In Schiemann et al. (2017), a mistake occurred in Fig. 11 in how the area-weighted correlation and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were calculated. The corrected figure appears below. This has no impact on the interpretation of the figure and on the conclusions of the paper. Any future quantitative comparisons will need to refer to the corrected version of the figure. We regret any inconvenience this may cause.

Fig. 11.

Blocking frequency root-mean-square error and spatial correlation with respect to the reanalysis blocking frequency field shown in Fig. 1 for the Atlantic–European sector (45°–75°N, 280°–80°E). (a)–(d) The four different models; small symbols correspond to ensemble members and large/thickened symbols to the ensemble mean (see Table 2): results are shown for coarse resolution (upside down triangles), medium resolution (circles), and high resolution (triangles); and DJF (blue), MAM (green), JJA (red), and SON (orange).

Fig. 11.

Blocking frequency root-mean-square error and spatial correlation with respect to the reanalysis blocking frequency field shown in Fig. 1 for the Atlantic–European sector (45°–75°N, 280°–80°E). (a)–(d) The four different models; small symbols correspond to ensemble members and large/thickened symbols to the ensemble mean (see Table 2): results are shown for coarse resolution (upside down triangles), medium resolution (circles), and high resolution (triangles); and DJF (blue), MAM (green), JJA (red), and SON (orange).

REFERENCE

REFERENCE
Schiemann
,
R.
, and Coauthors
,
2017
:
The resolution sensitivity of Northern Hemisphere blocking in four 25-km atmospheric global circulation models
.
J. Climate
,
30
,
337
358
, doi:.

Footnotes

a

Current affiliation: Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom.

© 2017 American Meteorological Society.