CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Climate variability and modelsMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsGeology and Paleoclimatology Research

Do CGCMs Simulate the North American Monsoon Precipitation Seasonal–Interannual Variability?

Liang, Xin-Zhong, Zhu, Jinhong, Kunkel, Kenneth E., Ting, Mingfang, Wang, Julian X. L.·2008·Journal of Climate
DOI 10.1175/2008jcli2174.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study uses the most recent simulations from all available fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (CGCMs) to investigate whether the North American monsoon (NAM) precipitation seasonal–interannual variations are simulated and, if so, whether the key underlying physical mechanisms are correctly represented. This is facilitated by first identifying key centers where observed large-scale circulation fields and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are significantly correlated with the NAM precipitation averages over the core region (central–northwest Mexico) and then examining if the modeled and observed patterns agree. Two new findings result from the analysis of observed NAM interannual variations. First, precipitation exhibits significantly high positive (negative) correlations with 200-hPa meridional wind centered to the northwest (southeast) of the core region in June and September (July and August). As such, wet conditions are associated with strong anomalous southerly upper-level flow on the northwest flank during the monsoon onset and retreat, but with anomalous northerly flow on the southeast flank, during the peak of the monsoon. They are often identified with a cyclonic circulation anomaly pattern over the central Great Plains for the July–August peak monsoon and, reversely, an anticyclonic anomaly pattern centered over the northern (southern) Great Plains for the June (September) transition. Second, wet NAM conditions in June and July are also connected with a SST pattern of positive anomalies in the eastern Pacific and negative anomalies in the Gulf of Mexico, acting to reduce the climatological mean gradient between the two oceans. This pattern suggests a possible surface gradient forcing that favors a westward extension of the North Atlantic subtropical ridge. These two observed features connected to the NAM serve as the metric for quantitative evaluation of the model performance in simulating the important NAM precipitation mechanisms. Out of 17 CGCMs, only the Meteorological Research Institute (MRI) model with a medium resolution consistently captures the observed NAM precipitation annual cycle (having a realistic amplitude and no phase shift) as well as interannual covariations with the planetary circulation patterns (having the correct sign and comparably high magnitude of correlation) throughout the summer. For the metric of correlations with 200-hPa meridional wind, there is general agreement among all CGCMs with observations for June and September. This may indicate that large-scale forcings dominate interannual variability for the monsoon onset and retreat, while variability of the peak of the monsoon in July and August may be largely influenced by local processes that are more challenging for CGCMs to resolve. For the metric of correlations with SSTs, good agreement is found only in June. These results suggest that the NAM precipitation interannual variability may likely be determined by large-scale circulation anomalies, while its predictability based on remote signals such as SSTs may not be sufficiently robust to be well captured by current CGCMs, with the exception of the June monsoon onset which is potentially more predictable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/2008jcli2174.1

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Liang, X.-Z., Zhu, J., Kunkel, K. E., Ting, M., & Wang, J. X. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (US)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Climate
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Published
2008-09-01
Volume
21
Issue
17
Pages
4424-4448
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
DOI
10.1175/2008jcli2174.1
OpenAlex
W1997540590
Cited by
36
References
69
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
Funders
Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
Keywords
North American monsoon, monsoon rainfall, coupled general circulation model, model evaluation, sea surface temperature anomalies, monsoon onset and retreat, model resolution

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