Abstract

Predictive skills of the Somali cross-equatorial flow (CEF) and the Maritime Continent (MC) CEF during boreal summer are assessed using three ensemble seasonal forecasting systems, including the coarse-resolution Predictive Ocean Atmospheric Model for Australia (POAMA, version 2), the intermediate-resolution Scale Interaction Experiment–Frontier Research Center for Global Change (SINTEX-F), and the high-resolution seasonal prediction version of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS-S1) model. Retrospective prediction results suggest that prediction of the Somali CEF is more challenging than that of the MC CEF. While both the individual models and the multimodel ensemble (MME) mean show useful skill (with the anomaly correlation coefficient being above 0.5) in predicting the MC CEF up to 5-month lead, only ACCESS-S1 and the MME can skillfully predict the Somali CEF up to 2-month lead. Encouragingly, the CEF seesaw index (defined as the difference of the two CEFs as a measure of the negative phase relation between them) can be skillfully predicted up to 4–5 months ahead by SINTEX-F, ACCESS-S1, and the MME. Among the three models, the high-resolution ACCESS-S1 model generally shows the highest skill in predicting the individual CEFs, the CEF seesaw, as well as the CEF seesaw index–related precipitation anomaly pattern in Asia and northern Australia. Consistent with the strong influence of ENSO on the CEFs, the skill in predicting the CEFs depends on the model’s ability in predicting not only the eastern Pacific SST anomaly but also the anomalous Walker circulation that brings ENSO’s influence to bear on the CEFs.

1. Introduction

Significant amounts of moisture and energy are transported from the Southern Hemisphere to the Asian monsoonal area via low-level cross-equatorial flows (CEFs) during the boreal summer (June–August) (e.g., Tao et al. 1962; Findlater 1966; Saha and Bavadekar 1973; Ramesh Kumar et al. 1999), with opposite north-to-south CEFs prevailing in the upper troposphere via the local Hadley cell (e.g., Schneider et al. 2014). The strongest of these flows occurs over the western Indian Ocean, which is known as the Somali CEF (e.g., Findlater 1969). The interannual variation of the Somali CEF is found to be related to broad climate variabilities, including the Mascarene high (e.g., Xue et al. 2003), the Indian summer monsoon (ISM) precipitation (e.g., Halpern and Woiceshyn 2001), and the Pacific–Japan teleconnection pattern (e.g., Wang and Xue 2003). Besides, another substantial CEF has been documented over the Maritime Continent (MC) region (e.g., Wang and Li 1982), which connects the Australian high and the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM) circulation (e.g., Liu et al. 2009). The MC CEF is driven by the interhemispheric thermal contrast between the cold Australian land surface in austral winter and the warm Asian continent in boreal summer, contributing to the moisture convergence in the tropical EASM region (e.g., Wang et al. 2003).

Previous studies have suggested that the Somali CEF and the MC CEF are not independent of each other but rather are significantly negatively correlated (e.g., Cong et al. 2007; Wang and Yang 2008; Zhu 2012). Consequently, the distributions of the precipitation anomaly patterns over Asia associated with the two CEFs are similar but with opposite sign (e.g., Li and Li 2014). Li and Li (2014) proposed a seesaw index (i.e., the difference of the two CEFs) to describe their negative correlation, and found that the CEF seesaw index shows a better correlation to the EASM than the individual CEFs do (e.g., Li and Li 2016). Thus, the CEF seesaw index may provide a useful approach for better understanding of the associated monsoonal precipitation. For instance, the CEF seesaw is related to the out-of-phase variation in precipitation between the ISM region and the tropical EASM area that was documented in previous studies (e.g., Huang et al. 1998; Zhang 2001). In addition, Li and Li (2014) have found that the CEF seesaw shows a high correlation with the convection seesaw over the Indo-Pacific region, which was referred to as the Maritime Continent–Pacific convection oscillation (MPCO) by Li et al. (2013).

The seesaw relation between the Somali and the MC CEFs likely results from their distinct relations with El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (e.g., Wang et al. 2001; Zhu and Chen 2002). Previous studies have shown that the Somali CEF tends to be weakened while the MC CEF is strengthened during a warm ENSO episode, and vice versa during a cold ENSO episode. Li et al. (2017) have further investigated the influences of different types of ENSO events upon the two CEFs. It has been shown that a high positive correlation exists between the MC CEF and all the types of ENSO, including the eastern Pacific (EP) El Niño, central Pacific (CP) El Niño, EP La Niña, and CP La Niña events. This is consistent with Zhou and Kim (2015), who suggested a modulation of ENSO on the MC CEF through the ENSO-related local meridional sea surface temperature (SST) gradient around the MC area. In contrast, the negative correlation between the Somali CEF and ENSO is weaker than that between the MC CEF and ENSO, and is subject to the different types of ENSO. The EP El Niño exerts a significant influence on the Somali CEF via the atmospheric teleconnection between the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. During the boreal summer, warm SST anomaly in the eastern Pacific favors an easterly anomaly in the northern Indian Ocean and a weakened Somali CEF in the western Indian Ocean through weaker-than-normal Walker cell. But the impact of the other types of ENSO on the Indian Ocean is much weaker. Thus, the EP El Niño plays a dominant role in generating the CEF seesaw (e.g., Li et al. 2017). Previous studies also investigated the correlations between the CEFs and the Indian Ocean dipole (IOD) based on both observations and climate model experiments (e.g., Li and Li 2014; Li et al. 2017; Li 2017, 16–21). Results suggested that a purely IOD-related SST anomaly has a weak influence on the CEFs and the CEF seesaw.

Seasonal prediction skill of ENSO has been significantly improved over the past 2–3 decades through the development of coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models (OAGCMs) (e.g., Cane et al. 1986; Barnston et al. 1999; Jin et al. 2008; Luo et al. 2008, 2015; Graham et al. 2011; Cottrill et al. 2013; MacLachlan et al. 2015). While the forecast skill of ENSO varies with target seasons, ENSO phases, and ENSO strength (e.g., Jin et al. 2008), ENSO can be generally predicted with a useful skill (i.e., anomaly correlation coefficient of above 0.5) out to two or three seasons by many current state-of-the-art OAGCMs (e.g., Palmer et al. 2004; Jin et al. 2008; Xue et al. 2011; Barnston et al. 2012; Luo et al. 2015). Note that correct predictions of ENSO onset across the boreal spring, associated with the spring predictability barrier, remains a long-standing challenge. Owing to the significant influence of ENSO on the MC and Somali CEFs, it is expected that the high ENSO prediction skill may provide a good potential for a skillful prediction of the two CEFs. However, the predictive skill of the CEFs is yet to be assessed. Assessing predictability of the CEF seesaw may improve our understanding of the predictability of the related precipitation anomaly in the Asian and Australian monsoon systems.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the predictive skill of the Somali and MC CEFs using three ensemble seasonal forecast models: the coarse-resolution Bureau of Meteorology Predictive Ocean Atmosphere Model for Australia (POAMA) model (e.g., Alves et al. 2003), the intermediate-resolution Scale Interaction Experiment–Frontier Research Center for Global Change (SINTEX-F) model (e.g., Luo et al. 2005a,b), and the high-resolution seasonal prediction version of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS-S1) model (e.g., Alves and Hudson 2015; Lim et al. 2016). Details about the three forecast models and the verification datasets are described in section 2. The multimodel prediction skill of the Somali CEF, MC CEF, CEF seesaw index, and the related monsoonal precipitation pattern are assessed in section 3. In section 4, we will explore the possible reasons for the distinct forecast performance of the Somali CEF in the different models. A summary is given in section 5.

2. Multimodel and verification data

a. Multimodel

1) The POAMA-2 model

POAMA (version 2) is a fully coupled ocean–atmosphere climate model that was developed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to provide intraseasonal to seasonal predictions (e.g., Hudson et al. 2013). The atmospheric model component of POAMA-2 is the BoM’s Atmospheric Model (BAM3.0), which has a T47 horizontal resolution (approximately a 2.5° × 2.5° grid) with 17 vertical levels (e.g., Colman et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005; Zhong et al. 2006). The land surface component uses a simple bucket model for soil moisture after Manabe and Holloway (1975) with three soil temperature levels (e.g., Hudson et al. 2011). The Australian Community Ocean Model version 2 (ACOM2) (e.g., Schiller et al. 1997; Oke et al. 2005) forms the ocean component of POAMA-2, based upon the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Modular Ocean Model (MOM version 2) (Schiller et al. 2002). Grid spacing in ACOM2 starts at 2° in the zonal direction and 0.5° in the meridional direction at the equator and gradually increases to 1.5° at the poles. A total of 25 vertical levels are used for the ocean model, with the first 12 levels in the upper 185 m and a maximum depth of 5 km. Atmosphere and ocean models are coupled using the Ocean Atmosphere Sea Ice Soil (OASIS) coupling software (Valcke et al. 2000). The atmospheric model of POAMA-2 is initialized with the atmosphere–land initialization scheme (ALI) that captures the observed atmosphere state. ALI generates realistic atmosphere–land surface initial conditions by nudging the BAM3.0 model toward the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40; Uppala et al. 2005) for the period 1982 to August 2002, and to the global analyses from BoM’s numerical weather prediction system thereafter (e.g., Hudson et al. 2011). Initial conditions for the ocean are obtained from the POAMA Ensemble Ocean Data Assimilation System (PEODAS), which assimilates available ocean observations using an ensemble Kalman filter (e.g., Yin et al. 2011).

2) The SINTEX-F model

The SINTEX-F coupled model (e.g., Luo et al. 2003, 2005a,b; Masson et al. 2005) was developed at Frontier Research Center for Global Change under a European Union–Japan collaboration (e.g., Gualdi et al. 2003; Guilyardi et al. 2003). The atmospheric component consists of the European Center Hamburg version 4.6 (ECHAM4.6) model at T106 (about 1.1° × 1.1°) with 19 vertical levels (Roeckner et al. 1996). The global ocean component is the reference version 8.2 of the Ocean Parallélisé (OPA8.2) (Madec et al. 1998), which has a 2° Mercator horizontal mesh with a meridional resolution that increases to 0.5° at the equator and 31 vertical layers. The atmospheric and oceanic components are coupled every two hours using OASIS (Valcke et al. 2000) without any flux correlation except that sea ice cover is relaxed toward observed monthly climatologies in the ocean circulation model. The coupled model is spun up for 10 years by assimilating observed monthly climatological SST into the coupled model (e.g., Luo et al. 2005a,b). Observed SSTs from 1982 onward are then assimilated into the coupled model to provide initial conditions for the SINTEX-F model forecasts (e.g., Luo et al. 2005b, 2008). That is, model SSTs are strongly nudged toward the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) SST dataset. This coupled SST–nudging initialization approach provides a simple but effective way to generate well-balanced realistic initial conditions and provides useful ENSO prediction skill out to two years ahead (e.g., Luo et al. 2008, 2015, 2017). The SINTEX-F model shows good performance in simulating the ENSO variability, including its spatial SST distribution, magnitude, and period (e.g., Yamagata et al. 2004; Luo et al. 2005a,b; Behera et al. 2006; Jin et al. 2008).

3) The ACCESS-S1 model

ACCESS-S1 (the seasonal prediction version of ACCESS) represents the BoM’s next seasonal forecasting system, replacing POAMA-2 in 2017 (e.g., Lim et al. 2016). The coupled model used in ACCESS-S1 is the Unified Model-General Configuration 2 (UM-GC2) (Williams et al. 2015), which is the same model used for the Met Office’s global coupled model seasonal forecast system GloSea5-GC2 (MacLachlan et al. 2015). Components of this coupled model consist of United Model Global Atmosphere 6.0 (GA6.0), Global Land 6.0 (GL6.0) [GA6.0 and GL6.0 are fully documented by Walters et al. (2017)], Global Ocean 5.0 (GO5.0) (Megann et al. 2014), and Global Sea Ice 6.0 (GSI6.0) (Rae et al. 2015). ACCESS-S1 is a high-resolution system with an N216 atmospheric horizontal resolution (approximately 60 km in the midlatitudes) and is coupled to an ocean model with a resolution of 0.25°. The vertical resolution is set by the component definitions, including 85 levels in the atmosphere (with a top at 85 km), four soil levels, 75 levels in in the ocean (with 1-m thickness in the top level), and five sea ice thickness categories. Further information regarding the coupled configuration can be found in Williams et al. (2015). Reanalyses from the ECMWF ERA-Interim project are used to initialize the atmosphere component model and land temperatures (MacLachlan et al. 2015). Initial conditions for the ocean and sea ice are derived from the GloSea Ocean Sea Ice Reanalysis that is based on the Met Office Forecast Ocean Assimilation Model (FOAM) data assimilation system (Blockley et al. 2014). Further details of the initialization are described in MacLachlan et al. (2015).

To address forecast uncertainties, ensemble hindcasts have been generated for each model using different coupling physics and/or initial conditions. The main features of the multimodel retrospective forecasts are listed in Table 1. Model resolution increases from POAMA-2 to SINTEX-F to ACCESS-S1. Note that the ACCESS-S1 has a shorter hindcast period (1990–2012) and fewer lead time forecasts available (2-month and 5-month lead only), in contrast to those of the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F models, which have a longer hindcast period of 1982–2012 and have forecasts of at up to 7 months lead (Table 1). For this study, hindcasts are verified for the seasonal mean of boreal summer [i.e., the target season is June–August (JJA)]. We define 1-month lead prediction of the JJA mean as the forecast starting on the first day of June, and 2-month lead forecast refers to that initialized on 1 May. Similarly, 7-month lead forecast refers to that initialized on 1 December of previous year. The ensemble mean of individual model forecasts is calculated by the average of all members of individual models. The multimodel ensemble (MME) mean is calculated by the average of the ensemble means of individual models.

Table 1.

Description of the multimodel hindcast datasets analyzed in this study. (DA is data assimilation.)

Description of the multimodel hindcast datasets analyzed in this study. (DA is data assimilation.)
Description of the multimodel hindcast datasets analyzed in this study. (DA is data assimilation.)

b. Verification data and methods

To assess the CEF prediction skill, JJA-mean horizontal winds at the 850-hPa level from the ERA-Interim reanalysis datasets during 1982–2012 (Dee et al. 2011) are compared with the multimodel seasonal predictions. The intensity of the Somali (averaged at 37.5°–62.5°E) and MC (averaged at 102.5°–152.5°E) CEFs are computed using the local meridional wind velocity in the equatorial region (2.5°S–2.5°N). The definition of the MC CEF in this study has two minor differences compared to that in previous studies (e.g., Li and Li 2014; Li et al. 2017). First, the velocity at the 850-hPa level rather than the 925-hPa level is used to measure the MC CEF due to the limit of model data in SINTEX-F. Second, the coarse resolution of the seasonal prediction model (i.e., POAMA2) is unlikely sufficient to resolve the three narrow CEF channels over the MC region, and therefore the mean meridional wind across the entire region (102.5°–152.5°E) is used to calculate the MC CEF. Note that this newly defined MC CEF is highly correlated with the originally defined MC CEF (with a correlation coefficient of 0.95) based on the ERA-Interim data. The CEF seesaw index is defined by the difference between the standardized Somali CEF and the standardized MC CEF (e.g., Li and Li 2014; Li et al. 2017). SST forecasts from the multimodel outputs are verified against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Optimum Interpolation (NOAA OI, version 2) SST dataset (Reynolds et al. 2002). The JJA mean Niño-3 index (SST anomaly averaged over 5°S–5°N, 90°–150°W) is used to represent EP ENSO conditions. For precipitation, verification is performed against the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP, version 2; Adler et al. 2003). Two monsoon indices are adopted to represent the Indian summer monsoon and East Asian summer monsoon, respectively. One is the all-Indian summer rainfall index (AISRI), which is measured by the areal mean precipitation anomaly over the Indian peninsula (0°–20°N, 75°–90°E). The other is the East Asian summer monsoon index (EASMI) proposed by Wang et al. (2008), which is defined by the U850 in (5°–15°N, 90°–130°E) minus U850 in (22.5°–32.5°N, 110°–140°E). Forecast anomalies of the multimodels are calculated relative to each model’s hindcast climatology (1990–2012) at each lead time. Two statistical techniques are applied to verify deterministic prediction skill, the simple anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC) and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) score. Projection method and composite analyses are also conducted in this study. All the calculations are performed based on the time series of the observed and forecast anomalies without detrend.

3. Results

a. Prediction of the CEFs

1) Mean state and variability

A comparison between the observed and predicted climatological CEFs is shown in Fig. 1. First, all the three models demonstrate a good performance in predicting the structure and strength of the Somali CEF, although the maximum speed core of the Somali CEF in ACCESS-S1 is slightly overestimated compared to the observed velocity (Fig. 1c). The sharp increase of the Somali CEF along the western Indian Ocean coast is well reproduced in both the ACCESS-S1 and SINTEX-F, but it is less well captured in the POAMA-2, probably due to its coarse resolution. Similarly, for the MC CEF, POAMA-2 fails to reproduce its fine local structure (Fig. 1a). The MC CEF channels (i.e., narrow maximum meridional wind centers at 102.5° to 110°E, 122.5° to 130°E, and 147.5° to 152.5°E, respectively) are related to the sharp land–sea contrasts over the MC region (e.g., Li and Li 2014). In contrast, this fine local structure of the MC CEF is well reproduced in the higher-resolution models, SINTEX-F and ACCESS-S1. The three local maxima of the MC CEF appear to be overestimated in the highest-resolution ACCESS-S1 model. Figures 1d and 1e show the predicted magnitudes of the climatology of the Somali and MC CEFs at all lead times. The Somali CEF appears to be underestimated in SINTEX-F but overestimated in ACCESS-S1 at all the lead times. In POAMA-2, the intensity of the Somali CEF is overestimated at short lead times, but it is well reproduced at lead times of 4–6 months. The intensity of the MC CEF is best predicted in SINTEX-F model at all the lead times (Fig. 1e). In contrast, both the POAMA-2 and ACCESS-S1 predicted a stronger-than-observed MC CEF at all lead times.

Fig. 1.

(a)–(c) Climatological (1990–2012) boreal summer (June–August) mean meridional wind velocity (unit: m s−1) along the equator (2.5°S–2.5°N) in (a) POAMA-2, (b) SINTEX-F, and (c) ACCESS-S1. The black solid lines indicate the velocity in ERA-Interim, and the colored solid (dashed) lines indicate the ensemble-mean predictions of each model at 2-month (5-month) lead. The gray shadings represent the regions used to calculate the intensity of the Somali and MC CEF. Also shown are comparisons between the observed (black solid lines) and the predicted climatological strength of the (d) Somali and (e) MC CEF as a function of lead times. Red and blue lines denote the POAMA2 and SINTEX-F ensemble mean hindcasts, respectively. Green asterisk indicates the ACCESS-S1 hindcasts available at 2 and 5 months lead. The predicted climatological strength was obtained for the period of 1990–2012. Results based on the period 1982–2012 for POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F are similar.

Fig. 1.

(a)–(c) Climatological (1990–2012) boreal summer (June–August) mean meridional wind velocity (unit: m s−1) along the equator (2.5°S–2.5°N) in (a) POAMA-2, (b) SINTEX-F, and (c) ACCESS-S1. The black solid lines indicate the velocity in ERA-Interim, and the colored solid (dashed) lines indicate the ensemble-mean predictions of each model at 2-month (5-month) lead. The gray shadings represent the regions used to calculate the intensity of the Somali and MC CEF. Also shown are comparisons between the observed (black solid lines) and the predicted climatological strength of the (d) Somali and (e) MC CEF as a function of lead times. Red and blue lines denote the POAMA2 and SINTEX-F ensemble mean hindcasts, respectively. Green asterisk indicates the ACCESS-S1 hindcasts available at 2 and 5 months lead. The predicted climatological strength was obtained for the period of 1990–2012. Results based on the period 1982–2012 for POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F are similar.

Figure 2 displays biases in the predicted climatological JJA precipitation. The overestimated CEFs in the models appear to be related to their precipitation biases in the Indo-Pacific Ocean. For instance, the too strong MC CEFs in both the ACCESS-S1 and POAMA-2 models are consistent with their strong wet bias in the South China Sea and western North Pacific. Also, the realistic MC CEF in the SINTEX-F is consistent with the small precipitation bias in the South China Sea and western North Pacific (cf. Figs. 1e and 2). The overestimated CEFs across the central-eastern Indian Ocean in the three models appear to be related to a south dry–north wet bias across the equatorial Indian Ocean. However, a clear relation between the precipitation bias and the Somali CEF bias is not visible in the three models (cf. Figs. 1d and 2). Further studies are warranted for a better understanding of the bias in the climatological intensity of the Somali CEF.

Fig. 2.

The predicted climatological (1990–2012) JJA precipitation (unit: mm day−1) biases in (a),(d) POAMA-2, (b),(e) SINTEX-F, and (c),(f) ACCESS-S1 at 2-month and 5-month lead, respectively.

Fig. 2.

The predicted climatological (1990–2012) JJA precipitation (unit: mm day−1) biases in (a),(d) POAMA-2, (b),(e) SINTEX-F, and (c),(f) ACCESS-S1 at 2-month and 5-month lead, respectively.

Figure 3 shows the standard deviation of interannual variability of the CEFs. The standard deviation in each model is first calculated for every ensemble member, and then the average of all ensemble members gives the ensemble mean for each model. The results show that all the three models overestimate the interannual variance of the Somali CEF at all lead times (Fig. 3d). Among the three models, the coarse-resolution POAMA-2 model severely overestimates the variance of the Somali CEF, particularly at lead times longer than 3 months, even though its mean intensity is predicted well (cf. Figs. 3d and 1d). The advantage of the high-resolution ACCESS-S1 model over the coarse-resolution POAMA2 model is seen clearly in their predictions of the MC CEF. The ACCESS-S1 model shows the best predictions of the variance of the MC CEF at both 2 and 5 months lead (Fig. 3e), except small discrepancies in predicting the fine structure over the MC area (Fig. 3c). The SINTEX-F model also shows a good skill in predicting the MC CEF variance and its local fine structure (Figs. 3b,e). In contrast, the POAMA-2 model shows a poor skill in predicting the variance of the MC CEF and its fine structure; the variance is much overestimated at all lead times (Figs. 3a,e). In general, biases of the predicted CEFs’ variance decrease with the increasing model resolution, particularly over the MC area where complex land–sea distribution exists. The local spikes (i.e., maxima) of the wind variance appear to occur over narrow straits in the MC area, which is best captured by the highest-resolution model (Figs. 3a–c). Thus, it appears that the high resolution could help improve the prediction of the local fine structure of the CEF variance over the MC area. However, it is worth noting that the models’ bias in predicting the climatology and mean structure of the CEFs does not lead to a similar bias in the models’ prediction of the interannual variations of the CEFs.

Fig. 3.

As in Fig. 1, but for the standard deviation of the meridional wind velocity along the equator. The black and colored straight lines in (a)–(c) represent the realistic and modeled land grid along the equator (5°S–5°N), respectively. The local spikes (i.e., maxima) of the wind variance in the MC area appear to occur over narrow straits or ocean grids. Black solid lines in (d) and (e) denote the observed standardized deviation of the Somali and MC CEF, respectively.

Fig. 3.

As in Fig. 1, but for the standard deviation of the meridional wind velocity along the equator. The black and colored straight lines in (a)–(c) represent the realistic and modeled land grid along the equator (5°S–5°N), respectively. The local spikes (i.e., maxima) of the wind variance in the MC area appear to occur over narrow straits or ocean grids. Black solid lines in (d) and (e) denote the observed standardized deviation of the Somali and MC CEF, respectively.

Similarly, the biases in the predicted CEFs variance tend to be related to the biases in the predicted precipitation variance. Among the three models, the strong variance of the Somali CEF and the MC CEF in the POAMA-2 appears to be related to its strong precipitation variance in the regions from the Indian continent to western-central Pacific (Figs. 4a,d). In the ACCESS-S1 model, the precipitation variance over Indonesia is small compared to the other two models (Figs. 4c,f), which may help avoid an overestimation of the MC CEF variance (recall Fig. 3e). It is worth noting that the variances of the CEFs in the central equatorial Indian Ocean (60°–90°E) are overestimated by all the three prediction systems (Figs. 3a–c). One possible reason is that all the three models overestimate the precipitation variance in the equatorial and northern Indian Ocean and parts of southern Asia. The strong precipitation variance may favor a strong variability of the CEFs in 60°–90°E. However, exact reasons for the overestimated variability of the CEF in 60°–90°E appear to be complicated. For instance, the ACCESS-S1 model, which shows the strongest variability bias of the CEF in 60°–90°E, does not appear to have the strongest bias of precipitation variance in the Indian Ocean and southern Asia. Further studies are needed to explore the exact reasons for the systematically overestimated CEF variance bias in the central Indian Ocean.

Fig. 4.

As in Fig. 2, but for the biases in the standard deviation of the JJA precipitation anomaly.

Fig. 4.

As in Fig. 2, but for the biases in the standard deviation of the JJA precipitation anomaly.

In the following skill assessments, the mean-state bias of each model’s forecast is removed in a posterior manner by calculating the model forecast anomaly relative to the climatology of the model at each lead time.

2) Deterministic skill

Interannual variations of the observed and predicted JJA mean CEFs are shown in Fig. 5. To investigate whether the prediction skill of CEFs is related to the model’s performance in predicting the EP ENSO events, Fig. 5 also shows the interannual variations of the Niño-3 index. The results indicate that the interannual variations of the MC CEF appear to be better predicted at both 2 and 5 months lead in all the three models, compared to those of the Somali CEF (cf. the first and second rows of Fig. 5). Besides, the ACCESS-S1 appears to have a higher skill in predicting the interannual variations of the two CEFs, compared to the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F. The higher skill of the ACCESS-S1 in predicting the CEF seesaw index can also be seen in Fig. 5 (third row). All the three models predict the negative Somali CEF, positive MC CEF, and negative CEF seesaw in 1997 at 2 and 5 months lead, corresponding to their good prediction of the 1997 EP El Niño event (Fig. 5, bottom row). Another two extreme negative CEF seesaws in 1982 and 1987, corresponding to two EP El Niño events in 1982 and 1987, are also realistically predicted in the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F models. However, the positive Somali CEF in the early 2000s is not predicted in any of the three models. Based on the above analyses, a higher prediction skill is expected for the MC CEF, particularly in the ACCESS-S1 model. In contrast, the Somali CEF appears to have a lower predictability.

Fig. 5.

A comparison of year-to-year variations of the observed and predicted Somali CEF, MC CEF, CEF seesaw index, and Niño-3 index. The black solid lines indicate the observations, and the colored solid (dashed) lines indicate the model ensemble mean predictions at 2-month (5-month) lead. The correlation coefficients between the observed and the predicted indices at 2- and 5-month lead are displayed on the upper right of each panel.

Fig. 5.

A comparison of year-to-year variations of the observed and predicted Somali CEF, MC CEF, CEF seesaw index, and Niño-3 index. The black solid lines indicate the observations, and the colored solid (dashed) lines indicate the model ensemble mean predictions at 2-month (5-month) lead. The correlation coefficients between the observed and the predicted indices at 2- and 5-month lead are displayed on the upper right of each panel.

It is worth noting that the observed Somali CEF experienced a positive trend from 1982 to 2012 (Fig. 5, top row), consistent with a La Niña–like cooling trend in the Pacific (e.g., McPhaden et al. 2011; Luo et al. 2012). Although POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F can successfully reproduce the cooling trend in the eastern Pacific during 1982–2012 (figures not shown), the two models fail to capture the upward trend of the Somali CEF. The underlying reasons for why the two prediction systems fail to capture the positive trend of the Somali CEF are not yet clear and warrant further studies.

To examine the deterministic prediction skill in the individual models and the MME mean, Fig. 6 shows the anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC) as a function of lead times, including both the ensemble mean prediction skill (red solid line or red dot) and the mean skill of the ensemble members (blue dashed line or blue cross). Note that the ACC scores are calculated based on nondetrended time series and results based on detrended time series are almost identical. In general, the skill of the ensemble mean is higher than the mean skill of the ensemble members in all the three models. Also, the ensemble mean skill in each model is also higher than the skill of most members. The persistence skill (black dashed lines) is also displayed in Fig. 6. To calculate the persistence skill, a 3-month running mean is applied to the observed monthly time series. The persistence skill at 1-month lead refers to the correlations between the target season JJA and the start month May (i.e., April–June mean), and so forth. In general, the persistence skill of the CEFs is lower than that of the ACC prediction skill, except the prediction of the Somali CEF at 1–2-month lead in the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F models. The low persistence of the CEFs might be related to the fact that the south-to-north CEFs basically occur during boreal summer (May to September).

Fig. 6.

Anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC) skill (1982–2012 for the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F, but 1990–2012 for the ACCESS-S1) for the Somali CEF, MC CEF, CEF seesaw index, and Niño-3 index as a function of prediction lead times. The blue dots in each panel indicate the skill for each ensemble member, and the blue dashed lines (blue crosses for ACCESS-S1) indicate the mean skill of ensemble members for each model. The red lines (red dots for ACCESS-S1) denote the skill of individual models’ ensemble mean. A comparison of the ACC skill between the individual models’ ensemble mean and the multimodel ensemble (MME) mean is shown in the rightmost column for the common period 1990–2012 of the three models’ hindcasts. The black dots represent the skill of the MME, and the red, blue, and green dots indicate the ensemble mean skill of POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, and ACCESS-S1, respectively. Gray solid lines denote 0.5 value of ACC, while the black dashed lines indicate the skill of persistence.

Fig. 6.

Anomaly correlation coefficient (ACC) skill (1982–2012 for the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F, but 1990–2012 for the ACCESS-S1) for the Somali CEF, MC CEF, CEF seesaw index, and Niño-3 index as a function of prediction lead times. The blue dots in each panel indicate the skill for each ensemble member, and the blue dashed lines (blue crosses for ACCESS-S1) indicate the mean skill of ensemble members for each model. The red lines (red dots for ACCESS-S1) denote the skill of individual models’ ensemble mean. A comparison of the ACC skill between the individual models’ ensemble mean and the multimodel ensemble (MME) mean is shown in the rightmost column for the common period 1990–2012 of the three models’ hindcasts. The black dots represent the skill of the MME, and the red, blue, and green dots indicate the ensemble mean skill of POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, and ACCESS-S1, respectively. Gray solid lines denote 0.5 value of ACC, while the black dashed lines indicate the skill of persistence.

According to the model ensemble mean results, both POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F do not produce a useful skill (with an ACC of lower than 0.5) in predicting the Somali CEF at all lead times. ACCESS-S1 can predict the Somali CEF skillfully at 2-month lead (with an ACC of greater than 0.5), but the skill drops below 0.3 at 5-month lead. In contrast, the ACC skill of the MC CEF is much higher than that of the Somali CEF (cf. the first and second rows of Fig. 6). This higher skill may be partly due to the fact that the correlation between the MC CEF and ENSO is higher than that between the Somali CEF and ENSO (e.g., Li et al. 2017). The ensemble mean skill of individual models in predicting the MC CEF shows a useful score out to 4–5 months lead. ACCESS-S1 shows the highest skill among the three models with an ACC score of above 0.7 even at 5 months lead.

For the prediction of the CEF seesaw index, the skill in the POAMA-2 is above 0.6 at 1-month lead but drops quickly to below 0.5 at 2-month lead. Surprisingly, the ACC skill is then gradually improved up to 5-month lead, consistent with the same skill behavior of POAMA-2 in predicting the Somali CEF (cf. the first and third panels of the first column of Fig. 6). However, its prediction skill of the Niño-3 index shows a gradual decrease with the increasing lead time (the fourth panel of the first column of Fig. 6). This suggests that other factors may play a role in influencing the predictive skill of the Somali CEF. The SINTEX-F model produces a useful skill for the CEF seesaw index up to 4-month lead, but the skill decreases sharply at 5–6 months lead. Encouragingly, skillful predictions of the CEF seesaw index are produced in the ACCESS-S1 at both 2-month lead (with a high ACC score of 0.8) and 5-month lead (with the ACC score of 0.6).

Comparing the correlation skills among the three models for the common period of 1990–2012, it is shown that the ACCESS-S1 model produces the highest skill in predicting the two CEFs, the seesaw index and the Niño-3 index, except that the skill of the Somali CEF prediction at 5-month lead is lower than that of the POAMA-2 (i.e., rightmost column of Fig. 6). The MME outperforms one or two models but not always all the three models in predicting both the CEF indices and the Niño-3 index. It is interesting to note that the highest prediction skill of the Somali CEF at 5-month lead is found in the POAMA-2, despite the fact that its prediction skill of the Niño-3 index at 5-month lead is the lowest among the three models. In contrast, although SINTEX-F can successfully predict the Niño-3 index with correlation of above 0.6 at 5-month lead, it fails to produce a skillful prediction of the interannual variation of the Somali CEF at 5-month lead. This suggests that the skillful prediction of the EP ENSO events may not guarantee a useful skill for the Somali CEF prediction. A further discussion about this issue is presented in section 4.

Figure 7 displays the root-mean-square error (RMSE) skill of the four indices. The RMSE is calculated based on the observed and forecasted anomalies at each lead time with the model climate drift being removed. Note that a skillful prediction generally requires that the RMSE is smaller than one standard deviation of the observation. The hindcast results show that the RMSE skill of the ensemble mean is overall better than the mean skill of the ensemble members in all the three models. The models show large RMSE values for the Somali CEF and the MC CEF predictions (red solid lines in Fig. 7). The RMSEs are close to or higher than their observed standard deviations, except for the ACCESS-S1 model, which shows useful skill in predicting the MC CEF at both 2-month and 5-month lead times. For the seesaw index, the RMSE values at all lead times are generally smaller than one standard deviation of the observations except those of the POAMA-2 model (third row of Fig. 7). It appears that the RMSE prediction skill of the seesaw index in the three models is generally better than that of the individual CEF. For the JJA mean Niño-3 index, all the models produce useful skill out to 5–7 months lead with the RMSE being smaller than one standard deviation of the observation (bottom row of Fig. 7). The MME always outperforms one or two models but not all the three models at both 2 and 5 months lead (rightmost column of Fig. 7). In general, the RMSE skills at all lead times are consistent with those of ACC score, with lower RMSE values corresponding to higher ACC scores.

Fig. 7.

As in Fig. 6, but for the RMSE skill. The red dashed lines in the first two columns and open dots in the third column indicate the spread of the ensemble members of each model. Gray open dots in the rightmost column display the spread of all 53 members of the three models. Gray solid lines denote the observed standard deviation for the four indices. Note that the vertical scales in the fourth column are different from those in the other three columns.

Fig. 7.

As in Fig. 6, but for the RMSE skill. The red dashed lines in the first two columns and open dots in the third column indicate the spread of the ensemble members of each model. Gray open dots in the rightmost column display the spread of all 53 members of the three models. Gray solid lines denote the observed standard deviation for the four indices. Note that the vertical scales in the fourth column are different from those in the other three columns.

To assess the reliability of the model ensemble forecasts, we also examine the spread of model ensembles (red dashed lines and open dots in Fig. 7), which is represented by one standard deviation of the differences between the individual member and the ensemble mean for each model’s predictions. With sufficiently large ensemble sizes in a perfect model, a reliable forecast system requires that the RMSE of the model ensemble mean should be equal to the spread among the ensembles (e.g., Weisheimer et al. 2009; Fortin et al. 2014). The high-resolution ACCESS-S1 model produces reliable predictions for the Somali and MC CEFs as well as the CEF seesaw with the RMSE of the ensemble mean being very close to the ensemble spread (third column of Fig. 7). The POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F models produce reliable predictions for the MC CEF, but they are overconfident in predicting the Somali CEF and the CEF seesaw index, with the ensemble spread being substantially smaller than the RMSE of the ensemble mean (first and second columns of Fig. 7). Predictions of the Niño-3 index in all the three models are overconfident except for the short-lead forecasts in the SINTEX-F model (bottom row of Fig. 7). Interestingly, including all the 53 members in the MME forecasts does not improve the overconfidence problem in the predictions of the Niño-3 and CEF seesaw indices (rightmost column of Fig. 7). For the predictions of the Somali and MC CEFS, however, the MME becomes too much dispersive. The underlying reasons for this interesting behavior are unclear and warrant future studies.

b. Prediction of the CEF seesaw–related monsoonal precipitation pattern

The interannual variation of the CEF seesaw shows a statistically significant positive correlation with the AISRI (with a correlation coefficient of 0.59) and a significant negative correlation with the EASMI (−0.31). Thus, the observations show a robust relation between the CEFs and the two Asian monsoons. In this subsection, the prediction skills of the AISRI, EASMI, and the CEF seesaw–related precipitation anomaly pattern over the entire Asia–Australia monsoon region are assessed.

Figure 8 shows the ACC skills of the AISRI and EASMI prediction in the three models. The results indicate that the prediction skill of the AISRI is low in POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F, in consistent with their low ACC skill of the Somali CEF. The ACC skill of the EASMI is higher than that of the AISRI in all the three models. This may be partly because the prediction skill of the MC CEF is higher than that of the Somali CEF, and partly because precipitation is generally less predictable compared to the monsoonal circulation. Again, the high-resolution ACCESS-S1 model shows a better performance in predicting the two monsoon indices. Encouragingly, all the models’ predictions outperform the persistence forecasts; also, the MME mean tends to (but does not always) produce the best forecasts compared to the three individual models.

Fig. 8.

As in Fig. 6, but for the ACC skill of the all-India summer rainfall index (AISRI) and the East Asian summer monsoon index (EASMI).

Fig. 8.

As in Fig. 6, but for the ACC skill of the all-India summer rainfall index (AISRI) and the East Asian summer monsoon index (EASMI).

Correlated with the CEF seesaw index, a “horseshoe” precipitation anomaly pattern in the Asian–Australian monsoon region during JJA is seen in the observations (Fig. 9a). Related to a positive CEF seesaw index, significant positive anomalies appear in northern Australia, the MC area, the Indian peninsula, and northern China, and negative anomalies prevail from the northern part of Bay of Bengal to southeastern China and the western Pacific. This precipitation anomaly pattern is similar to the first leading EOF (empirical orthogonal function) pattern over the entire Asian–Australian summer monsoon area (with a pattern correlation of 0.70). To assess how well the observed CEF seesaw–related precipitation anomaly pattern can be predicted by the models, we project the predicted precipitation anomaly onto the observed horseshoe pattern (i.e., Fig. 9a). This type of projection has been widely applied in previous studies [e.g., the Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) predictions in which model forecasts are projected onto the observed MJO EOFs; see http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/CLIVAR/clivar_wh.shtml]. An alternative way is to assess the skill of the modeled CEF seesaw–related precipitation pattern. However, since the models have biases in capturing the observed CEF seesaw–related precipitation pattern, this type of assessment does not tell us the true skill in predicting the observed precipitation anomaly pattern.

Fig. 9.

(a) GPCP precipitation anomaly pattern in Asia and northern Australia regressed onto the CEF seesaw index (ERA-interim) based on the observational datasets (1979–2014). Stippling denotes the area where the regressed anomalies are statistically significant at 5% level according to the Student’s t test. (b),(c) Projection coefficients of the predicted precipitation anomaly at 2- and 5-month lead onto the observed CEF seesaw–related precipitation anomaly pattern. The solid black lines indicate the observed projection coefficients. The red, blue, green, and black dashed lines represent the results based on the predictions of POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, ACCESS-S1, and the MME mean, respectively.

Fig. 9.

(a) GPCP precipitation anomaly pattern in Asia and northern Australia regressed onto the CEF seesaw index (ERA-interim) based on the observational datasets (1979–2014). Stippling denotes the area where the regressed anomalies are statistically significant at 5% level according to the Student’s t test. (b),(c) Projection coefficients of the predicted precipitation anomaly at 2- and 5-month lead onto the observed CEF seesaw–related precipitation anomaly pattern. The solid black lines indicate the observed projection coefficients. The red, blue, green, and black dashed lines represent the results based on the predictions of POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, ACCESS-S1, and the MME mean, respectively.

The projection coefficients of the precipitation anomaly on the observed horseshoe pattern are then compared between the observed and multimodel prediction results (Fig. 9b,c). Interannual variations of this horseshoe precipitation anomaly pattern are highly predicted in the ACCESS-S1 model, and correlation skills between the observed and predicted projection coefficients reach about 0.85 at 2-month lead and about 0.7 at 5-month lead in ACCESS-S1 (green asterisks in Fig. 10). Comparatively, the other two models with coarse and intermediate resolutions show lower skill in predicting the CEF seesaw–related monsoonal precipitation pattern (Fig. 10). Nevertheless, the horseshoe monsoonal precipitation pattern can still be skillfully predicted out to 4–5 months lead in the two models. In particular, the positive (negative) phase of the horseshoe monsoonal precipitation pattern in 1988, 1995, 1998, and 2010 (1982, 1987, 1991, 1994, 1997, and 2002) is realistically predicted at 2-month and 5-month lead (Fig. 9).

Fig. 10.

Correlation coefficients between the observed and predicted projection coefficients of the CEF seesaw–related precipitation anomaly pattern. The red, blue, green, and black colors represent the skill of POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, ACCESS-S1, and the MME mean, respectively. The solid (dashed) lines for POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F indicate the results for the period 1990–2012 (1982–2012).

Fig. 10.

Correlation coefficients between the observed and predicted projection coefficients of the CEF seesaw–related precipitation anomaly pattern. The red, blue, green, and black colors represent the skill of POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, ACCESS-S1, and the MME mean, respectively. The solid (dashed) lines for POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F indicate the results for the period 1990–2012 (1982–2012).

In summary, the above results suggest the MC CEF is generally more predictable compared to the Somali CEF. On average, the correlation skill for the MC CEF reaches above 0.5 out to 5-month lead, with RMSEs being smaller than one standard deviation of the observations. In contrast, the models show a low prediction skill for the Somali CEF, with a low correlation skill and a large RMSE even at 2-month lead. Interestingly, the high-resolution ACCESS-S1 model shows the best skill in predicting the two individual CEFs, the CEF seesaw index, and the CEF seesaw–related monsoonal precipitation anomaly pattern for the common period of 1990–2012. While the superiority of the ACCESS-S1 over the other two models may be related to its high resolution, different initialization and parameterizations implemented in these model forecast systems could also play a role in producing the different prediction skills.

4. Discussion

Previous results of Li et al. (2017) have suggested that the interannual variations of the Somali CEF are predominately influenced by the ENSO through the Walker circulation, rather than the SSTA in the western Indian Ocean or other tropical areas. In addition, it is the eastern Pacific SST anomalies that have the strongest impacts on the Somali CEF, and the central Pacific ENSO has little influence on the Somali CEF. Consequently, we may normally expect that a higher predictive skill of the EP ENSO should lead to a better skill in predicting the Somali CEF. However, as shown in the previous section, while SINTEX-F exhibits a higher ACC skill of the JJA Niño-3 index out to 5–6 months lead than POAMA-2 does, SINTEX-F fails to produce a better skill of the Somali CEF. In contrast, POAMA-2 produces an increasing prediction skill of the Somali CEF from 2-month lead to 5-month lead (recall Fig. 6). These results suggest that a higher predictive skill of Niño-3 SST anomaly may not guarantee a better skill in predicting the Somali CEF.

To investigate a possible reason for the different Somali CEF prediction skills across the models, Figs. 11 and 12 show the ACC skills in predicting global JJA mean SST and precipitation anomaly, respectively. Retrospective prediction results show a high SST predictive skill in the tropical Pacific at 2-month lead in the three prediction systems. Useful skills are produced across almost entire tropical Pacific and large parts of the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic (upper row of Fig. 11). The correlation skills in the SINTEX-F and ACCESS-S1 models decrease quickly from 2-month lead to 5-month lead (Figs. 11d,f). In contrast, POAMA-2 shows a smaller skill drop and produces a higher SST skill in the central Pacific at 5-month lead (Fig. 11b). The higher predictive skill of the POAMA-2 model at 5-month lead can also be seen clearly in the prediction of the precipitation anomaly in the western-central Pacific (Fig. 12). In POAMA-2, ACC skill of the precipitation anomaly in the western-central Pacific at 5-month lead decreases a little compared to that at 2-month lead. In contrast, the SINTEX-F model exhibits a large decrease of the precipitation prediction skill in the western-central Pacific, particularly over the MC area, from 2-month lead to 5-month lead (cf. Figs. 12c and 12d). This suggests that SINTEX-F has a poor prediction skill of the Walker circulation over the western Pacific, which may possibly explain its inability to predict the teleconnection that leads to ENSO’s influence on the Somali CEF.

Fig. 11.

SST anomaly correlations (1982–2012 for the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F and 1990–2012 for ACCESS-S1) between the observations (NOAA OI SST) and the POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, ACCESS-S1 ensemble-mean predictions at 2- and 5-month lead.

Fig. 11.

SST anomaly correlations (1982–2012 for the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F and 1990–2012 for ACCESS-S1) between the observations (NOAA OI SST) and the POAMA-2, SINTEX-F, ACCESS-S1 ensemble-mean predictions at 2- and 5-month lead.

Fig. 12.

As in Fig. 11, but for the prediction skill of the precipitation anomaly.

Fig. 12.

As in Fig. 11, but for the prediction skill of the precipitation anomaly.

A similar result is obtained from the composite analysis of the three strong EP El Niño years (1982, 1987, and 1997) in the POAMA-2 and SINTEX-F models (Figs. 13 and 14). It is interesting to note that, in POAMA-2, the predicted SST anomaly pattern is closer to the observed pattern at 5-month lead (with a pattern correlation coefficient of 0.78) than that at 2-month lead (with a pattern correlation coefficient of 0.40) (cf. Figs. 13b and 13d), although the intensity of the predicted SST anomaly at 5-month lead is still weaker than the observed. Furthermore, compared to those at 2-month lead, the POAMA-2 predictions at 5-month lead shows a better forecast of the precipitation anomaly in both the central Pacific Ocean and the India area, and a better forecast of the basinwide easterly and northerly anomalies in the equatorial and northern Indian Ocean (cf. Figs. 14b and 14d); this favors a better prediction of the Somali CEF at 5-month lead (Fig. 14d). This may explain the gradually increasing prediction skill of the Somali CEF from 2-month to 5-month lead in POAMA-2. In contrast, SINTEX-F shows better predictions of the EP El Niño SST anomaly at both 2- and 5-months lead (Figs. 13c and 13e) than POAMA-2 does, but SINTEX-F fails to produce a better prediction of the precipitation anomaly over the MC region, the India area, and the central Pacific at 5-month lead (cf. Figs. 14c and 14e). Correspondingly, SINTEX-F fails to predict the easterly and northerly anomalies in the tropical Indian Ocean at 5-month lead, which may lead to a poor prediction of the Somali CEF at 5-month lead. In summary, good prediction skill of both the Niño-3 SST and the Walker circulation anomaly over the MC area are required to produce useful skill of the Somali CEF.

Fig. 13.

Composite SST anomaly (unit: °C) of three eastern Pacific El Niño events (1982, 1987, and 1997) based on (a) the observations and (b),(d) POAMA-2 model predictions and (c),(e) SINTEX-F model predictions at 2- and 5-month lead times.

Fig. 13.

Composite SST anomaly (unit: °C) of three eastern Pacific El Niño events (1982, 1987, and 1997) based on (a) the observations and (b),(d) POAMA-2 model predictions and (c),(e) SINTEX-F model predictions at 2- and 5-month lead times.

Fig. 14.

As in Fig. 13, but for the anomalies of composite precipitation (unit: mm day−1) and horizontal winds at 850 hPa (unit: m s−1).

Fig. 14.

As in Fig. 13, but for the anomalies of composite precipitation (unit: mm day−1) and horizontal winds at 850 hPa (unit: m s−1).

It is worth noting that, while the CEF seesaw index and the associated precipitation pattern over Asia can be skillfully predicted up to 4–5 months ahead (recall Figs. 6 and 10), the precipitation anomalies over individual grid meshes in Asia have low prediction skill (Fig. 12). The discrepancy between the relatively high CEF seesaw skill and the low gridpoint precipitation skill over Asia might be partly due to two factors, namely that the gridpoint precipitation is generally difficult to predict and that the models have biases in reproducing the observed CEF seesaw–related monsoon precipitation pattern.

5. Summary

In this study, predictive skill of the Somali and MC CEFs during boreal summer (JJA) has been investigated based on three seasonal prediction models, the coarse-resolution POAMA-2, intermediate-resolution SINTEX-F, and high-resolution ACCESS-S1. The climatological structure of the Somali CEF is well captured in the three models. In contrast, the local structure of the MC CEF is well reproduced in the SINTEX-F and ACCESS-S1 models but not in the coarse-resolution POAMA-2 model. This deficiency in predicting the fine structure of the MC CEF in POAMA-2 may be attributed to its inadequate horizontal resolution, since the MC region has a complicated and sharp land–sea distribution. ACC and RMSE skill analyses suggest that the prediction of the Somali CEF is more challenging than the prediction of the MC CEF. This may be partly because that the MC CEF has a higher correlation with ENSO than the Somali CEF does. For the MC CEF, the multiple models show useful ACC skill (>0.5) up to about 5-month lead (i.e., the prediction starting from the first day of February). On the contrary, skillful prediction of the Somali CEF is produced only up to 2-month lead (i.e., starting from the first day of May) in the ACCESS-S1 model and MME mean. The comparison of the prediction skill among the multiple models suggests that the ACCESS-S1 model and the MME mean show the highest predictability of the two CEFs, the CEF seesaw index, and the related precipitation anomaly pattern in the Asian and Australian monsoonal region. In addition, the present results suggest that the prediction skill of the Somali CEF depends on not only the model’s ability in predicting the ENSO-related SST anomaly in the eastern Pacific (since EP ENSO has a large influence on the CEF) but also the model’s ability in predicting the Walker circulation anomaly that brings ENSO’s influence onto the Somali CEF.

It is well known that the interannual variation of the CEFs shows a close correlation with the Asian summer monsoon and Australian winter climate. However, few existing studies have examined the predictive skill of the CEFs. And although many previous studies have addressed the predictability of the Asian summer monsoon, correct prediction of the monsoon precipitation is still a big challenge in current state-of-the-art climate prediction systems. The present study provides a preliminary assessment of the predictive skill of the Somali CEF, MC CEF, and monsoonal precipitation anomaly pattern related to the CEF seesaw, based on three seasonal prediction systems. Our results may help improve the understanding of the predictability of interannual variations of the two CEFs and the Asian summer monsoon precipitation.

Acknowledgments

This study is jointly supported by the Strategic Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant XDA11010401), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2015CB453202 and 2016YFA0601802), and the Natural Science Foundation of China (41421004 and 41528502). The authors thank Drs. Matthew Wheeler, Aurel Moise, Eun-Pa Lim, and Joshua Soderholm for their helpful comments and suggestions.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Adler
,
R. F.
, and Coauthors
,
2003
:
The version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present)
.
J. Hydrometeor.
,
4
,
1147
1167
, https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004<1147:TVGPCP>2.0.CO;2.
Alves
,
O.
, and
D.
Hudson
,
2015
: Seasonal prediction: Towards ACCESS-S. Coupled modelling and prediction: From weather to climate—Abstracts of the Ninth CAWCR Workshop, CAWCR Tech. Rep. 080, p. 147.
Alves
,
O.
, and Coauthors
,
2003
: POAMA: Bureau of Meteorology operational coupled model seasonal forecast system. Proc. National Drought Forum, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Bureau of Meteorology, 49–56.
Barnston
,
A. G.
,
M. H.
Glantz
, and
Y.
He
,
1999
:
Predictive skill of statistical and dynamical climate models in SST forecasts during the 1997–1998 El Niño episode and the 1998 La Niña onset
.
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
,
80
,
217
243
, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0217:PSOSAD>2.0.CO;2.
Barnston
,
A. G.
,
M. K.
Tippett
,
M. L.
L’Heureux
,
S. H.
Li
, and
D. G.
DeWitt
,
2012
:
Skill of real-time seasonal ENSO model predictions during 2002–11: Is our capability increasing?
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
,
93
,
631
651
, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00111.1.
Behera
,
S. K.
,
J.-J.
Luo
,
S.
Masson
,
S. A.
Rao
,
H.
Sakuma
, and
T.
Yamagata
,
2006
:
A CGCM study on the interaction between IOD and ENSO
.
J. Climate
,
19
,
1688
1705
, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3797.1.
Blockley
,
E. W.
, and Coauthors
,
2014
:
Recent development of the Met Office operational ocean forecasting system: An overview and assessment of the new Global FOAM forecasts
.
Geosci. Model Dev.
,
7
,
2613
2638
, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-6-6219-2013.
Cane
,
M. A.
,
S. E.
Zebiak
, and
S. C.
Dolan
,
1986
:
Experimental forecasts of El Niño
.
Nature
,
321
,
827
832
, https://doi.org/10.1038/321827a0.
Colman
,
R.
, and Coauthors
,
2005
: BMRC Atmospheric Model (BAM) version 3.0: Comparison with mean climatology. BMRC Research Rep. 108, Bureau of Meteorology, 66 pp.
Cong
,
J.
,
Z. Y.
Guan
, and
L. J.
Wang
,
2007
:
Interannual (interdecadal) variabilities of two cross-equatorial flows in association with the Asian summer monsoon variations (in Chinese)
.
J. Nanjing Inst. Meteor.
,
30
,
779
785
.
Cottrill
,
A.
, and Coauthors
,
2013
:
Seasonal forecasting in the Pacific using the coupled model POAMA-2
.
Wea. Forecasting
,
28
,
668
680
, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00072.1.
Dee
,
D. P.
, and Coauthors
,
2011
:
The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system
.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.
,
137
,
553
597
, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828.
Findlater
,
J.
,
1966
:
Cross-equatorial jet streams at low levels over Kenya
.
Meteor. Mag.
,
95
,
353
364
.
Findlater
,
J.
,
1969
:
A major low-level air current near the Indian Ocean during the northern summer
.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.
,
95
,
362
380
, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709540409.
Fortin
,
V.
,
M.
Abaza
,
F.
Anctil
, and
R.
Turcotte
,
2014
:
Why should ensemble spread match the RMSE of the ensemble mean?
J. Hydrometeor.
,
15
,
1708
1713
, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0008.1.
Graham
,
R.
, and Coauthors
,
2011
:
Long-range forecasting and the Global Framework for Climate Services
.
Climate Res.
,
47
,
47
55
, https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00963.
Gualdi
,
S.
,
A.
Navarra
,
E.
Guilyardi
, and
P.
Delecluse
,
2003
:
Assessment of the tropical Indo-Pacific climate in the SINTEX CGCM
.
Ann. Geophys.
,
46
,
1
26
, https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3385.
Guilyardi
,
E.
,
P.
Delecluse
,
S.
Gualdi
, and
A.
Navarra
,
2003
:
Mechanisms for ENSO phase change in a coupled GCM
.
J. Climate
,
16
,
1141
1158
, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)16<1141:MFEPCI>2.0.CO;2.
Halpern
,
D.
, and
P. M.
Woiceshyn
,
2001
:
Somali jet in the Arabian Sea, El Niño, and India rainfall
.
J. Climate
,
14
,
434
441
, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0434:SJITAS>2.0.CO;2.
Huang
,
R. H.
,
Z. Z.
Zhang
,
G.
Huang
, and
B. H.
Ren
,
1998
:
Characteristics of the water vapor transportation in East Asian monsoon region and its difference from that in South Asian monsoon region in summer (in Chinese)
.
Sci. Atmos. Sin.
,
22
,
460
469
.
Hudson
,
D.
,
O.
Alves
,
H. H.
Hendon
, and
G.
Wang
,
2011
:
The impact of atmospheric initialisation on seasonal prediction of tropical Pacific SST
.
Climate Dyn.
,
36
,
1155
1171
, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0763-9.
Hudson
,
D.
,
A. G.
Marshall
,
Y. H.
Yin
,
O.
Alves
, and
H. H.
Hendon
,
2013
:
Improving intraseasonal prediction with a new ensemble generation strategy
.
Mon. Wea. Rev.
,
141
,
4429
4449
, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00059.1.
Jin
,
E. K.
, and Coauthors
,
2008
:
Current status of ENSO prediction skill in coupled ocean–atmosphere models
.
Climate Dyn.
,
31
,
647
664
, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0397-3.
Li
,
C.
,
2017
: On the seesaw between the Somali and the Maritime Continent cross-equatorial flows (in Chinese). Ph.D. thesis, The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 96 pp.
Li
,
C.
, and
S. L.
Li
,
2014
:
Interannual seesaw between the Somali and the Australian cross-equatorial flows and its connection to the East Asian summer monsoon
.
J. Climate
,
27
,
3966
3981
, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00288.1.
Li
,
C.
, and
S. L.
Li
,
2016
:
Connection of the interannual seesaw of the Somali-Australian cross-equatorial flows with China summer rainfall (in Chinese)
.
Chin. Sci. Bull.
,
61
,
1
9
.
Li
,
C.
,
J.-J.
Luo
, and
S. L.
Li
,
2017
:
Impacts of different types of ENSO on the interannual seesaw between the Somali and the Maritime Continent cross-equatorial flows
.
J. Climate
,
30
,
2621
2638
, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0521.1.
Li
,
Y. J.
,
J. P.
Li
, and
J.
Feng
,
2013
:
Boreal summer convection oscillation over the Indo-western Pacific and its relationship with the East Asian summer monsoon
.
Atmos. Sci. Lett.
,
14
,
66
71
, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl2.418.
Lim
,
E.-P.
,
H. H.
Hendon
,
D.
Hudson
,
M.
Zhao
,
L.
Shi
,
O.
Alves
, and
G.
Young
,
2016
: Evaluation of the ACCESS-S1 hindcasts for prediction of Victorian seasonal rainfall. Bureau Research Rep. 19, 43 pp., http://www.bom.gov.au/research/research-reports.shtml.
Liu
,
X. W.
,
Z. B.
Sun
,
D. H.
Ni
,
W. J.
Li
,
J. Y.
Jia
, and
G. R.
Tan
,
2009
:
Connection of 105°E and 125°E cross-equatorial flow with the Southern and Northern Hemispheric circulations (in Chinese)
.
Chin. J. Atmos. Sci.
,
33
,
443
458
.
Luo
,
J.-J.
,
S.
Masson
,
S.
Behera
,
P.
Delecluse
,
S.
Gualdi
,
A.
Navarra
, and
T.
Yamagata
,
2003
:
South Pacific origin of the decadal ENSO-like variation as simulated by a coupled GCM
.
Geophys. Res. Lett.
,
30
,
2250
, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018649.
Luo
,
J.-J.
,
S.
Masson
,
S.
Behera
,
S.
Shingu
, and
T.
Yamagata
,
2005a
:
Seasonal climate predictability in a coupled OAGCM using a different approach for ensemble forecasts
.
J. Climate
,
18
,
4474
4497
, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3526.1.
Luo
,
J.-J.
,
S.
Masson
,
E.
Roeckner
,
G.
Madec
, and
T.
Yamagata
,
2005b
:
Reducing climatology bias in an ocean–atmosphere CGCM with improved coupling physics
.
J. Climate
,
18
,
2344
2360
, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3404.1.
Luo
,
J.-J.
,
S.
Masson
,
S.
Behera
, and
T.
Yamagata
,
2008
:
Extend ENSO predictions using a fully coupled ocean–atmosphere model
.
J. Climate
,
21
,
84
93
, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1412.1.
Luo
,
J.-J.
,
W.
Sasaki
, and
Y.
Masumoto
,
2012
:
Indian Ocean warming modulates Pacific climate change
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
,
109
,
18 701
18 706
, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210239109.
Luo
,
J.-J.
,
J.-Y.
Lee
,
C.
Yuan
,
W.
Sasaki
,
S.
Masson
,
S.
Behera
,
Y.
Masumoto
, and
T.
Yamagata
,
2015
: Current status of intraseasonal-seasonal-to-interannual prediction of the Indo-Pacific climate. Indo-Pacific Climate Variability and Predictability, T. Yamagata and S. Behera, Eds., World Scientific Series on Asia-Pacific Weather and Climate, Vol. 7, World Scientific, 63–107, http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9664.
Luo
,
J.-J.
,
G.
Liu
,
H.
Hendon
,
O.
Alves
, and
T.
Yamagata
,
2017
:
Inter-basin sources for two-year predictability of the multi-year La Niña event in 2010–2012
.
Sci. Rep.
,
7
,
2276
, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01479-9.
MacLachlan
,
C.
, and Coauthors
,
2015
:
Global Seasonal Forecast System version 5 (GloSea5): A high-resolution seasonal forecast system
.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.
,
141
,
1072
1084
, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2396.
Madec
,
G.
,
P.
Delecluse
,
M.
Imbard
, and
C.
Levy
,
1998
: OPA 8.1 ocean general circulation model reference manual. LODYC/IPSL Tech. Note 11, 91 pp.
Manabe
,
S.
, and
J.
Holloway
,
1975
:
The seasonal variation of the hydrological cycle as simulated by a global model of the atmosphere
.
J. Geophys. Res.
,
80
,
1617
1649
, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i012p01617.
Masson
,
S.
, and Coauthors
,
2005
:
Impact of barrier layer on winter–spring variability of the southeastern Arabian Sea
.
Geophys. Res. Lett.
,
32
,
L07703
, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021980.
McPhaden
,
M. J.
,
T.
Lee
, and
D.
McClurg
,
2011
:
El Niño and its relationship to changing background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean
.
Geophys. Res. Lett.
,
38
,
L15709
, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048275.
Megann
,
A.
, and Coauthors
,
2014
:
GO5.0: The joint NERC–Met Office NEMO global ocean model for use in coupled and forced applications
.
Geosci. Model Dev.
,
7
,
1069
1092
, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1069-2014.
Oke
,
P. R.
,
A.
Schiller
,
D. A.
Griffin
, and
G. B.
Brassington
,
2005
:
Ensemble data assimilation for an eddy-resolving ocean model of the Australian region
.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.
,
131
,
3301
3311
, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.95.
Palmer
,
T. N.
, and Coauthors
,
2004
:
Development of a European multimodel ensemble system for seasonal-to-interannual prediction (DEMETER)
.
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
,
85
,
853
872
, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-6-853.
Rae
,
J. G. L.
,
H. T.
Hewitt
,
A. J.
Keen
,
J. K.
Ridley
,
A. E.
West
,
C. M.
Harris
,
E. C.
Hunke
, and
D. N.
Walters
,
2015
:
Development of the Global Sea Ice 6.0 CICE configuration for the Met Office Global Coupled Model
.
Geosci. Model Dev.
,
8
,
2221
2230
, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-8-2529-2015.
Ramesh Kumar
,
M. R.
,
S. S. C.
Shenoi
, and
P.
Schluessel
,
1999
:
On the role of the cross equatorial flow on summer monsoon rainfall over India using NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data
.
Meteor. Atmos. Phys.
,
70
,
201
213
, https://doi.org/10.1007/s007030050034.
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
,
1609
1625
, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<1609:AIISAS>2.0.CO;2.
Roeckner
,
E.
, and Coauthors
,
1996
: The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM-4: Model description and simulation of present-day climate. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Rep. 218, 90 pp.
Saha
,
K. R.
, and
S. N.
Bavadekar
,
1973
:
Water vapour budget and precipitation over the Arabian Sea during the northern summer
.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.
,
99
,
273
278
, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49709942006.
Schiller
,
A.
,
J. S.
Godfrey
,
P. C.
McIntosh
, and
G.
Meyers
,
1997
: A global ocean general circulation model climate variability studies. CSIRO Marine Research Rep. 227, 60 pp.
Schiller
,
A.
,
J. S.
Godfrey
,
P. C.
McIntosh
,
G.
Meyers
,
N. R.
Smith
,
O.
Alves
,
G.
Wang
, and
R.
Fiedler
,
2002
: A new version of the Australian Community Ocean Model for seasonal climate prediction. CSIRO Marine Research Rep. 240, 79 pp.
Schneider
,
T.
,
T.
Bischoff
, and
G. H.
Haug
,
2014
:
Migration and dynamics of the inter-tropical convergence zone
.
Nature
,
513
,
45
53
, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13636.
Tao
,
S. Y.
,
S. Y.
Xu
, and
Q. Y.
Guo
,
1962
:
The characteristics of the zonal and meridional circulation over tropical and subtropical regions in eastern Asia in summer
.
Acta Meteor. Sin.
,
32
,
91
103
.
Uppala
,
S. M.
, and Coauthors
,
2005
:
The ERA-40 Re-Analysis
.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.
,
131
,
2961
3012
, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.176.
Valcke
,
S.
,
L.
Terray
, and
A.
Piacentini
,
2000
: OASIS 2.4 Ocean Atmospheric Sea Ice Soil users guide, version 2.4. CERFACSTR/CMGC/00-10, 85 pp.
Walters
,
D. N.
, and Coauthors
,
2017
:
The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 6.0/6.1 and JULES Global Land 6.0/6.1 configurations
.
Geosci. Model Dev.
,
10
,
1487
1520
, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1487-2017.
Wang
,
B.
,
R. G.
Wu
, and
K. M.
Lau
,
2001
:
Interannual variability of the Asian summer monsoon: Contrasts between the Indian and western North Pacific–East Asian monsoon
.
J. Climate
,
14
,
4073
4090
, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<4073:IVOTAS>2.0.CO;2.
Wang
,
B.
,
S.
Clemens
, and
P.
Liu
,
2003
:
Contrasting the Indian and East Asian monsoons: Implications on geologic timescales
.
Mar. Geol.
,
201
,
5
21
, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(03)00196-8.
Wang
,
B.
,
Z. W.
Wu
,
J. P.
Li
,
J.
Liu
,
C.-P.
Chang
,
Y. H.
Ding
, and
G. X.
Wu
,
2008
:
How to measure the strength of the East Asian summer monsoon
.
J. Climate
,
21
,
4449
4463
, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2183.1.
Wang
,
G.
,
O.
Alves
, and
N.
Smith
,
2005
: BAM3.0 tropical surface flux simulation and its impact on SST drift in a coupled model. BMRC Research Rep. 107, Bureau of Meteorology, 39 pp.
Wang
,
H. J.
, and
F.
Xue
,
2003
:
Interannual variability of Somali Jet and its influences on the inter-hemispheric water vapor transport and on the East Asian summer rainfall (in Chinese)
.
Chin. J. Geophys.
,
46
,
18
25
.
Wang
,
J. Z.
, and
M. C.
Li
,
1982
:
Cross-equator flow from Australia and monsoon over China (in Chinese)
.
Sci. Atmos. Sin.
,
6
,
1
10
.
Wang
,
W. P.
, and
X. Q.
Yang
,
2008
:
Variation of Somali jet and its impact on East Asian summer monsoon and associated China rainfall anomalies (in Chinese)
.
Sci. Meteor. Sin.
,
28
,
139
146
.
Weisheimer
,
A.
, and Coauthors
,
2009
:
ENSEMBLES: A new multi-model ensemble for seasonal-to-annual predictions—Skill and progress beyond DEMETER in forecasting tropical Pacific SSTs
.
Geophys. Res. Lett.
,
36
,
L21711
, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040896.
Williams
,
K. D.
, and Coauthors
,
2015
:
The Met Office Global Coupled model 2.0 (GC2) configuration
.
Geosci. Model Dev.
,
8
,
1509
1524
, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015.
Xue
,
F.
,
H. J.
Wang
, and
J. H.
He
,
2003
:
Interannual variability of Mascarene high and Australian high and their influences on summer rainfall over East Asia
.
Chin. Sci. Bull.
,
48
,
492
497
, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03183258.
Xue
,
Y.
, and Coauthors
,
2011
:
An assessment of oceanic variability in the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis
.
Climate Dyn.
,
37
,
2511
2539
, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0954-4.
Yamagata
,
T.
,
S.
Behera
,
J.-J.
Luo
,
S.
Masson
,
M.
Jury
, and
S. A.
Rao
,
2004
: Coupled ocean–atmosphere variability in the tropical Indian Ocean. Earth’s Climate: The Ocean–Atmosphere Interaction, Geophys. Monogr., Vol. 147, Amer. Geophys. Union, 189–212.
Yin
,
Y.
,
O.
Alves
, and
P. R.
Oke
,
2011
:
An ensemble ocean data assimilation system for seasonal prediction
.
Mon. Wea. Rev.
,
139
,
786
808
, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3419.1.
Zhang
,
R. H.
,
2001
:
Relations of water vapor transport from Indian monsoon with that over East Asia and the summer rainfall in China
.
Adv. Atmos. Sci.
,
18
,
1005
1017
.
Zhong
,
A.
,
O.
Alves
,
H. H.
Hendon
, and
L.
Rikus
,
2006
: On aspects of the mean climatology and tropical interannual variability in the BMRC Atmospheric Model (BAM 3.0). BMRC Research Rep. 121, Bureau of Meteorology, 43 pp.
Zhou
,
Y.
, and
H. M.
Kim
,
2015
: Impact of ENSO on western Pacific cross-equatorial flows. 2015 AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Amer. Geophys. Union, Abstract A13A-0273.
Zhu
,
Y. F.
, and
L. X.
Chen
,
2002
:
The relationship between the Asian/Australian monsoon and ENSO on a quasi-four-year scale
.
Adv. Atmos. Sci.
,
19
,
727
740
, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-002-0012-1.
Zhu
,
Y. L.
,
2012
:
Variations of the summer Somali and Australia cross-equatorial flows and the implications for the Asian summer monsoon
.
Adv. Atmos. Sci.
,
29
,
509
518
, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-011-1120-6.

Footnotes

© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).