Cited by 149Climate variability and modelsGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations

Uncertainty of ENSO-amplitude projections in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models

Open access
Beobide-Arsuaga, Goratz, Bayr, Tobias, Reintges, Annika, Latif, Mojib·2021·Climate Dynamics

Abstract

There is a long-standing debate on how the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) amplitude may change during the twenty-first century in response to global warming. Here we identify the sources of uncertainty in the ENSO amplitude projections in models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6), and quantify scenario uncertainty, model uncertainty and uncertainty due to internal variability. The model projections exhibit a large spread, ranging from increasing standard deviation of up to 0.6 °C to diminishing standard deviation of up to − 0.4 °C by the end of the twenty-first century. The ensemble-mean ENSO amplitude change is close to zero. Internal variability is the main contributor to the uncertainty during the first three decades; model uncertainty dominates thereafter, while scenario uncertainty is relatively small throughout the twenty-first century. The total uncertainty increases from CMIP5 to CMIP6: while model uncertainty is reduced, scenario uncertainty is considerably increased. The models with “realistic” ENSO dynamics have been analyzed separately and categorized into models with too small, moderate and too large ENSO amplitude in comparison to instrumental observations. The smallest uncertainties are observed in the sub-ensemble exhibiting realistic ENSO dynamics and moderate ENSO amplitude. However, the global warming signal in ENSO-amplitude change is undetectable in all sub-ensembles. The zonal wind-SST feedback is identified as an important factor determining ENSO amplitude change: global warming signal in ENSO amplitude and zonal wind-SST feedback strength are highly correlated across the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00382-021-05673-4

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent study based on 36 CMIP5 models and 20 CMIP6 models finds a large spread in the projected ENSO change with no inter-model consensus.

    “In addition, our conclusion is based solely on CMIP6 models, but a recent study based on 36 CMIP5 models and 20 CMIP6 models 23 finds a large spread in the projected ENSO change with no inter-model consensus; the discrepancy suggests a sensitivity of our result to model generations.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Andrews T, Gregory JM, Webb MJ, Taylor KE (2012) Forcing, feed- backs and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere- ocean climate models. Geophys Res Lett 39:1-7. https ://doi. org/10.1029/2012G L0516 07 · DOI
  2. Bayr T, Dommenget D, Martin T, Power SB (2014) The eastward shift of the Walker Circulation in response to global warming and its relationship to ENSO variability. Clim Dyn 43:2747-2763. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-014-2091-y · DOI
  3. Bayr T, Latif M, Dommenget D et al (2018) Mean-state dependence of ENSO atmospheric feedbacks in climate models. Clim Dyn 50:3171-3194. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-017-3799-2 · DOI
  4. Bayr T, Wengel C, Latif M et al (2019) Error compensation of ENSO atmospheric feedbacks in climate models and its influence on simulated ENSO dynamics. Clim Dyn 53:155-172. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s0038 2-018-4575-7 · DOI
  5. Bayr T, Dommenget D, Latif M (2020) Walker circulation controls ENSO atmospheric feedbacks in uncoupled and coupled climate model simulations. Clim Dyn. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-020-05152 -2 · DOI
  6. Bellenger H, Guilyardi E, Leloup J et al (2014) ENSO representation in climate models: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim Dyn 42:1999- 2018. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-013-1783-z · DOI
  7. Bjerknes J (1969) Atmospheric teleconnections from the equa- torial Pacific. Mon Weather Rev 97:163-172. https ://doi. org/10.1175/1520-0493(1969)097%3c016 3:atfte p%3e2.3.co;2 · DOI
  8. Brown J, Brierley C, An S-I et al (2020) Comparison of past and future simulations of ENSO in CMIP5/PMIP3 and CMIP6/PMIP4 mod- els. Clim Past Discuss. https ://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2019-155 · DOI
  9. Cai W, Wang G, Santoso A et al (2015) Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming. Nat Clim Chang 5:132-137. https ://doi.org/10.1038/nclim ate24 92 · DOI
  10. Cai W, Ng B, Geng T et al (2020) Butterfly effect and a self-modulating El Niño response to global warming. Nature 585:68-73. https :// doi.org/10.1038/s4158 6-020-2641-x · DOI · Paper page
  11. Capotondi A, Wittenberg AT, Newman M et al (2015) Understanding ENSO diversity. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 96:921-938. https ://doi. org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00117 . · DOI
  12. Cobb KM, Westphal N, Sayani HR et al (2013) Highly variable El Niño-Southern Oscillation throughout the Holocene. Science (80-) 339:67-70. https ://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.12282 46 · DOI
  13. Collins M, Il AS, Cai W et al (2010) The impact of global warming on the tropical Pacific Ocean and El Nĩo. Nat Geosci 3:391-397. https ://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo8 68 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Dee DP, Uppala SM, Simmons AJ et al (2011) The ERA-Interim rea- nalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553-597. https ://doi.org/10.1002/ qj.828 · DOI · Paper page
  15. DiNezio PN, Clement AC, Vecchi GA et al (2009) Climate response of the equatorial pacific to global warming. J Clim 22:4873-4892. https ://doi.org/10.1175/2009J CLI29 82. · DOI
  16. DiNezio PN, Vecchi GA, Clement AC (2013) Detectability of changes in the walker circulation in response to global warming. J Clim 26:4038-4048. https ://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00531 . · DOI
  17. Dommenget D (2010) The slab ocean El Niño. Geophys Res Lett. https ://doi.org/10.1029/2010G L0448 88 · DOI
  18. Dommenget D, Haase S, Bayr T, Frauen C (2014) Analysis of the Slab Ocean El Niño atmospheric feedbacks in observed and sim- ulated ENSO dynamics. Clim Dyn 42:3187-3205. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s0038 2-014-2057-0 · DOI
  19. Gidden MJ, Riahi K, Smith SJ et al (2019) Global emissions path- ways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century. Geosci Model Dev 12:1443-1475. https ://doi. org/10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019 · DOI
  20. Guan C, McPhaden MJ (2016) Ocean processes affecting the twenty- first-century shift in ENSO SST variability. J Clim 29:6861-6879. https ://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0870. · DOI
  21. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:1095- 1107. https ://doi.org/10.1175/2009B AMS26 07. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hayashi M, Jin FF, Stuecker MF (2020) Dynamics for El Niño-La Niña asymmetry constrain equatorial-Pacific warming pattern. Nat Commun 11:1-10. https ://doi.org/10.1038/s4146 7-020-17983 -y · DOI
  23. Hu ZZ, Kumar A, Ren HL et al (2013) Weakened interannual variabil- ity in the tropical pacific ocean since 2000. J Clim 26:2601-2613. https ://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00265 . · DOI
  24. Hu ZZ, Kumar A, Huang B et al (2017) Interdecadal variations of ENSO around 1999/2000. J Meteorol Res 31:73-81. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s1335 1-017-6074-x · DOI
  25. Jin FF (1997) An equatorial ocean recharge paradigm for ENSO. Part I: conceptual model. J Atmos Sci 54:811-829. https ://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054%3c081 1:AEORP F%3e2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  26. Jin FF, Kim ST, Bejarano L (2006) A coupled-stability index for ENSO. Geophys Res Lett. https ://doi.org/10.1029/2006G L0272 21 · DOI
  27. Khon VC, Schneider B, Latif M et al (2018) Evolution of eastern equa- torial pacific seasonal and interannual variability in response to orbital forcing during the Holocene and Eemian from model simulations. Geophys Res Lett 45:9843-9851. https ://doi. org/10.1029/2018G L0793 37 · DOI
  28. Kim ST, Cai W, Jin FF et al (2014a) Response of El Niño sea surface temperature variability to greenhouse warming. Nat Clim Chang 4:786-790. https ://doi.org/10.1038/nclim ate23 26 · DOI
  29. Kim ST, Cai W, Jin FF, Yu JY (2014b) ENSO stability in coupled climate models and its association with mean state. Clim Dyn 42:3313-3321. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-013-1833-6 · DOI
  30. Knutson TR, Manabe S, Gu D (1997) Simulated ENSO in a global coupled ocean-atmosphere model: multidecadal amplitude modulation and CO2 sensitivity. J Clim 10:138-161. https ://doi. org/10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010%3c013 8:SEIAG C%3e2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  31. Knutti R, Sedláček J (2013) Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nat Clim Chang 3:369-373. https ://doi.org/10.1038/nclim ate17 16 · DOI · Paper page
  32. L'Heureux ML, Lee S, Lyon B (2013) Recent multidecadal strengthen- ing of the Walker circulation across the tropical Pacific. Nat Clim Chang 3:571-576. https ://doi.org/10.1038/nclim ate18 40 · DOI
  33. Latif M, Semenov VA, Park W (2015) Super El Niños in response to global warming in a climate model. Clim Change 132:489-500. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1058 4-015-1439-6 · DOI
  34. Li J, Xie SP, Cook ER et al (2013) El Niño modulations over the past seven centuries. Nat Clim Chang 3:822-826. https ://doi. org/10.1038/nclim ate19 36 · DOI
  35. Lloyd J, Guilyardi E, Weller H, Slingo J (2009) The role of atmosphere feedbacks during ENSO in the CMIP3 models. Atmos Sci Lett 10:170-176. https ://doi.org/10.1002/asl.227 · DOI
  36. Lloyd J, Guilyardi E, Weller H (2011) The role of atmosphere feed- backs during ENSO in the CMIP3 models. Part II: using AMIP runs to understand the heat flux feedback mechanisms. Clim Dyn 37:1271-1292. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-010-0895-y · DOI
  37. Lloyd J, Guilyardi E, Weller H (2012) The role of atmosphere feed- backs during ENSO in the CMIP3 models. Part III: the shortwave flux feedback. J Clim 25:4275-4293. https ://doi.org/10.1175/ JCLI-D-11-00178 . · DOI
  38. Lübbecke JF, Mcphaden MJ (2013) A comparative stability analysis of Atlantic and Pacific Niño modes. J Clim 26:5965-5980. https ://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00758 . · DOI
  39. Luo JJ, Sasaki W, Masumoto Y (2012) Indian Ocean warming modu- lates Pacific climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:18701- 18706. https ://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.12102 39109 · DOI
  40. McGregor HV, Fischer MJ, Gagan MK et al (2013) A weak El Niño/ Southern Oscillation with delayed seasonal growth around 4,300 years ago. Nat Geosci 6:949-953. https ://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1 936 · DOI
  41. McPhaden MJ, Lee T, McClurg D (2011) El Niño and its relationship to changing background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Geophys Res Lett. https ://doi.org/10.1029/2011G L0482 75 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Meehl GA, Senior CA, Eyring V et al (2020) Context for interpret- ing equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models. Sci Adv 6:1-11. https :// doi.org/10.1126/sciad v.aba19 81 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Meinen CS, McPhaden MJ (2000) Observations of warm water volume changes in the equatorial Pacific and their relationship to El Nino and La Nina. J Clim 13:3551-3559. https ://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0442(2000)013%3c355 1:OOWWV C%3e2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  44. Meng Q, Latif M, Park W et al (2012) Twentieth century Walker Cir- culation change: data analysis and model experiments. Clim Dyn 38:1757-1773. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-011-1047-8 · DOI
  45. Philander SG (1989) El Niño, La Niña, and the Southern Oscilla- tion. Int Geophys Ser 46:293. https ://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.248.4957.904 · DOI
  46. Planton YY, Guilyardi E, Wittenberg AT et al (2020) Evaluating cli- mate models with the CLIVAR 2020 ENSO metrics package. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. https ://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0337. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Power SB, Kociuba G (2010) The impact of global warming on the Southern Oscillation Index. Clim Dyn 37:1745-1754. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s0038 2-010-0951-7 · DOI
  48. Power SB, Kociuba G (2011) What caused the observed twentieth-cen- tury weakening of the walker circulation? J Clim 24:6501-6514. https ://doi.org/10.1175/2011J CLI41 01.1 · DOI
  49. Rayner NA, Parker DE, Horton EB et al (2003) Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J Geophys Res Atmos. https :// doi.org/10.1029/2002j d0026 70 · DOI
  50. Reintges A, Martin T, Latif M, Keenlyside NS (2017) Uncertainty in twenty-first century projections of the Atlantic Meridional Over- turning Circulation in CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. Clim Dyn 49:1495-1511. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-016-3180-x · DOI
  51. Seager R, Cane M, Henderson N et al (2019) Strengthening tropical Pacific zonal sea surface temperature gradient consistent with ris- ing greenhouse gases. Nat Clim Chang 9:517-522. https ://doi. org/10.1038/s4155 8-019-0505-x · DOI
  52. Smith TM, Reynolds RW (2003) Extended reconstruction of global sea surface temperatures based on COADS data (1854-1997). J Clim 16:1495-1510. https ://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442-16.10.1495 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Sohn BJ, Park SC (2010) Strengthened tropical circulations in past three decades inferred from water vapor transport. J Geophys Res Atmos. https ://doi.org/10.1029/2009J D0137 13 · DOI
  54. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Marquis M (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Intergov Panel Clim Chang (IPCC), Cambridge Univesity Press, Cambridge 4
  55. Stevenson SL (2012) Significant changes to ENSO strength and impacts in the twenty-first century: results from CMIP5. Geophys Res Lett. https ://doi.org/10.1029/2012G L0527 59 · DOI
  56. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Intergov Panel Clim Chang (IPCC), Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 1535
  57. Sun F, Yu JY (2009) A 10-15-Yr modulation cycle of ENSO intensity. J Clim 22:1718-1735. https ://doi.org/10.1175/2008J CLI22 85. · DOI
  58. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485-498. https ://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094 . · DOI · Paper page
  59. Trenberth KE, Branstator GW, Karoly D et al (1998) Progress during TOGA in understanding and modeling global teleconnections associated with tropical sea surface temperatures. J Geophys Res Ocean 103:14291-14324. https ://doi.org/10.1029/97JC0 1444 · DOI
  60. Tudhope AW, Chilcott CP, McCulloch MT et al (2001) Variability in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation through a glacial-interglacial cycle. Science (80-) 291:1511-1517. https ://doi.org/10.1126/ scien ce.10579 69 · DOI
  61. Uppala SM, Kållberg PW, Simmons AJ et al (2005) The ERA-40 re-analysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:2961-3012. https ://doi. org/10.1256/qj.04.176 · DOI
  62. Vecchi GA, Soden BJ (2007) Global warming and the weakening of the tropical circulation. J Clim 20:4316-4340. https ://doi. org/10.1175/JCLI4 258. · DOI
  63. Vijayeta A, Dommenget D (2018) An evaluation of ENSO dynamics in CMIP simulations in the framework of the recharge oscillator model. Clim Dyn 51:1753-1771. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-017-3981-6 · DOI
  64. Wang Y, Luo Y, Lu J, Liu F (2019) Changes in ENSO amplitude under climate warming and cooling. Clim Dyn 52:1871-1882. https :// doi.org/10.1007/s0038 2-018-4224-1 · DOI
  65. Wengel C, Dommenget D, Latif M et al (2018) What controls ENSO- amplitude diversity in climate models? Geophys Res Lett 45:1989-1996. https ://doi.org/10.1002/2017G L0768 49 · DOI
  66. Wittenberg AT (2009) Are historical records sufficient to constrain ENSO simulations? Geophys Res Lett 36:1-5. https ://doi. org/10.1029/2009G L0387 10 · DOI
  67. Xu K, Huang QL, Tam CY et al (2019) Roles of tropical SST patterns during two types of ENSO in modulating wintertime rainfall over southern China. Clim Dyn 52:523-538. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ s0038 2-018-4170-y · DOI
  68. Yeh SW, Kirtman BP (2005) Pacific decadal variability and decadal ENSO amplitude modulation. Geophys Res Lett 32:1-5. https :// doi.org/10.1029/2004G L0217 31 · DOI
  69. Yu B, Zwiers FW (2010) Changes in equatorial atmospheric zonal circulations in recent decades. Geophys Res Lett. https ://doi. org/10.1029/2009G L0420 71 · DOI
  70. Zheng XT, Xie SP, Lv LH, Zhou ZQ (2016) Intermodel uncertainty in ENSO amplitude change tied to Pacific Ocean warming pattern. J Clim 29:7265-7279. https ://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0039.1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beobide-Arsuaga, G., Bayr, T., Reintges, A., & Latif, M.
Affiliations
  • GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (DE)
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
Corresponding author
Bayr, Tobias
Venue
Climate Dynamics
Published
2021-02-11
Volume
56
Issue
11-12
Pages
3875-3888
ISSN
  • 0930-7575 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0894
OpenAlex
W3127494884
Cited by
149
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 13
FWCI
10.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Climate Dynamics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR) (acceptedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungs Gemeinschaft (429334714)
  • Projekt DEAL
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Keywords
ENSO, climate change projections, uncertainty sources, scenario uncertainty, model uncertainty, natural climate variability, CMIP5, CMIP6

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review