Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Thomas Spangehl x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Lon Hood, Semjon Schimanke, Thomas Spangehl, Sourabh Bal, and Ulrich Cubasch


The surface climate response to 11-yr solar forcing during northern winter is first reestimated by applying a multiple linear regression (MLR) statistical model to Hadley Centre sea level pressure (SLP) and sea surface temperature (SST) data over the 1880–2009 period. In addition to a significant positive SLP response in the North Pacific found in previous studies, a positive SST response is obtained across the midlatitude North Pacific. Negative but insignificant SLP responses are obtained in the Arctic. The derived SLP response at zero lag therefore resembles a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO). Evaluation of the SLP and SST responses as a function of phase lag indicates that the response evolves from a negative AO-like mode a few years before solar maximum to a positive AO-like mode at and following solar maximum. For comparison, a similar MLR analysis is applied to model SLP and SST data from a series of simulations using an atmosphere–ocean general circulation model with a well-resolved stratosphere. The simulations differed only in the assumed solar cycle variation of stratospheric ozone. It is found that the simulation that assumed an ozone variation estimated from satellite data produces solar SLP and SST responses that are most consistent with the observational results, especially during a selected centennial period. In particular, a positive SLP response anomaly is obtained in the northeastern Pacific and a corresponding positive SST response anomaly extends across the midlatitude North Pacific. The model response versus phase lag also evolves from a mainly negative AO-like response before solar maximum to a mainly positive AO response at and following solar maximum.

Full access
Emily M. Riley Dellaripa, Aaron Funk, Courtney Schumacher, Hedanqiu Bai, and Thomas Spangehl


Comparisons of precipitation between general circulation models (GCMs) and observations are often confounded by a mismatch between model output and instrument measurements, including variable type and temporal and spatial resolutions. To mitigate these differences, the radar-simulator Quickbeam within the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) simulates reflectivity from model variables at the subgrid scale. This work adapts Quickbeam to the dual-frequency precipitation radar (DPR) on board the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite. The longer wavelength of the DPR is used to evaluate moderate to heavy precipitation in GCMs, which is missed when Quickbeam is used as a cloud radar simulator. Latitudinal and land–ocean comparisons are made between COSP output from the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 (CAM5) and DPR data. Additionally, this work improves the COSP subgrid algorithm by applying a more realistic, nondeterministic approach to assigning GCM gridbox convective cloud cover when convective cloud is not provided as a model output. Instead of assuming a static 5% convective cloud coverage, DPR convective precipitation coverage is used as a proxy for convective cloud coverage. For example, DPR observations show that convective rain typically only covers about 1% of a 2° grid box, but that the median convective rain area increases to over 10% in heavy rain cases. In our CAM5 tests, the updated subgrid algorithm improved the comparison between reflectivity distributions when the convective cloud cover is provided versus the default 5% convective cloud-cover assumption.

Restricted access