• Adler, R. F., G. Gu, M. Sapiano, J.-J. Wang, and G. J. Huffman, 2017: Global precipitation: Means, variations and trends during the satellite era (1979–2014). Surv. Geophys., 38, 679699, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-017-9416-4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Albers, J. R., and M. Newman, 2021: Subseasonal predictability of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 044024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe781.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Arcodia, M. C., B. P. Kirtman, and L. S. P. Siqueira, 2020: How MJO teleconnections and ENSO interference impacts U.S. precipitation. J. Climate, 33, 46214640, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0448.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bauer, P., A. Thorpe, and G. Brunet, 2015: The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature, 525, 4755, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Danabasoglu, G., and Coauthors, 2020: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2). J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeFlorio, M. J., and Coauthors, 2019: Experimental subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) forecasting of atmospheric rivers over the western United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 124, 11 24211 265, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DelSole, T., L. Trenary, M. K. Tippett, and K. Pegion, 2017: Predictability of week-3–4 average temperature and precipitation over the contiguous United States. J. Climate, 30, 34993512, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0567.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dias, J., S. N. Tulich, M. Gehne, and G. N. Kiladis, 2021: Tropical origins of weeks 2–4 forecast errors during the Northern Hemisphere cool season. Mon. Wea. Rev., 149, 29752991, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0020.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dirmeyer, P. A., S. Halder, and R. Bombardi, 2018: On the harvest of predictability from land states in a global forecast model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 123, 13 11113 127, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ECMWF, 2014a: IFS documentation— CY40r1. Part III: Dynamics and numerical procedures. ECMWF, 29 pp., https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2014/9203-part-iii-dynamics-and-numerical-procedures.pdf.

  • ECMWF, 2014b: IFS documentation— CY40r1. Part IV: Physical processes. ECMWF, 190 pp., https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2014/9204-part-iv-physical-processes.pdf.

  • ECMWF, 2014c: IFS documentation— Cy40r1. Part VII: ECMWF wave model. ECMWF, 79 pp., https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2014/9207-part-vii-ecmwf-wave-model.pdf.

  • Gates, W. L., and Coauthors, 1999: An overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP I). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 2956, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0029:AOOTRO>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haarsma, R. J., and Coauthors, 2016: High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 41854208, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hamill, T., E. Engle, D. Myrick, M. Peroutka, C. Finan, and M. Scheuerer, 2017: The U.S. National Blend of Models for statistical postprocessing of probability of precipitation and deterministic precipitation amount. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 34413463, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0331.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huang, B., and Coauthors, 2017: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, Version 5 (ERSSTv5): Upgrades, validations, and intercomparisons. J. Climate, 30, 81798205, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hurrell, J. W., J. J. Hack, D. Shea, J. M. Caron, and J. Rosinski, 2008: A new sea surface temperature and sea ice boundary dataset for the Community Atmosphere Model. J. Climate, 21, 51455153, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2292.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnson, C. N., L. Krishnamurthy, A. T. Wittenberg, B. Xiang, G. A. Vecchi, S. B. Kapnick, and S. Pascale, 2020: The impact of sea surface temperature biases on North American precipitation in a high-resolution climate model. J. Climate, 33, 24272447, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0417.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jong, B. T., M. Ting, and R. Seager, 2021: Assessing ENSO summer teleconnections, impacts, and predictability in North America. J. Climate, 34, 36293643, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0761.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kim, D., S.-K. Lee, H. Lopez, G. Foltz, V. Misra, and A. Kumar, 2020: On the role of Pacific–Atlantic SST contrast and associated Caribbean Sea convection in August–October U.S. regional rainfall variability. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087736, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087736.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kim, H., M. A. Janiga, and K. Pegion, 2019: MJO propagation processes and mean biases in the SubX and S2S reforecasts. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 124, 93149331, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Koster, R. D., and Coauthors, 2011: The second phase of the Global Land–Atmosphere Coupling Experiment: Soil moisture contributions to subseasonal forecast skill. J. Hydrometeor., 12, 805822, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1365.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krishnamurthy, V., and Coauthors, 2021: Sources of subseasonal predictability over CONUS during boreal summer. J. Climate, 34, 32733294, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0586.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., and M. Hoerling, 1995: Prospects and limitations of seasonal atmospheric GCM predictions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 76, 335345, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1995)076<0335:PALOSA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., and M. Hoerling, 1998a: Annual cycle of Pacific–North American seasonal predictability associated with the different phases on ENSO. J. Climate, 11, 32953308, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<3295:ACOPNA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., and M. Hoerling, 1998b: Specification of regional sea surface temperatures in atmospheric general circulation model simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 89018907, https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00427.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., and M. Hoerling, 2000: Analysis of a conceptual model of seasonal climate variability and implications for seasonal predictions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 81, 255264, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081<0255:AOACMO>2.3.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., M. Chen, and W. Wang, 2011: An analysis of prediction skill of monthly mean climate variability. Climate Dyn., 37, 11191131, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0901-4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., M. Chen, and W. Wang, 2013: Understanding prediction skill of seasonal mean precipitation over the tropics. J. Climate, 26, 56745681, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00731.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., P. Peng, and M. Chen, 2014: Is there a relationship between potential and actual skill? Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 22202227, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00287.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kwon, I., S. English, W. Bell, R. Potthast, A. Collard, and B. Ruston, 2018: Assessment of progress and status of data assimilation in numerical weather prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, ES75ES79, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0266.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • L’Heureux, M. L., M. K. Tippett, and E. J. Becker, 2021: Sources of subseasonal skill and predictability in wintertime California precipitation forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 36, 18151826, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0061.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Li, S., and A. W. Robertson, 2015: Evaluation of submonthly precipitation forecast skill from global ensemble prediction systems. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 28712889, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00277.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lucas, F. D., 2017: Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017. Public Law 115–25, H.R. 353, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/353/text.

  • Lybarger, N. D., C. S. Shin, and C. Stan, 2020: MJO wind energy and prediction of El Niño. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 125, e2020JC016732, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JC016732.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Malloy, K. M., and B. P. Kirtman, 2020: Predictability of midsummer Great Plains low-level jet and associated precipitation. Wea. Forecasting, 35, 215235, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-19-0103.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mariotti, A., P. M. Ruti, and M. Rixen, 2018: Progress in subseasonal to seasonal prediction through a joint weather and climate community effort. npj Climate Atmos. Sci., 1, 4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0014-z.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meehl, G. A., and Coauthors, 2021: Initialized Earth System prediction from subseasonal to decadal timescales. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 2, 340357, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00155-x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mudelsee, M., 2010: Climate Time Series Analysis: Classical Statistical and Bootstrap Methods. 1st ed. Springer, 474 pp.

  • Mundhenk, B. D., E. A. Barnes, E. D. Maloney, and C. F. Baggett, 2018: Skillful empirical subseasonal prediction of landfalling atmospheric river activity using the Madden–Julian Oscillation and quasi-biennial oscillation. npj Climate Atmos. Sci., 1, 20177, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-017-0008-2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Murray, D., and Coauthors, 2020: Facility for Weather and Climate Assessments (FACTS): A community resource for assessing weather and climate variability. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 101, E1214E1224, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0224.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nardi, K., C. Baggett, E. Barnes, E. Maloney, D. Harnos, and L. Ciasto, 2020: Skillful all-season S2S prediction of U.S. precipitation using the MJO and QBO. Wea. Forecasting, 35, 21792198, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-19-0232.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Next Generation Earth System Prediction: Strategies for Subseasonal to Seasonal Forecasts. The National Academies Press, 350 pp., https://doi.org/10.17226/21873.

  • Neale, R. B., and Coauthors, 2012: Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-486+STR, 274 pp., http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cam/docs/description/cam5_desc.pdf.

  • Newman, M., P. D. Sardeshmukh, C. R. Winkler, and J. S. Whitaker, 2003: A study of subseasonal predictability. Mon. Wea. Rev., 131, 17151732, https://doi.org/10.1175//2558.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pegion, K., and Coauthors, 2019: The Subseasonal Experiment (SubX): A multimodel subseasonal prediction experiment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100, 20432060, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0270.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quan, X.-W., M. Hoerling, B. Lyon, A. Kumar, M. Bell, M. Tippett, and H. Wang, 2012: Prospects for dynamical prediction of meteorological drought. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 51, 12381252, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0194.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reynolds, R. W., N. A. Rayner, T. M. Smith, D. C. Stokes, and W. Wang, 2002: An improved in situ and satellite SST analysis for climate. J. Climate, 15, 16091625, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1609:AIISAS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Richter, J. H., and Coauthors, 2020: Subseasonal prediction with and without a well-represented stratosphere in CESM1. Wea. Forecasting, 35, 25892602, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-20-0029.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Richter, J. H., and Coauthors, 2022: Subseasonal Earth system prediction with CESM2. Wea. Forecasting, 37, 797815, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0163.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Robertson, A. W., A. Kumar, M. Peña, and F. Vitart, 2015: Improving and promoting subseasonal to seasonal prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96, ES49ES53, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00139.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ropelewski, C. F., and M. S. Halpert, 1986: North American and precipitation and temperature patterns associated with the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Mon. Wea. Rev., 114, 23522362, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1986)114<2352:NAPATP>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Saha, S., and Coauthors, 2014: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2. J. Climate, 27, 21852208, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00823.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scaife, A. A., and D. Smith, 2018: A signal-to-noise paradox in climate science. npj Climate Atmos. Sci., 1, 28, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0038-4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sigmond, M., J. F. Scinocca, V. V. Kharin, and T. G. Shepherd, 2013: Enhanced seasonal forecast skill following stratospheric sudden warmings. Nat. Geosci., 6, 98102, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1698.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stan, C., D. M. Straus, J. S. Frederiksen, H. Lin, E. D. Maloney, and C. Schumacher, 2017: Review of tropical-extratropical teleconnections on intraseasonal time scales. Rev. Geophys., 55, 902937, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000538.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stan, C., and Coauthors, 2022: Advances in the prediction of MJO teleconnections in the S2S forecast systems. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 103, E1426E1447, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0130.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sun, L., J. Perlwitz, J. H. Richter, M. P. Hoerling, and J. W. Hurrell, 2020: Attribution of NAO predictive skill beyond 2 weeks in boreal winter. Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL090451, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090451.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Titchner, H. A., and N. A. Rayner, 2014: The Met Office Hadley Centre sea ice and sea surface temperature data set, version 2: 1. Sea ice concentrations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 28642889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vigaud, N., A. Robertson, and M. Tippett, 2017: Multimodal ensembling of subseasonal precipitation forecasts over North America. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 39133928, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0092.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vitart, F., 2014: Evolution of ECMWF sub-seasonal forecast skill scores. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 18891899, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2256.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vitart, F., 2017: Madden–Julian Oscillation prediction and teleconnections in the S2S database. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 22102220, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3079.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vitart, F., A. Robertson, and D. Anderson, 2012: Sub-seasonal to Seasonal Prediction Project: Bridging the gap between weather and cli- mate. WMO Bull., 61, 2328.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vitart, F., and Coauthors, 2017: The Subseasonal to Seasonal (S2S) prediction project database. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 163173, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0017.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, J., H. Kim, and M. J. DeFlorio, 2022: Future changes of PNA-like MJO teleconnections in CMIP6 models: Underlying mechanisms and uncertainty. J. Climate, 35, 34593478, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0445.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, L., and A. W. Robertson, 2019: Week 3–4 predictability over the United States assessed from two operational ensemble prediction systems. Climate Dyn., 52, 58615875, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4484-9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, S., A. Anichowski, M. K. Tippett, and A. H. Sobel, 2017: Seasonal noise versus subseasonal signal: Forecasts of California precipitation during the unusual winters of 2015–2016 and 2016–2017. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 95139520, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075052.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Whitaker, J. S., and K. M. Weickmann, 2001: Subseasonal variations of tropical convection and week-2 prediction of wintertime western North American rainfall. J. Climate, 14, 32793288, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<3279:SVOTCA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • White, C. J., and Coauthors, 2017: Potential applications of subseasonal‐to‐seasonal (S2S) predictions. Meteor. Appl., 24, 315325, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1654.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yeager, S. G., and Coauthors, 2018: Predicting near-term changes in the Earth system: A large ensemble of initialized decadal prediction simulations using the Community Earth System Model. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, 18671886, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0098.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zheng, C., E. Kar-Man Chang, H. Kim, M. Zhang, and W. Wang, 2018: Impacts of the Madden–Julian Oscillation on storm-track activity, surface air temperature, and precipitation over North America. J. Climate, 31, 61136134, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0534.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhou, S., M. L’Heureux, S. Weaver, and A. Kumar, 2012: A composite study of the MJO influence on the surface air temperature and precipitation over the continental United States. Climate Dyn., 38, 14591471, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1001-9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhou, X., Y. Zhu, D. Hou, and D. Kleist, 2016: A comparison of perturbations from an ensemble transform and an ensemble Kalman filter for the NCEP Global Ensemble Forecast System. Wea. Forecasting, 31, 20572074, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0109.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhou, X., Y. Zhu, D. Hou, Y. Luo, J. Peng, and R. Wobus, 2017: Performance of the new NCEP Global Ensemble Forecast System in a parallel experiment. Wea. Forecasting, 32, 19892004, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-17-0023.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhu, Y., and Coauthors, 2018: Toward the improvement of subseasonal prediction in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Global Ensemble Forecast System. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 123, 67326745, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 671 671 9
Full Text Views 251 251 11
PDF Downloads 264 264 9

Attribution of North American Subseasonal Precipitation Prediction Skill

Lantao SunaDepartment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by Lantao Sun in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8578-9175
,
Martin P. HoerlingbNOAA/Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Martin P. Hoerling in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jadwiga H. RichtercClimate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Jadwiga H. Richter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Andrew HoellbNOAA/Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Andrew Hoell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Arun KumardNOAA/Climate Prediction Center, College Park, Maryland

Search for other papers by Arun Kumar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
James W. HurrellaDepartment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by James W. Hurrell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The skill of NOAA’s official monthly U.S. precipitation forecasts (issued in the middle of the prior month) has historically been low, having shown modest skill over the southern United States, but little or no skill over large portions of the central United States. The goal of this study is to explain the seasonal and regional variations of the North American subseasonal (weeks 3–6) precipitation skill, specifically the reasons for its successes and its limitations. The performances of multiple recent-generation model reforecasts over 1999–2015 in predicting precipitation are compared to uninitialized simulation skill using the atmospheric component of the forecast systems. This parallel analysis permits attribution of precipitation skill to two distinct sources: one due to slowly evolving ocean surface boundary states and the other to faster time-scale initial atmospheric weather states. A strong regionality and seasonality in precipitation forecast performance is shown to be analogous to skill patterns dictated by boundary forcing constraints alone. The correspondence is found to be especially high for the North American pattern of the maximum monthly skill that is achieved in the reforecast. The boundary forcing of most importance originates from tropical Pacific SST influences, especially those related to El Niño–Southern Oscillation. We discuss physical constraints that may limit monthly precipitation skill and interpret the performance of existing models in the context of plausible upper limits.

Significance Statement

Skillful subseasonal precipitation predictions have societal benefits. Over the United States, however, NOAA’s official U.S. monthly precipitation forecast skill has been historically low. Here we explore origins for skill of North American week-3 to week-6 precipitation predictions. Skill arising from initial weather states is compared to that arising from ocean surface boundary states alone. The monthly and seasonally varying pattern of U.S. monthly precipitation skill is appreciably derived from boundary constraints, linked especially with El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Forecasts of opportunity are identified, despite the low skill of monthly precipitation forecasts on average. Potential limits of monthly precipitation skill are explored that provide insight on the juxtaposition of “skill deserts” over the central United States with high skill regions over western North America.

© 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 author: Martin P. Hoerling, martin.hoerling@noaa.gov

Abstract

The skill of NOAA’s official monthly U.S. precipitation forecasts (issued in the middle of the prior month) has historically been low, having shown modest skill over the southern United States, but little or no skill over large portions of the central United States. The goal of this study is to explain the seasonal and regional variations of the North American subseasonal (weeks 3–6) precipitation skill, specifically the reasons for its successes and its limitations. The performances of multiple recent-generation model reforecasts over 1999–2015 in predicting precipitation are compared to uninitialized simulation skill using the atmospheric component of the forecast systems. This parallel analysis permits attribution of precipitation skill to two distinct sources: one due to slowly evolving ocean surface boundary states and the other to faster time-scale initial atmospheric weather states. A strong regionality and seasonality in precipitation forecast performance is shown to be analogous to skill patterns dictated by boundary forcing constraints alone. The correspondence is found to be especially high for the North American pattern of the maximum monthly skill that is achieved in the reforecast. The boundary forcing of most importance originates from tropical Pacific SST influences, especially those related to El Niño–Southern Oscillation. We discuss physical constraints that may limit monthly precipitation skill and interpret the performance of existing models in the context of plausible upper limits.

Significance Statement

Skillful subseasonal precipitation predictions have societal benefits. Over the United States, however, NOAA’s official U.S. monthly precipitation forecast skill has been historically low. Here we explore origins for skill of North American week-3 to week-6 precipitation predictions. Skill arising from initial weather states is compared to that arising from ocean surface boundary states alone. The monthly and seasonally varying pattern of U.S. monthly precipitation skill is appreciably derived from boundary constraints, linked especially with El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Forecasts of opportunity are identified, despite the low skill of monthly precipitation forecasts on average. Potential limits of monthly precipitation skill are explored that provide insight on the juxtaposition of “skill deserts” over the central United States with high skill regions over western North America.

© 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 author: Martin P. Hoerling, martin.hoerling@noaa.gov

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Materials (PDF 580 KB)
Save