Potential predictability of low-frequency climate changes in the North Pacific depends on two main factors. The first is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to ocean-induced anomalies at the sea surface in midlatitudes. The second is the degree of teleconnectivity of the tropical low-frequency variability to midlatitudes. In contrast to the traditional approach of prescribing sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies, the response of a coupled atmospheric general circulation (CCM3)-mixed layer ocean model to oceanic perturbations of the mixed layer heat budget is examined. Since positive oceanic heat flux perturbations partially increase SST anomalies (locally), and partially are vented directly into the atmosphere, expressing boundary forcing on the atmosphere by prescribing upper-ocean heat flux anomalies allows for better understanding of the physical mechanism of lowfrequency variability in midlatitudes. In the framework of this approach SST is considered to be a part of the adjustment of the coupled system rather than an external forcing. Wintertime model responses to mixed layer heat budget perturbations of up to 40 W m 2 in the Kuroshio extension region and in the tropical central Pacific show statistically significant anomalies of 500-mb geopotential height (Z500) in the midlatitudes. The response to the tropical forcing resembles the well-known Pacific-North American pattern, one of the leading modes of internal variability of the control run. The amplitude of the Z500 geopotential height reaches 40 m in the region of the Aleutian low. The response of Z500 to forcing in the Kuroshio Current extension region resembles the mixture of western Pacific and Pacific-North American patterns, the first two modes of the internal variability of the atmosphere. In midlatitudes this response is equivalent barotropic, with the maximum of 80 m at (60N, 160W). Examination of the vorticity and thermodynamic budgets reveals the crucial role of submonthly transient eddies in maintaining the anomalous circulation in the free atmosphere.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yulaeva et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: