates, and higher persistent stationary ridge rates; the number of blocks with a duration of 4–5 days is only 40%–65% of that in observations. In contrast, the overestimate consists of excessive blocks with a duration longer than 12 days in the Pacific–North America and up to twice as many 4–6-day events in the southwest Pacific. Simulated December–February blocks up to 12 days in the Pacific–North America region tend to be stronger and to move more slowly than those in observations. Diagnostic sensitivity tests indicated that the zonal mean and zonal eddy components of the mean state play a key role, as replacing each with that of observations substantially reduced many of the outstanding biases in these GCMs.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding authors: Dr. Ming Zhao, ming.zhao@noaa.gov; Dr. Ping Liu, ping.liu@stonybrook.edu

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Materials (PDF 821 KB)
Save
  • Altenhoff, A. M., O. Martius, M. Croci-Maspoli, C. Schwierz, and H. C. Davies, 2008: Linkage of atmospheric blocks and synoptic-scale Rossby waves: A climatological analysis. Tellus, 60A, 10531063, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2008.00354.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Anstey, J. A., and Coauthors, 2013: Multi-model analysis of Northern Hemisphere winter blocking: Model biases and the role of resolution. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 39563971, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50231.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barnes, E. A., L. M. Polvani, and A. H. Sobel, 2013: Model projections of atmospheric steering of Sandy-like superstorms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 1521115215, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308732110.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barriopedro, D., R. García-Herrera, and R. M. Trigo, 2010: Application of blocking diagnosis methods to general circulation models. Part I: A novel detection. Climate Dyn., 35, 13731391, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0767-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bieli, M., S. Pfahl, and H. Wernli, 2015: A Lagrangian investigation of hot and cold temperature extremes in Europe. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 98108, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2339.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brunner, L., G. C. Hegerl, and A. K. Steiner, 2017: Connecting atmospheric blocking to European temperature extremes in spring. J. Climate, 30, 585594, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0518.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brunner, L., N. Schaller, J. Anstey, J. Sillmann, and A. K. Steiner, 2018: Dependence of present and future European temperature extremes on the location of atmospheric blocking. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 63116320, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077837.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cassou, C., and J. Cattiaux, 2016: Disruption of the European climate seasonal clock in a warming world. Nat. Climate Change, 6, 589594, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2969.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colucci, S. J., 2001: Planetary-scale preconditioning for the onset of blocking. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 933942, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<0933:PSPFTO>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Croci-Maspoli, M., C. Schwierz, and H. C. Davis, 2007: A multifaceted climatology of atmospheric blocking and its recent linear trend. J. Climate, 20, 633649, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4029.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davini, P., and F. D’Andrea, 2016: Northern Hemisphere atmospheric blocking representation in global climate models: Twenty years of improvements? J. Climate, 29, 88238840, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0242.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davini, P., and F. D’Andrea, 2020: From CMIP3 to CMIP6: Northern Hemisphere atmospheric blocking simulation in present and future climate. J. Climate, 33, 1002110038, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0862.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dole, R. M., and N. D. Gordon, 1983: Persistent anomalies of the extratropical Northern Hemisphere wintertime circulation: Geographical distribution and regional persistence characteristics. Mon. Wea. Rev., 111, 15671586, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111<1567:PAOTEN>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donner, L. J., and Coauthors, 2011: The dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component AM3 of the GFDL global coupled model CM3. J. Climate, 24, 34843519, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3955.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunn-Sigouin, E., and S.-W. Son, 2013: Northern Hemisphere blocking frequency and duration in the CMIP5 models. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 11791188, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50143.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunn-Sigouin, E., S.-W. Son, and H. Lin, 2013: Evaluation of Northern Hemisphere blocking climatology in the Global Environment Multiscale (GEM) model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 707727, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00134.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunne, J. P., and Coauthors, 2012: GFDL’s ESM2 global coupled climate–carbon Earth system models. Part I: Physical formulation and baseline simulation characteristics. J. Climate, 25, 66466665, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00560.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunne, J. P., and Coauthors, 2020: The GFDL Earth System Model version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation characteristics. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eyring, V., S. Bony, G. A. Meehl, C. A. Senior, B. Stevens, R. J. Stouffer, and K. E. Taylor, 2016: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 19371958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T. M., and G. N. Kiladis, 2014: Skill of the MJO and Northern Hemisphere blocking in GEFS medium-range reforecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 868885, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00199.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • He, B., P. Ping, Y. Zhu, and W. Hu, 2019: Prediction and predictability of Northern Hemisphere persistent maxima of 500-hPa geopotential height eddies in the GEFS. Climate Dyn., 52, 37733789, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4347-4.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Held, I. M., and Coauthors, 2019: Structure and performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 climate model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 36913727, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001829.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hersbach, H., and Coauthors, 2020: The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 19992049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803.

  • Kalnay, E., and Coauthors, 1996: The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77, 437472, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0437:TNYRP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lejenäs, H., and H. Økland, 1983: Characteristics of Northern Hemisphere blocking as determined from long time series of observational data. Tellus, 35A, 350–362, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v35i5.11446.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, P., 2020: Climatologies of blocking highs detected by a unified Eddy-ABS approach. Climate Dyn., 54, 11971215, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05053-z.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, P., and Coauthors, 2018: Climatology of tracked persistent maxima of 500-hPa geopotential height. Climate Dyn., 51, 701717, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3950-0.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lupo, A. R., 2020: Atmospheric blocking events: A review. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1504, 5–24, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14557.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Masato, G., B. Hoskins, and T. Woollings, 2013: Winter and summer Northern Hemisphere blocking in CMIP5 models. J. Climate, 26, 70447059, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00466.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mauritsen, T., and E. Källén, 2004: Blocking prediction in an ensemble forecasting system. Tellus, 56A, 218228, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v56i3.14411.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meehl, G. A., C. Covey, K. E. Taylor, T. Delworth, R. J. Stouffer, M. Latif, B. McAvaney, and J. F. Mitchell, 2007: The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: A new era in climate change research. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 13831394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1383.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mendes, M. C., R. M. Trigo, I. F. Cavalcanti, and C. C. DaCamara, 2008: Blocking episodes in the Southern Hemisphere: Impact on the climate of adjacent continental areas. Pure Appl. Geophys., 165, 19411962, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-008-0409-4.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pelly, J. L., and B. J. Hoskins, 2003: A new perspective on blocking. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 743755, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060<0743:ANPOB>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pfahl, S., and H. Wernli, 2012: Quantifying the relevance of atmospheric blocking for co-located temperature extremes in the Northern Hemisphere on (sub-)daily time scales. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L12807, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052261.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Phillips, T. J., and Coauthors, 2004: Evaluating parameterizations in general circulation models: Climate simulation meets weather prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 19031916, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-12-1903.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pinheiro, M. C., P. A. Ullrich, and R. Grotjahn, 2019: Atmospheric blocking and intercomparison of objective detection methods: Flow field characteristics. Climate Dyn., 53, 41894216, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04782-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pithan, F., T. G. Shepherd, G. Zappa, and I. Sandu, 2016: Climate model biases in jet streams, blocking and storm tracks resulting from missing orographic drag. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 72317240, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069551.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rex, D. F., 1950: Blocking action in the middle troposphere and its effect upon regional climate: I. An aerological study of blocking action. Tellus, 2, 196211, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v2i3.8546.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Riboldi, J., M. Grams, M. Riemer, and H. M. Archambault, 2019: A phase locking perspective on Rossby wave amplification and atmospheric blocking downstream of recurving western North Pacific tropical cyclones. Mon. Wea. Rev., 147, 567589, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0271.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scaife, A. A., T. Woollings, J. Knight, G. Martin, and T. Hinton, 2010: Atmospheric blocking and mean biases in climate models. J. Climate, 23, 61436152, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3728.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scherrer, S. C., M. Croci-Maspoli, C. Schwierz, and C. Appenzeller, 2006: Two-dimensional indices of atmospheric blocking and their statistical relationship with winter climate patterns in the Euro-Atlantic region. Int. J. Climatol., 26, 233249, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1250.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schiemann, R., and Coauthors, 2017: The resolution sensitivity of Northern Hemisphere blocking in four 25-km atmospheric global circulation models. J. Climate, 30, 337358, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0100.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schiemann, R., and Coauthors, 2020: Northern Hemisphere blocking simulation in current climate models: Evaluating progress from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 and 6 and sensitivity to resolution. Wea. Climate Dyn., 1, 277292, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-277-2020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schulzweida, U., 2019: CDO User Guide (version 1.9.8). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3539275.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Schwierz, C., M. Croci-Maspoli, and H. C. Davies, 2004: Perspicacious indicators of atmospheric blocking. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L06125, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL019341.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sillmann, J., M. Croci-Maspoli, M. Kallache, and R. W. Katz, 2011: Extreme cold winter temperatures in Europe under the influence of North Atlantic atmospheric blocking. J. Climate, 24, 58995913, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4075.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steinfeld, D., and S. Pfahl, 2019: The role of latent heating in atmospheric blocking dynamics: a global climatology. Climate Dyn., 53, 61596180, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04919-6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, 2012: An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tibaldi, S., and F. Molteni, 1990: On the operational predictability of blocking. Tellus, 42A, 343365, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v42i3.11882.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Watson, J. S., and S. J. Colucci, 2002: Evaluation of ensemble predictions of blocking in the NCEP Global Spectral Model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 30083021, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<3008:EOEPOB>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Woollings, T., and Coauthors, 2018: Blocking and its response to climate change. Curr. Climate Change Rep., 4, 287300, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0108-z.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhao, M., 2020: Simulations of atmospheric rivers, their variability and response to global warming using GFDL’s new high resolution general circulation model. J. Climate, 33, 1028710303, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0241.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhao, M., and Coauthors, 2018a: The GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM4.0/LM4.0: 1. Simulation characteristics with prescribed SSTs. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 691–734, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001208.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhao, M., and Coauthors, 2018b: The GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM4.0/LM4.0: 2. Model description, sensitivity studies, and tuning strategies. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 735–769, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001209.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhao, M., I. M. Held, S.-J. Lin, and G. A. Vecchi, 2009: Simulations of global hurricane climatology, interannual variability, and response to global warming using a 50-km resolution GCM. J. Climate, 22, 66536678, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3049.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 679 145 0
Full Text Views 368 164 32
PDF Downloads 329 134 27