The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Northern Hemisphere Extratropical Atmospheric Circulation Response to ENSO: How Well Do We Know It and How Do We Evaluate Models Accordingly?
Abstract
Application of random sampling techniques to composite differences between 18 El Niño and 14 La Niña events observed since 1920 reveals considerable uncertainty in both the pattern and amplitude of the Northern Hemisphere extratropical winter sea level pressure (SLP) response to ENSO. While the SLP responses over the North Pacific and North America are robust to sampling variability, their magnitudes can vary by a factor of 2; other regions, such as the Arctic, North Atlantic, and Europe are less robust in their SLP patterns, amplitudes, and statistical significance. The uncertainties on the observed ENSO composite are shown to arise mainly from atmospheric internal variability as opposed to ENSO diversity. These observational findings pose considerable challenges for the evaluation of ENSO teleconnections in models. An approach is proposed that incorporates both pattern and amplitude uncertainty in the observational target, allowing for discrimination between true model biases in the forced ENSO response and apparent model biases that arise from limited sampling of non-ENSO-related internal variability. Large initial-condition coupled model ensembles with realistic tropical Pacific sea surface temperature anomaly evolution during 1920–2013 show similar levels of uncertainty in their ENSO teleconnections as found in observations. Because the set of ENSO events in each of the model composites is the same (and identical to that in observations), these uncertainties are entirely attributable to sampling fluctuations arising from internal variability, which is shown to originate from atmospheric processes. The initial-condition model ensembles thus inform the interpretation of the single observed ENSO composite and vice versa.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1 · Cited by 14,052
Fan, T., Deser, C., & Schneider, D. P. (2014) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2014gl059239 · Cited by 161
Self-citation
Cited by
Evaluating Climate Models with the CLIVAR 2020 ENSO Metrics Package
Planton, Y. Y., Guilyardi, E., Wittenberg, A. T., Lee, J., Gleckler, P. J., Bayr, T., McGregor, S., McPhaden, M. J., Power, S., Roehrig, R., et al. (2021) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-19-0337.1 · Cited by 246
Brady, R. X., Lovenduski, N. S., Alexander, M. A., Jacox, M., & Gruber, N. (2019) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-16-329-2019 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Deser, C., Simpson, I. R., McKinnon, K. A., & Phillips, A. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 5059-5082
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2603131484
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Northern Hemisphere Extratropical Atmospheric Circulation Response to ENSO: How Well Do We Know It and How Do We Evaluate Models Accordingly? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0844.1
- The paper
- Deser, C., Simpson, I. R., McKinnon, K. A., & Phillips, A. S. (2017). The Northern Hemisphere Extratropical Atmospheric Circulation Response to ENSO: How Well Do We Know It and How Do We Evaluate Models Accordingly? Journal of Climate. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0844.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.