966

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

Global Warming Pattern Formation: Sea Surface Temperature and Rainfall*
SHANG-PING XIE,1 CLARA DESER,# GABRIEL A. VECCHI,@ JIAN MA,1 HAIYAN TENG,#
AND ANDREW T. WITTENBERG@
1 International Pacific Research Center, and Department of Meteorology, SOEST, University of Hawaii
at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii# Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado@ NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey(Manuscript received 1 July 2009, in final form 14 September 2009)
ABSTRACT
Spatial variations in sea surface temperature (SST) and rainfall changes over the tropics are investigatedbased on ensemble simulations for the first half of the twenty-first century under the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission scenario A1B with coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models of the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Despite a GHG
increase that is nearly uniform in space, pronounced patterns emerge in both SST and precipitation. Regional
differences in SST warming can be as large as the tropical-mean warming. Specifically, the tropical Pacificwarming features a conspicuous maximum along the equator and a minimum in the southeast subtropics. The
former is associated with westerly wind anomalies whereas the latter is linked to intensified southeast tradewinds, suggestive of wind–evaporation–SST feedback. There is a tendency for a greater warming in thenorthern subtropics than in the southern subtropics in accordance with asymmetries in trade wind changes.
Over the equatorial Indian Ocean, surface wind anomalies are easterly, the thermocline shoals, and thewarming is reduced in the east, indicative of Bjerknes feedback. In the midlatitudes, ocean circulation changes
generate narrow banded structures in SST warming. The warming is negatively correlated with wind speed
change over the tropics and positively correlated with ocean heat transport change in the northern extratropics. A diagnostic method based on the ocean mixed layer heat budget is developed to investigate
mechanisms for SST pattern formation.
Tropical precipitation changes are positively correlated with spatial deviations of SST warming from thetropical mean. In particular, the equatorial maximum in SST warming over the Pacific anchors a band of
pronounced rainfall increase. The gross moist instability follows closely relative SST change as equatorial
wave adjustments flatten upper-tropospheric warming. The comparison with atmospheric simulations in response to a spatially uniform SST warming illustrates the importance of SST patterns for rainfall change, aneffect overlooked in current discussion of precipitation response to global warming. Implications for the
global and regional response of tropical cyclones are discussed.

1. Introduction
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)
has been steadily increasing since the Industrial Revolution and will continue to increase for the foreseeable
future. The increasing concentrations of CO2 and other* International Pacific Research Center/School of Ocean andEarth Science and Technology Publication Number 633/7811.

Corresponding author address: Shang-Ping Xie, International
Pacific Research Center, SOEST, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Honolulu, HI 96822.
E-mail: xie@hawaii.edu
DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI3329.1
Ó 2010 American Meteorological Society

greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere are considered as the major cause of global-mean surface airtemperature (SAT) rise observed during the twentiethcentury and are projected to accelerate the rate of global
warming (Meehl et al. 2007). Various climate feedbacks
such as the one involving water vapor are important
for the warming magnitude and its uncertainties (Soden
and Held 2006; Bony et al. 2006). Much attention has
been directed to study these climate feedbacks and relevant physical processes (e.g., cloud microphysics). Global
warming, however, involves much more than just a warming of global-mean SAT. There are well-known patterns of
SAT warming in response to GHG increases, at least inmodels: for example, surface warming is much stronger

15 FEBRUARY 2010

XIE ET AL.

over land because of less efficient evaporative coolingand smaller heat capacity than over ocean (Sutton et al.
2007); it displays a tendency of polar amplification especially in the Northern Hemisphere because of ice/snow
albedo feedback (Manabe et al. 1990) and increased
polarward energy transport by atmospheric eddies (Cai2005); and the warming is weak over the deep- (bottom-)water formation region over the subpolar North Atlantic(Southern Ocean) because of the deep winter mixed
layer and circulation changes (Manabe et al. 1990). The
increased poleward gradients of sea surface temperature
affect storm tracks in the North Atlantic and Southern
Hemisphere (Yin 2005; Inatsu and Kimoto 2005).
Tropical patterns of global warming are not as wellknown nor as systematically studied as has been the
global mean. This is because spatial variations in surface
warming within the tropics are considerably smaller than
the warming contrast between land and sea and between
the Arctic and lower latitudes, making them hard to discern on a global map of SAT change. Small changes intropical SST nevertheless can be highly influential on
climate, as illustrated by observed climate variability. For
example, over the tropical Atlantic and Indian Oceans,
SST anomalies on the order of only 0.58C induce atmospheric anomalies not only locally but over remote areas(see recent reviews by Chang et al. 2006; Schott et al.
2009). Of larger magnitude and more expansive in space,
SST anomalies over the large Pacific basin associated with
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) have long-lastingclimatic effects over the entire globe (e.g., Alexander et al.
2002).
In model projections, precipitation change is often
characterized as a so-called wet-get-wetter pattern, increasing in the core of major tropical rainbands anddecreasing on their edges and in dry subtropical regions.
This wet-get-wetter pattern is generally explained interms of increased moisture gradients in both the horizontal and vertical and resultant dry advection awayfrom the core rainbands (Chou and Neelin 2004; Heldand Soden 2006; Chou et al. 2009). Tropical Pacific SST
warming displays patterns such as what Liu et al. (2005)
call the equatorial-enhanced response (EER) (Knutsonand Manabe 1995; Meehl et al. 2000). A question arises.
While tropical anomalies of precipitation and SST arecommonly known to interact strongly as in ENSO, it isunclear whether and how GHG-induced tropical precipitation change is related to SST patterns.
The present study is a general survey of tropical patterns and their formation under global warming. We
wish to address the following fundamental questions.
Although CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is nearly
uniform in the horizontal, do patterns emerge in response to GHG increase? What do these patterns look

967

like, and why do they form? Do they look like modesof natural variability? What are the atmospheric effectsof these SST patterns? With instrumental records still
too short and too sparse to detect reliably spatial patterns of global warming amid natural variability, we
have to rely on model simulations at this point. Recognizing that model errors are inevitable, we believe that
identifying pattern formation mechanisms and studying
their physics are the way to make solid progress. Sucha physical understanding is likely to hold and be useful ininterpreting patterns that eventually emerge in the future from sustained observations, even though the relative importance of various mechanisms might turn out
to be different.
The formation of current climate may be relevant to
the problem of global warming pattern formation. Despite an annual-mean solar radiation distribution thatis zonally uniform and symmetric about the equator,
strong zonal and meridional asymmetries emerge, as illustrated by the equatorial cold tongue and northward
displaced intertropical convergence zone in the Pacific andAtlantic. The Bjerknes (1969) and wind–evaporation–
SST (WES) (Xie and Philander 1994) feedbacks areimportant for the development of zonal and meridional asymmetry over equatorial oceans, respectively. A
natural question is whether similar ocean–atmosphereinteractions are important for global warming patternformation.
The present study identifies major patterns of changes
in SST, precipitation, surface wind, and ocean circulationin global warming simulations and investigates their formation mechanisms. Our investigation is based on ensemble simulations for the next half century carried out
at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)
and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
Substantial spatial variations in SST change emerge,
typically about 25% of the tropical mean in standard
deviation of spatial variations. Ocean–atmosphere interactions are, indeed, important for SST pattern formation
but may operate in ways different than we are familiar
with in current climate. We show that SST patterns exert strong controls on spatial variations in precipitation
changes. Along with the recent studies of tropical cyclone(TC) response to climate changes (e.g., Vecchi and Soden
2007a; Knutson et al. 2008; Swanson 2008; Vecchi et al.
2008; Zhao et al. 2009), our study puts the spotlight on
spatial patterns of tropical SST warming and their role intropical and global climate change. Our approach is tohighlight important processes for pattern formation—leaving in-depth, quantitative analyses for future studies.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
describes the model simulations. Section 3 develops adiagnostic method for studying SST patterns. Major

968

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE

results based on the GFDL model simulation are presented in sections 4 and 5, which discuss SST patterns andexplore their formation mechanisms. Section 6 presents
results from the NCAR model simulation and compareswith the GFDL one. Section 7 investigates the relationship between SST and precipitation patterns. Section 8
discusses implications for tropical cyclone change. Section
9 is a summary. Sections 4–8 present a number of ocean–
atmospheric patterns. Readers may skip to (sub)sectionsof interest.

2. Models
We analyze global warming simulations by two major
U.S. climate models: the NOAA GFDL Climate Model,
version 2.1 (CM2.1), and the NCAR Community Climate System Model, version 3 (CCSM3). Long integrations (;1000 years) have been performed under current
climate forcing without flux correction, reaching statistically steady states similar to observations.
The CM2.1 uses the Flexible Modeling System (FMS)
to couple the GFDL Atmospheric Model version 2.1(AM2.1) with the Modular Ocean Model version 4(MOM4). The AM2.1 builds on a finite volume atmospheric dynamical core and includes atmospheric physical packages and a land surface model. Its resolution is
28 latitude 3 2.58 longitude with 24 vertical levels, 9 ofwhich are located in the lowest 1.5 km to represent theplanetary boundary layer. The ocean model uses a finite
difference approach to solve the primitive equations.
The resolution is 18 longitude 3 18 latitude with meridional grid spacing decreasing to 1/ 38 toward the equator.
The model has 50 vertical levels, 22 of which are in theupper 220 m. A detailed description of CM2.1 can befound in Anderson et al. (2004) and Delworth et al.
(2006). The model simulates the current tropical climate
quite realistically, including the annual-mean state, seasonal cycle, and major modes of interannual variability(Wittenberg et al. 2006).
The CCSM3 is a coupled model of ocean, atmosphere,
land, and sea ice. The Community Atmosphere Modelversion 3 (CAM3) uses an Eulerian spectral dynamicalcore and includes physical packages for convection,
turbulence, and cloud. The model uses triangular truncation at T42 (equivalent grid spacing of 2.88) and has
26 vertical levels. Based on the Parallel Ocean Program(POP) version 1.4.3 from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the ocean component has a horizontal resolutionof 18 and 40 vertical levels. Further details on CCSM3
may be found in Collins et al. (2006). Deser et al. (2006)
present its simulation in the tropics.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)

VOLUME 23

A1B scenario for the emission of a few climatically important trace gases (e.g., carbon dioxide and ozone) isbased on certain socioeconomic development paths forthe twenty-first century. It projects a rough doubling of
atmospheric CO2 for the century as well as recoveryof the Southern Hemisphere ‘‘ozone hole’’ by approximately 2050. A 10-member ensemble simulation has
been completed at GFDL for the A1B scenario up to
2050. At NCAR, a 30-member ensemble simulation has
been carried out up to 2062. In this paper, we analyze
ensemble-mean, 50-yr difference fields for these A1B
simulations: 2046–50 minus 1996–2000 for CM2.1 and
2051–60 minus 2001–10 for CCSM3. The use of ensemble means helps reduce natural variability and isolate theresponse to GHG increase. Changes in climate forcing
between these two 50-yr periods are slightly different
but similar enough for our purposes. In A1B, the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises by 163 ppm from369 ppm in 2000 to 532 ppm in 2050. CM2.1 features
a higher climate sensitivity than CCSM3, with a slightly
stronger warming over 50 yr. The annual-mean SST riseaveraged in the tropics (308S–308N) is 1.058C in CM2.1
and 1.018C in CCSM3. CM2.1 features larger spatial
variations in SST change than CCSM3 (0.278C versus
0.228C in standard deviation). Our presentation of results will be centered on CM2.1, but comparison will bemade with CCSM3.

3. SST pattern formation: Physical background
Integrating the ocean temperature equation from thesurface to the bottom of the mixed layer yields the SST
equationC›T9
5 Do 1 Qnet ,›t(1)

where T9 is SST change, C 5 coproH is the heat capacityof the mixed layer, cop and ro are the specific heatat constant pressure and density of seawater, H is themixed layer depth, Qnet is the change for 50 yr in the net
surface heat flux into the ocean (positive downward),
and Do is the ocean heat transport effect due to threedimensional advection and mixing (including entrainment at the base of the mixed layer). For the global
mean, the SST response to an abrupt CO2 doubling displays at least two distinct time scales: the fast response of
the mixed layer warming and a slow response to warm
the thermocline and deeper water masses via mixing
and ventilation (Dickinson 1981; Manabe et al. 1990).
The former takes a few years [as can be inferred fromthe slab ocean mixed layer (OML) model experiments],
and the latter tens to hundreds years or longer (Stouffer2004).

15 FEBRUARY 2010969

XIE ET AL.

The present study concerns SST pattern formation for
the first half of the twenty-first century. For a slowly
increasing GHG scenario like A1B, SST warming at
this early stage is dominated by mixed layer and upperocean processes that are in a quasi equilibrium with theslow GHG forcing. Indeed, tropical-mean SST (308S–
308N) increases by 18C for 50 yr in CM and CCSM,
equivalent to a rate of heat content change of 0.25 W m22
for a 100-m-deep mixed layer [left hand side of Eq. (1)].
By comparison, spatial variations in Qnet are one order ofmagnitude larger, amounting to 3.4 W m22 in standard
deviation over the tropics. Thus, for our discussion of
spatial pattern formation, the ocean transport effect balances the net surface flux to first order,
Do 5 Qnet .

(2)

This is a convenient diagnostic relationship that we use inthis paper to infer the ocean heat transport effect without
explicitly calculating all of the advection and mixing
terms. Often Do is dominated by advection of mean SST
gradients by anomalous currents. In such cases, we cancross-validate this relationship against changes in surface
current. Equation (2) misses pattern formation mechanisms due to slow ocean processes such as the deep water
ventilation, but they do not seem dominant in the tropics
for the first 50 years of A1B simulations.
Surface heat flux consists of four physical components:
solar radiation QS, longwave radiation QL, and turbulent
fluxes of sensible heat QH and latent heat QE. In models,latent heat flux is calculated using a bulk formula,
QE 5 Lra CE W[qs (T)  qa ]5 Lra CE W[qs (T)  RHqs (T 1 S)]
5 Lra CE W(1  RHeaS )qs (T),(3)

where L is latent heat of evaporation, ra surface air
density, CE the transfer coefficient, W surface wind speed,
RH surface relative humidity, S 5 Ta 2 T is surface
stability parameter, T and Ts are total SST and SAT at
2 m in kelvin, qs is the saturation specific humidity following the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, qs(T 2 S) 5
qs(T )e2aS, a 5 L/(RyT2) ; 0.06 K21, and Ry the gas
constant for water vapor.
Surface latent heat flux is a measurable physical quantity. In studying SST variations, however, it should not betreated as a single dynamical quantity but as a mixture of
SST response and atmospheric forcing. For example,
with a reduction in wind speed, the ocean responds byraising SST to release the same amount of latent heat
flux if everything else remains the same. This wind–
evaporation–SST adjustment illustrates the duality ofsurface evaporation as both an atmospheric forcing andocean response. In general, we can decompose surface
latent flux (3) into a Newtonian cooling,
QEo 5

›QE
T9 5 aQE T9,›T(4)

and a residual that represents atmospheric forcing,QEa 5 Q9E  QoE .

(5)

Similarly we can further decompose QaE into wind speed,
relative humidity, and stability effects, which are notdirectly tied to SST but are due to atmospheric adjustments. The wind effect, for example, may be obtained,
QEw 5

›QE
Q W9
W9 5 E,›W
W(6)which turns out to be quite influential in SST patternformation.
For pattern formation in mixed layer temperature, we
obtain from (1)0 5 (Do 1 Qa )  aQE T9.

(7)This equation casts SST pattern formation as a forced
response problem. SST variations may arise from ocean
circulation change, Do, and atmospheric forcing via radiative and turbulent fluxes, Qa 5 (QS 1 QL) 2 QH 2
QaE. Here sensible heat flux, QH 5 2cpraCHWS, hasbeen included as atmospheric forcing (cp is specific heatat constant pressure and CH the transfer coefficient forsensible heat). The SST dependency of surface evaporation acts as a damping to balance all forcing terms. The
Newtonian cooling coefficient, aQE , represents theocean’s ability to limit SST warming by evaporation. It is
proportional to mean evaporation, the latter varying
from more than 150 W m22 in the subtropics because ofhigh wind and low RH to less than 50 W m22 in theeastern Pacific cold tongue because of low SST, weak
wind, and high RH. Such large spatial variations in QE
turn out to be important for SST pattern formation.
Similar surface flux decomposition has been applied
to SST pattern formation in the equatorial Pacific (deSzoeke et al. 2007), the secular warming trend of thetropical Indian Ocean (Du and Xie 2008), and the rateof global precipitation increase under global warming(Richter and Xie 2008). The latter two studies show that
surface relative humidity and stability both increase, acting to reduce evaporation and amplify the SST warming.
Richter and Xie (2008) suggest that the increase in stability cools the surface atmosphere and forces RH to increase in analogy to sea fog formation. Takahashi (2009)

970

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. 1. Zonal- and annual-mean changes in CM2.1 A1B: (a) SST (red line, 8C) along withclimatological latent heat flux QE (blue line); (b) shortwave (QS) and longwave (QL) radiation
at the sea surface (clear sky, dashed line); (c) atmospheric forcing component of latent heat flux
2QE-Atmos (black line) and its wind speed subcomponent 2QE-Wind (green line); and (d) atmospheric forcing Qa (black line) and Newtonian cooling QE-Newton (green line) due to surface
evaporation and ocean transport effect Do (blue line). Units for fluxes: W m22. The black linein (a) shows the SST response in Eq. (8) to Do 1 Qa 5 9 W m22, a value typical of ocean–
atmospheric forcing between 158S and 158N.

shows that surface atmospheric stability increase resultsfrom reduced radiative cooling of the ABL as the atmospheric optical depth increases.

4. Global survey of SST response patternsa. Zonal-mean structure
We begin by examining the zonal-mean SST response
structure in CM (Fig. 1). Two features stand out: SST
warming displays a sharp peak on the equator and ismuch stronger in the northern than southern subtropics.
The former is the EER pattern of Liu et al. (2005). Figure 1
also shows various flux components obtained from themethodology developed in section 3. Neither the radiative flux (QS and QL) nor ocean transport (Do) shows
an equatorial peak. Net downward longwave radiation ispositive everywhere because of increased GHG forcing
and water vapor feedback. The broad tropical maximum
in QL, for both clear and all-sky conditions, is consistent
with that in water vapor increase. Surface shortwave radiation decreases due mostly to increased water vapor

absorption (e.g., Trenberth and Fasullo 2009) as indicatedby the clear-sky curve. In the equatorial region, the increase in convective clouds reduces solar radiation evenmore. The net radiative flux into the ocean is weakly negative near the equator and slightly positive in the subtropics. The net atmospheric flux Qa (including radiativeflux and atmospheric contribution to turbulent flux) does
not show an equatorial peak.
The equatorial peak in SST warming appears owing tomeridional variations in the Newtonian cooling coefficient aQE . Mean latent heat flux (Fig. 1a) has a sharp
minimum of 100 W m22 at the equator compared toa subtropical peak of 160 W m22. The meridional variation in QE is a strong pattern formation mechanism for
SST,
T5(Do 1 Qa )(aQE ).

(8)

A sharp equatorial peak forms even if the ocean–
atmospheric forcing function (Do 1 Qa) is flat near the15 FEBRUARY 2010

XIE ET AL.

TABLE 1. Northern (108–308N) minus southern (308–108S) subtropical flux differences (W m22) in ocean heat transport effect Do,
net radiation QR, atmospheric forcing Qa, and Newtonian cooling
QEo components of turbulent heat flux at the sea surface, all zonallyaveraged in CM2.1. The wind speed effect on latent heat flux,
2QW
E , is a subcomponent of Qa.

D1030N
3010S

Do

QR

Qa

2QW
E

QEo

22.3

20.1

5.7

3.4

3.3

equator. The black line in Fig. 1a shows the SST response according to (8) to a constant (Do 1 Qa) 5
9 W m22, typical of ocean–atmospheric forcing between
158S and 158N. A QE (y) variation from 100 to 160 W m22
leads to a SST difference of 0.58C between the equator and 158S/N, slightly larger than the 0.38C differencein CM.
Liu et al. (2005) show that the equatorial peak in the
Pacific SST warming response is common among the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) models. Theysuggest that weak thermal damping due to weaker winds
causes a stronger warming on the equator than in thesubtropics (Seager and Murtugudde 1997). Knutson andManabe (1995) point to zonal variations in mean SST
as the major cause of variations in thermal damping
and SST warming. Equation (8) generalizes that it is themean evaporation that sets the Newtonian damping
coefficient and forms an equatorial peak in SST warming. This is a good example of how the mean state helps
shape spatial variations in SST warming. The mean evaporation pattern is determined by SST, wind speed, andrelative humidity.
SST warming is greater by 0.58C in the northern thansouthern subtropics, a substantial meridional asymmetry on a tropical-mean SST increase of 18C. Table 1 shows
the northern 2 southern subtropical difference in various fluxes. Ocean circulation changes would somehow
favor larger warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Of
various components of atmospheric forcing, the windeffect on evaporation dominates, 3.4 W m22 greater in
the northern than southern subtropics, accounting forthe north 2 south difference in Newtonian cooling. Thisis due to the intensification of the southeast trades by
0.3 m s21 and a slight weakening of the northeast trades.
Liu et al. (2005) note this meridional asymmetry andsuggest the hemispheric difference in land–sea area as
the cause. Our heat budget result shows the wind change
as the cause of the larger warming over the northern
subtropics, and section 6 will present evidence for interaction between SST and wind asymmetries. It is interesting to note that, in CCSM, this interhemisphericasymmetry in warming magnitude is much less than in
CM despite the same land–sea distribution and a general971

increase in surface warming over land. The following
sections explore the origin of interhemispheric difference in wind response.

b. Horizontal distribution
Figure 2 shows the annual-mean SST warming response in CM over the global (608S–608N) ocean. The
equatorial maximum is very pronounced in the Pacific
but absent in both Atlantic and Indian Oceans. On thebasin scale, wind speed change appears to be an important mechanism for SST variations (Fig. 2b). In theSouthern Hemisphere subtropics, the southeast trades
intensify in all three ocean basins, creating a meridional
SST minimum (,18C). In the Northern Hemisphere,
circulation changes are such that both northeast trades
and the midlatitude westerlies weaken, maintaining a
warming that is generally greater than 18C. The eastern
tropical Pacific north of the equator is an exception
where the wind speed actually increases, resulting ina local minimum in SST warming. The reduced windspeed south of Hawaii and in the tropical North Atlantic
leads to locally enhanced warming. Indeed, the correlation between wind speed change and spatial deviationsof SST warming (with the area mean subtracted) is 20.73
between 258S and 208N, illustrating the wind speed modulation of SST warming in the tropics. In comparison, thespatial correlation between mean evaporation and SST
warming is 20.11, mostly due to the QE minimum and
SST peak in the equatorial Pacific.
In the midlatitude Northern Hemisphere, the SST
warming displays narrow banded structures in the meridional direction. These banded structures are highly
correlated with ocean heat transport anomalies, diagnosed from Do 5 2Qnet, with the SST warming locallyenhanced where ocean dynamical warming is positive(Do . 0; Fig. 2a). Indeed, the correlation between Do
and spatial variations in SST (with the area mean removed) is 0.83 and 0.96 over the North Pacific and Atlantic between 208 and 608N, respectively. The ocean
dynamical effect becomes important in the extratropics(north of 208N) because large gradients in the mean SST
field enable ocean circulation changes to imprint readily
on SST warming. The next section discusses regional
ocean circulation changes in more detail.
Ocean dynamical effects can also be inferred by comparing CM2.1 with a simulation using a motionlessocean mixed layer (OML) model. Figure 3 shows theequilibrium response of the AM2.1 OML model to a
CO2 doubling (note the different color scale compared
to Fig. 2). The ocean mixed layer depth is 50 m everywhere and is forced by heat flux from the atmosphericmodel plus a prescribed monthly climatology of Q flux.
The Q flux mimics the mean ocean heat transport effect972

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. 2. Annual-mean changes in CM2.1 A1B: SST (color shaded, 8C) and surface wind velocity (m s21), along with(a) ocean transport effect [Do5 2Qnet, contour interval (CI) 5 W m22] and (b) scalar wind speed (CI 5 0.1 m s21).
Zero contours omitted for clarity.

and ensures that the model SST climatology is close
to observations. Major differences between CM andAM OML are found in the subpolar North Atlantic
and Southern Ocean, where the deep winter OML andocean circulation adjustments keep SST warming subdued there in CM and large warming emerges without
ocean dynamics in the OML simulation (Manabe et al.
1990).
The equatorial maximum in SST warming appears inboth the Pacific1 and Atlantic with reduced warming inthe subtropics, a meridional structure due to the variations in Newtonian damping (aQE ). This is especiallyclear in the subtropical Atlantic where the subtropical
SST minimum on either side of the equator is associatedwith little change in wind speed. Leloup and Clement

1

This is consistent with the OML simulation of Liu et al. (2005).

(2009) present a similar argument for reduced warming
over the subtropical North Atlantic. In the South Pacific,
the intensified southeast trades deepen the subtropical
SST minimum. Over the subtropical North Pacific, on
the other hand, the SST warming features a local maximum associated with a reduction in wind speed, consistent with the CM result that the SST asymmetry
between the northern and southern subtropics is due tothe asymmetry in wind speed change. Narrow banded
SST structures in the meridional direction disappear in
the OML simulation, confirming our earlier result thatthey are due to ocean circulation changes.

5. Regional patterns
Among many regional patterns in CM, we choose formore in-depth discussion those that appear robust amongmodels, judging from the multimodel ensemble-mean

15 FEBRUARY 2010

XIE ET AL.

973

FIG. 3. Annual-mean changes in the 2 3 CO2 simulation with AM2.1–OML: SST (color shaded, 8C): (a) surface
wind velocity (vectors, m s21) and scalar speed (white contours, CI 0.2 m s21; zero omitted) and (b) climatologicallatent heat flux (white contours, CI 25 W m22; thick $150 W m22).

maps (e.g., Fig. 10.9 of Meehl et al. 2007; Fig. 1 of Lu
et al. 2008). These patterns are found in the equatorial
Pacific, equatorial Indian Ocean, subtropical South Pacific, and midlatitude North Atlantic and Pacific.

a. Equatorial PacificEquatorial Pacific warming is flat in the east–west
direction with a broad maximum in the central basin(Fig. 4a). The zonal structure of the equatorial warming isaffected by a myriad of processes. The mean upwelling/
entrainment brings up pristine thermocline water, reducing surface warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific(upwelling damping, Clement et al. 1996; Cane et al.
1997). On the other hand, the Walker circulation slows
down under global warming (Vecchi et al. 2006) withwesterly wind anomalies in the equatorial Pacific (Fig. 4a).
The westerly anomalies deepen the thermocline in theeast, acting to warm the eastern ocean (thermocline feed-

back; Vecchi and Soden 2007b). Thus, the upwelling
damping and thermocline feedback effects are both expected to be large in the east but opposite in sign. Theirnet effect as measured by Do is nearly zero in the east
equatorial Pacific (Fig. 4b). The upwelling damping effect may weaken into the future as the ventilation brings
midlatitude SST warming to the equatorial thermocline(Liu 1998).
Along the equator, the ocean dynamical warming islarge in the west at ;5 W m22. The westerly wind anomalies drive eastward anomalous currents near the equator,
and the resultant warm advection explains much of thezonal variations in Do (Fig. 4c; DiNezio et al. 2009). The
ocean dynamical warming (owing to the eastward advection) alone, however, does not explain the zonal
structure of SST warming. The evaporative damping coefficient QE —large in the west and small in the east—transforms an eastward-decreasing Do into a nearly

974

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. 4. Annual-mean changes in CM2.1 A1B on the equator (2.58S–2.58N): (a) SST (red line, 8C) and zonal windvelocity (black line, m s21) and (b) horizontal advection integrated over the mixed layer (adv, blue line), the total
ocean heat transport effect (Do 5 2Qnet, green line), and the Newtonian cooling component (red line) of surface
latent heat flux, all in W m22. (c) Changes in current velocity (m s21) at 25 m superimposed on the climatological
SST (8C).

zonal-uniform warming pattern in SST, as expectedfrom Eq. (8). This evaporative damping effect is mostclearly illustrated in the AM–OML simulation (Fig. 3).
Without the ocean dynamical effect, the equatorial warming strengthens toward the east, roughly following the
1/QE function.
Figure 5 shows the longitude–time section of SST
warming on the equator. The equatorial Pacific warming
displays a pronounced annual cycle, peaking in May
with a maximum of 2.38C and reaching a minimum ofless than 18C in October. CM simulates the annual cycle
in climatological SST, with a maximum in April andminimum in September (Wittenberg et al. 2006). The
May–October difference in GHG-induced warming is
1.38C, as large as the annual-mean warming, representing a strengthening of the equatorial annual cycle.
Timmermann et al. (2004) diagnose the mixed layer heatbudget and show that the annual cycle in mean upwelling is the cause (Clement et al. 1996). The climatologicalupwelling is strong during the cool season of August–October, and the increased damping reduces the SST
response to the GHG forcing. With zonal wind change

varying little in season, this upwelling damping mechanism of Clement et al. appears to dominate the seasonal
cycle in SST warming. A similar annual cycle is foundover the equatorial Atlantic in the climatology and SST
response to GHG increase. The annual range of SST
warming is much weaker at ;0.58C in the Atlantic. Suchan annual cycle in SST warming is not found in the AM
OML simulation without ocean dynamics (not shown),
supporting the upwelling damping mechanism.
The GHG-induced pattern of tropical Pacific SST
warming is often characterized as El Niño–like in thatit peaks on the equator (Meehl et al. 2006). However,there are a number of important differences in the associated atmospheric responses over the tropical Pacificto global warming and El Niño. For example, westerly
wind anomalies extend across the entire equatorial Pacific in response to global warming (recall Fig. 2) but
are limited to the western half of the basin in El Niño(Wittenberg et al. 2006). The anomalous westerlies arealso more narrowly confined to the equator in global
warming compared to El Niño. El Niño and GHGinduced warming in the equatorial Pacific differ in15 FEBRUARY 2010

XIE ET AL.

975

FIG. 5. Longitude–time section changes in SST (CI 0.258C, shading ,18C) and surface wind velocity (m s21) on theequator in CM2.1 A1B.

seasonality: the former peaks in December while thelatter peaks in May. Off-equatorial atmospheric circulation also responds differently. During El Niño, sealevel pressure in the tropical South Pacific decreases aspart of the Southern Oscillation (e.g., Deser et al. 2006),
but it increases in global warming to intensify the southeast trades. The Aleutian low in the North Pacific deepens
during El Niño but slightly weakens, if anything, in global
warming (Fig. 2).
The GHG-induced warming and El Niño also differ inmechanism. Although thermocline feedback is key for
El Niño, removing interactive ocean dynamics in the
OML 2 3 CO2 simulation renders the equatorial SST
warming more El Niño–like than in CM, resulting inan eastward intensification due to the eastward decreasein evaporative damping. Four mechanisms—upwelling
damping, thermocline feedback, zonal advection, andevaporative damping—are involved in zonal SST pattern formation under global warming along the equator.
Not surprisingly, models display a great diversity in theeast–west gradient of SST warming along the equator(Liu et al. 2005) as the relative importance of thesemechanisms varies among models.

b. Tropical Indian Ocean
In the equatorial Indian Ocean, SST warming is nearlyzonally uniform at 1.258C except for July–November
when it is significantly reduced in the east by 0.58C(Fig. 5). Figure 6 shows the horizontal distributions during August–October of SST, precipitation, surface wind,and sea surface height (SSH) over the tropical Indian
Ocean. The SST warming is reduced to 0.58C off theIndonesian coast, whereas it is amplified to 1.58C in thenorthwest equatorial basin. The sharp SST gradients
force precipitation to decrease (increase) in the southeast (northwest) equatorial basin, driving strong southeasterly wind anomalies (.1 m s21) on the equator. On

the equator, the easterly winds shoal the thermocline
in the east, helping cool SST there via upwelling. The
patterns of ocean–atmospheric anomalies are indicativeof the Bjerknes feedback and reminiscent of the Indian
Ocean dipole (IOD).
The IOD is a major mode of climate variability over
the tropical Indian Ocean, strongly locked in phase to theJuly–October season when the southeasterly alongshore
winds induce upwelling on the Indonesian coast and permit Bjerknes feedback (Saji et al. 1999). For recent reviews, see Chang et al. (2006) and Schott et al. (2009) andreferences therein. Surprisingly, the shoaling thermocline and enhanced thermocline feedback in the easternequatorial Indian Ocean do not lead to an increase in
IOD interannual variability because atmospheric feedback weakens in response to strengthened troposphericstability (Zheng et al. 2010).
Many models, including CM and CCSM, display atendency to develop an IOD-like warming pattern during
the Sumatra upwelling season (July–October) with the
shoaling thermocline in the east (Vecchi and Soden
2007b; Du and Xie 2008). There are several reasons forthis tendency to develop. The slowdown of the Walker
circulation in global warming (Vecchi et al. 2006) is associated with easterly wind anomalies over the equatorial
Indian Ocean. Such anomalous easterlies, albeit weak,
are indeed present in the AM OML simulation (Fig. 3)
and may be amplified by the Bjerknes feedback during
the IOD season. Alternatively, the mean upwelling off
the Indonesian coast during the July–October season
reduces the local warming, initiating a zonal SST gradientand Bjerknes feedback (Meng et al. 2009, manuscript
submitted to Adv. Atmos. Sci.).
Over the equatorial Indian Ocean, SSH anomalies are
consistent with ocean wave response to easterly windchange, with an upwelling Kelvin wave wedge in the eastand downwelling Rossby waves with an off-equatorial

976

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. 6. August–October changes in CM2.1 A1B: (a) SST (color, CI 0.1258C) and precipitation (green/gray shade and white contours,
CI 20 mm month21) and (b) sea surface height (CI 1 cm) and surface wind velocity (m s21).

peak on either side of the equator (Fig. 6b). The thermocline deepens in the tropical southwest Indian Ocean
where the mean thermocline is shallow and allows thermocline changes to affect SST readily (Xie et al. 2002;
Schott et al. 2009). Indeed, the deepened thermocline acts
to warm SST with Do . 5 W m22 (Fig. 2a). Despite thisocean dynamical warming, the south Indian Ocean ismuch cooler relative to the tropical-mean warming thanin the AM OML simulation (cf. Figs. 2 and 3). This may
seem paradoxical, but a close comparison indicates that
the SST difference between these runs is consistent with
their difference in surface wind speed. In the AM OML
run, the large warming in the tropical south Indian Ocean
is associated with weakened southeast trades, while in
CM the southeast trades intensify.
The reduced warming in CM in the subtropical south
Indian Ocean may originate from the Southern Ocean,
where large differences are found between AM OML
and CM. In the Southern Ocean the SST warming issubstantially weaker in CM because of upwelling andbottom-water formation in the mean (Manabe et al.
1990). These results lead us to suggest that WES feedback helps propagate the Southern Ocean cooling equatorward in CM. The equatorial westward propagation
due to WES feedback, sometimes called fingerprinting mechanism, is important for extratropical–tropicalteleconnection in interannual variability (Vimont et al.
2003; Wu et al. 2007). Kang et al. (2008) recently suggest
an alternative, energetics argument for such a teleconnection. The Southern Ocean cooling owing to ocean
dynamical effects may explain weaker SST warming inthe southern than in the northern subtropics via theseteleconnection mechanisms from the extratropics to thetropics.

c. North Atlantic
The SST warming over the North Atlantic features
distinct banded structures that slant in a northeast–
southwest direction (Fig. 7). These bands are typically 58
wide and of basin scale in length. The SST difference
between neighboring warm and cool bands is about
0.58C on a background warming of 1.258C in the subtropics. Without exception, warm bands are collocatedwith northeastward current anomalies and cool bands
are collocated with anomalous southwest flows, indicative of advection of the southwestward SST gradients in the mean by anomalous currents (Fig. 7a). Thisadvection mechanism is consistent with the changes in
net surface flux, which act to dampen the banded structures in SST. Such narrow bands (;58 wide) are notpresent in the AM–OML simulation. Over the broad
subpolar North Atlantic north of 458N, SST anomalies
are actually negative, associated with strong dynamicalcooling resulting from changes in ocean circulation.
The narrow bands of alternating sign in the midlatitude/
subtropical North Atlantic illustrate that changes in ocean
dynamical fields can imprint strongly on SST warming.
A detailed analysis of the cause of circulation changes isongoing and will be presented elsewhere (H. Seo 2009,
personal communication). A brief summary follows. The
bands of alternating southwest/northeastward currents
in CM are due to changes in mode waters, thick layersof nearly vertical uniform water properties in the main
thermocline. Indeed, the southwest slant of these bands

15 FEBRUARY 2010

XIE ET AL.

977

FIG. 7. Annual-mean changes in CM2.1 A1B: SST (colored, 8C); (a) ocean current velocity (m s21) at 25 m and ocean heat transport effect(Do5 2Qnet; white contours, CI 5 W m22 with the zero contours omitted) and (b) surface RH (white, CI 0.25%).

of anomalous currents is consistent with changes in mode
water ventilation in the subtropical gyre. Xie et al. (2000)
discuss interdecadal changes in North Pacific mode waters and show that they can be the dominant mechanism
for ocean temperature variability in the central subtropical gyre. Gnanadesikan et al. (2006) analyze a CM
control simulation under constant GHG forcing andshow that the model produces spuriously thick mode
waters in the density range 26.5–27.5 su, possibly associated with the southward recirculation of the modelNorth Atlantic Current south of the British Isles. It isquite remarkable that changes in North Atlantic watermass ventilation have significant effects on SST in thesubtropics. We note that the southernmost narrow bandof SST sweeps through the main development region of
North Atlantic hurricanes.
The narrow SST bands leave clear signatures in thesurface atmosphere. Figure 7b is an example, superimposing changes in surface relative humidity and SST.
The width of SST bands is much smaller than the scalesof atmospheric adjustments (e.g., the radius of deformation). As a result, over a cool SST band, surface atmospheric stability increases, and this surface cooling of
the atmosphere acts to increase surface relative humidity, much as in sea fog formation. Over a warm SST
band, the opposite happens, with a small increase oreven a decrease in RH. Such a RH response dampens
the banded structure of SST. The RH difference between warm and cool bands is about 1%, equivalent to
a 5% change in surface evaporation or 5 W m22. Incomparison, the SST difference between neighboring

SST bands is about 0.58C, resulting in a latent heat flux
difference of 3 W m22. This RH response to SST bands
is consistent with the hypothesis of Richter and Xie(2008) that, in global warming, the radiative-induced
increase of surface stability causes RH to increase. The
RH changes over the North Atlantic may be decomposed into basin and narrow (58) scales. On the basin
scale, the RH increase is forced by GHG increase anda positive feedback for SST warming. On the narrow (58)scale, the RH increase is forced by a relative cooling in
SST and acts as a negative feedback for the narrow cool
SST band. On both scales, the RH increase is due to sea
surface cooling of the atmosphere.
Similar narrow banded structures are found in SST
warming over the midlatitude North Pacific (Fig. 2a),collocated with bands of Do change owing to changes
in mode water ventilation (F. Kobashi 2009, personalcommunication) and with RH change associated withatmospheric stability effects.

6. CCSM3
Figure 8 shows 50-yr changes in SST and surface windfrom the CCSM A1B, 30-member ensemble simulation.
Overall, the spatial variations in SST warming fromCCSM are similar to CM. Specifically, the Pacific warming features a local maximum on the equator where theevaporative Newtonian damping is at minimum. In theequatorial Pacific, large westerly wind anomalies andlarge ocean dynamical warming (Do . 10 W m22) arefound in the west, causing the SST warming to strengthen

978

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. 8. Annual-mean changes in CCSM3 A1B: SST (color shading, 8C), surface wind velocity (m s21), and ocean heattransport effect (Do; white contours, CI 5 W m22 with zero omitted).

slightly westward. In the Pacific, the SST warming islarger in the northern than southern subtropics, an interhemispheric asymmetry consistent with wind speed
change. An IOD-like pattern appears in the equatorial
Indian Ocean during July–October (not shown), with
reduced SST warming in the east compared to the west in
association with anomalous easterlies and the Bjerknes
feedback. In the northern extratropics, narrow banded
structures are prominent in the SST warming pattern,similar to those in CM. These banded SST structures are
positively correlated with the ocean heat transport effect(Table 2). Similar narrow banded SST structures associated with ocean circulation changes appear in theSouthern Ocean, especially the Indian and Atlantic sectors; these features are less apparent in CM.
In general, spatial variations in SST warming are
weaker in amplitude in CCSM than in CM. For example,
the equatorial maximum in the western Pacific is 1.48C
in CCSM compared to 1.78C in CM, and the southeast
Pacific minimum is about 0.58C in CCSM compared to
0.28C in CM. Also, the difference between the global
northern and southern subtropics is less pronounced in
CCSM compared to CM (0.18C compared to 0.48C). The
latter interhemispheric difference is almost nonexistentin the Atlantic basin in CCSM.

Southeast Pacific cool patch
The cool patch in the subtropical southeast Pacificwith a northwestward extension is a robust pattern in CM(Fig. 2a) and CCSM (Fig. 8), as well as in the multimodel
ensemble mean (Fig. 10.9 of Meehl et al. 2007). The coolpatch is collocated with the intensified southeast trades,suggestive of a WES feedback between them. Indeed,
ocean heat transport is small in the main part of the coolpatch, and the southeast Pacific cool patch is simulated
in OML simulations with both AM2.1 (Fig. 3) andCAM3 (not shown).
To shed light on the formation of this SST pattern, we
make use of complementary experiments with the CCSM
atmospheric model component CAM3. In these experiments, CAM is forced separately with either the direct
A1B radiative forcing (SSTs fixed at 2000 values, termed
the dRAD run) or the monthly SST field for 2000–60
from the CCSM A1B ensemble simulation (direct radiative forcing fixed at 2000 values, termed the dSST run).
An additional experiment in which CAM is forced withboth direct A1B radiative forcing and monthly SST
evolution from the CCSM A1B ensemble simulation reproduces the CCSM surface wind changes quite well(Fig. 9c). Similar results are found for the second half ofthe twentieth century for which observations are available for comparison (Deser and Phillips 2009).
Over the southeast Pacific, the change in radiative
forcing strengthens the southeast trades in the band 208–
308S (Fig. 9b), whereas the SST-induced intensification
TABLE 2. Correlations with SST deviations T * from area means:changes in precipitation P, scalar wind speed W, and ocean heattransport effect Do between 208 and 608N in the CM2.1 andCCSM3. Scalar wind speed is not available in CCSM3 output.

CM2.1
CCSM3

(T *, P)
208S–208N(T *, W )258S–208N(T *, Do)
Pacific(T *, Do)
Atlantic

0.56
0.61

20.73
—

0.83
0.33

0.96
0.39

15 FEBRUARY 2010979

XIE ET AL.

FIG. 9. Annual-mean response (2051–60 minus 2001–10)
of surface wind velocity (m s21) in CAM3 to (a) SST and(b) A1B RAD forcing only and (c) the combined forcing.
Superimposed are changes in (a),(c) SST (8C) and (b) precipitation (mm month21). A1B forcing includes ozone,
which affects both shortwave and longwave radiation.

of the southeast trades is nearly collocated with the coolpatch (Fig. 9a). This supports a possible fingerprinting
mechanism in which the direct dRAD effect triggers theinitial SST cooling by strengthening the southeast trades
and then WES feedback kicks in to propagate the coupled perturbation equatorial westward (Vimont et al.
2003, 2009; Wu et al. 2007). The wind response to dRAD
and dSST requires further study, but may be related tothe expansion of the Hadley circulation (Williams andBryan 2006; Lu et al. 2007) and changes in transient eddy
properties (Lu et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2008).

7. Effects of SST patterns on precipitation
We now examine SST effects on precipitation change.
Figures 10a,c show the SST and precipitation changes in
CM and CCSM. In general, increased (decreased) precipitation corresponds with local maxima (minima) of
SST warming. Over the tropical Pacific, for example, theequatorial maximum in SST warming apparently anchors a band of strong precipitation increase in both CM(Fig. 10a) and CCSM (Fig. 10c). South of the equator, on
the other hand, precipitation decreases as SST warming
weakens. The strong SST warming in the tropical North
Atlantic results in a precipitation increase, whereas over
the South Atlantic a band of decreased precipitation isassociated with a cool patch in SST. The positive correlation between SST and precipitation is also apparent
over the subtropical North Pacific, especially in CM.
Overall, the correlation between precipitation and SST
deviation from the tropical mean within 208S–208N is
0.56 and 0.61 in CM and CCSM, respectively.
Since there are little spatial variations in uppertropospheric warming, changes in gross moist instability

are dominated by variations in surface humidity (appendix). In coupled simulations, percentage change insurface humidity is highly correlated with local SST(Fig. 11), yielding a regression relationqa
5 aT 1 b,qawith a 5 0.052

and b 5 0.026.

(9)

The SST proportionality a is close to the theoreticalvalue (a 5 0.06 K21) from the Clausius–Clapeyron
equation. At T 5 0, qa does not vanish in (9), an effectdue to advection and diffusion of moisture increase fromsurroundings regions.
Spatial variations in SST warming have been overlooked in the literature on future precipitation projections. Discussion in the literature tends to focus
on the increase in humidity gradients associated with auniform SST warming owing to Clausius–Clapeyron
effects. Atmospheric model simulations of the response
to uniform SST warming are routinely conducted inclimate feedback studies (Cess et al. 1990). Figures 10b,dshow precipitation change in response to a uniform SST
increase of 2 K in AM2.1 and CAM2. These so-called
Cess experiments serve as a good baseline against which
we compare coupled simulations to evaluate the effectof SST warming patterns. Rainfall response is weak toatmospheric constituent change without SST anomalies(cf. Fig. 9b; Allen and Ingram 2002; Deser and Phillips2009).
In the Cess runs, a uniform SST increase results inprecipitation change with spatial variations. Rainfall increases along major climatological rainbands (Figs. 10b,d)including the South Pacific convergence zone (SPCZ) andthe ITCZ of all three ocean basins, except for the Indian

980

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. 10. Annual-mean precipitation change (green/gray shade and white contours, mm month21): (a) CM2.1 A1B
ensemble mean along with SST change (color contours, 8C) and (b) AM2.1 Cess 1 2 K run along with mean precipitation(color contours at 100, 200, and 300 mm month21). Intervals for precipitation (white contours) are 10 mm month21
in (a) and 20 mm month21 in (b). (c),(d) As in (a),(b), but for CCSM3 A1B and CAM3 Cess 1 2 K runs.

Ocean ITCZ in CAM3. This wet-get-wetter pattern,
while consistent with theoretical studies based on an
implicit assumption of uniform SST warming (Chou andNeelin 2004; Held and Soden 2006; Chou et al. 2009), isvery different from the coupled runs in spatial distribution. Over the tropical Pacific, for example, precipitation change is greatest on the equator in coupled runs
(Figs. 1a,c), whereas it is large off the equator in atmospheric Cess runs (Figs. 1b,d). Large differences between the coupled and Cess runs reaffirm the conclusionthat SST variations dominate the pattern formation in
rainfall change under global warming. This happens
because spatial variability in surface specific humidity

change is much larger in coupled runs than in Cess runs,
determined by spatial variations in SST warming (Fig. 11;
appendix).

8. Implications for tropical cyclone change
Tropical cyclone change in global warming is of greatsocioeconomic concern and scientific interest. Recently,
a body of work has emerged (e.g., Vecchi and Soden
2007a; Knutson et al. 2008; Swanson 2008; Vecchi et al.
2008; Zhao et al. 2009) suggesting that the SST change
relative to the tropical mean, instead of its absolute local
change, acts as a strong predictor of the local response of

15 FEBRUARY 2010

XIE ET AL.

FIG. 11. Scatter diagram for spatial variations in annual-meanchanges in SST and surface specific humidity in CM2.1 A1B within
208S–208N. For comparison, the red dot and error bar indicate themean and standard deviation in the AM Cess 1 2 K run: (dqa/qa) 3
100 5 7.2T 6 0.5.

TC activity to low-frequency global-scale climate changes.
This argument is partly based on an atmospheric instability argument similar to the one presented in the appendix: upper-tropospheric warming is determined bytropical-mean SST, so change in moist instability islargely a function of SST deviations from the tropicalmean. High-resolution downscaling simulations over
the North Atlantic support this relative SST change
hypothesis for TC frequency of occurrence (Knutson
et al. 2008). In these simulations, the SST threshold for
TC genesis increases with tropical warming (see also
Yoshimura et al. 2006).
Equipped with a detailed knowledge of tropical SST
patterns, we discuss their influence on TC based on
the TC potential intensity (PI) index of Emanuel (1986).
PI is proportional to the temperature between the surface inflow into and upper-tropospheric outflow of a TC.
Emanuel (2007) shows that PI, instead of change inabsolute SST, is a better index for thermodynamical
effect on TCs. In CM, PI changes are highly correlated inspace with relative SST changes (T *, Fig. 12), in supportof Vecchi and Soden (2007a). During the Southern
Hemisphere TC season of December–May, PI decreases
nearly everywhere in 208–108S. During the Northern
Hemisphere TC season of June–November, on the other
hand, PI remains largely unchanged in the western andeastern Pacific genesis regions (108–208N) but increases
in the North Atlantic main development region. Our981

CM result for the North Atlantic is somewhat different
from those of Vecchi and Soden (2007a) and Knutson
et al. (2008) based on a multimodel ensemble, reflecting
the sensitivity to SST patterns.
We highlight two tropical SST patterns that are robustand likely important for PI: a symmetric pattern with anequatorial peak and an antisymmetric pattern with larger
warming north of the equator. The latter reduces PI andsuppresses TC development in the Southern Hemisphere,
but the amplitude of this antisymmetric pattern varies
between CM and CCSM and among other models. The
equatorial-enhanced warming, on the other hand, anchors
the equatorial maximum in precipitation increase. Thus,
the equatorial peak in SST warming is likely important forthe magnitude of upper-tropospheric warming. The
magnitude of this equatorial peak in SST is subject touncertainties of model projection, but an increase in
the SST peak can result in a global TC suppression as theoff-equatorial SST warming cannot keep pace with theupper-tropospheric warming. Experiments have been
carried out with a version of a high-resolution, global
atmospheric general circulation model that shows skill in
simulating the observed spatiotemporal variability of TC
activity (Zhao et al. 2009). Preliminary results support
the global TC suppression hypothesis; tropical storm
activity in the model decreases in all basins in response toa 1.08C SST peak on the equator, with a global decreaseof 27% in tropical storm counts (G. Vecchi 2009, personal communication). Detailed analysis of this experiment is underway and will be presented elsewhere, butthese preliminary results illustrate the importance of thisequatorial-enhanced SST pattern for TC activity. A similar reduction in TC frequency is reported in time-slice
simulations with a high-resolution, global atmospheric
GCM (Oouchi et al. 2006) in response to SST warmingwith an equatorial peak in the Pacific and Atlantic.

9. Summary
We have examined pattern formation in SST and
precipitation responses to climate change based on
ensemble simulations by GFDL and NCAR coupled
ocean–atmosphere models under the A1B scenario. Although GHG concentrations are nearly uniform in space,substantial variations in SST warming emerge, both in theextratropics and the tropics. We have developed a physically based methodology that allows us to diagnose thecauses of the SST patterns and their impact on rainfall.
This study is a general survey intended to highlight theissues and stimulate further research.
Ocean circulation and surface flux adjustments are both
important for SST pattern formation. Sometimes, ocean–
atmosphere interactions help shape spatial patterns. For

982

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. 12. Changes in tropical cycle potential intensity (PI) along with relative SST change (T *, 8C) in CM2.1 A1B for
the (a) Northern and (b) Southern Hemisphere TC seasons. Zonal means are shown in the right-hand panels.

example, ocean dynamics is important for the IOD-likepattern in the equatorial Indian Ocean, aided by Bjerknes
feedback with the atmosphere. It also creates the narrow banded structures in extratropical oceans where
the mean SST gradients are large, on which anomalous
currents imprint on SST readily by advection. Specifically, changes in mode water ventilation appear to be themain mechanism for narrow banded structures in surface current anomalies. This calls into question the errors in simulating the Gulf Stream and its effect on mode
water formation.
Even without any change in ocean heat transport, adjustments among various surface flux components stillcreate SST variations. Latent heat flux appears particularly important via WES feedback and the evaporative/
Newtonian damping for SST pattern formation. The
former is commonly discussed in natural variability, while
the latter mechanism is not. Because the coefficient of
Newtonian damping on SST is inversely proportional tomean evaporation, SST warming peaks on the equator
where mean evaporation is much weaker than in thesubtropics. This equatorial enhanced warming pattern ismost pronounced over the Pacific but also seen over
the Atlantic in coupled atmosphere–OML simulations. In
broad subtropical regions, wind speed changes appear tobe the dominant mechanism for SST pattern formation.
A strengthening of the southeast trades acts to reduce the

SST warming in the southern subtropics, especially overthe Pacific. The northeast trades, by contrast, show aweakening tendency. This hemispheric asymmetry in
trade wind change leads to a stronger warming in thenorthern than in the southern subtropics, suggestive of
an interhemispheric WES feedback.
Most of the aforementioned patterns are common to
CM, CCSM, and many other models. The equatorial
Pacific maximum and subtropical southeast Pacific minimum are clearly visible in multimodel ensemble-mean
SST (Fig. 10.9 of Meehl et al. 2007; Vecchi and Soden
2007a; Lu et al. 2008), so is the IOD-like pattern over theequatorial Indian Ocean (Vecchi and Soden 2007b; Du
and Xie 2008). Despite the presence of many common
large-scale features in the patterns of SST change inmodel projections of the twenty-first century, the detailsof the patterns can differ considerably from model tomodel, and the SST change patterns that will eventually
emerge in the next few decades may still differ from theensemble-mean model projection because of model andforcing errors as well as the superposition of naturalvariability on the radiatively forced signal. The mechanisms discussed in this paper, however, are likely toprovide a useful guide to the interpretation and analysisof the patterns that do emerge.
The SST patterns highlighted above strongly affect precipitation, creating, among other features, an equatorial15 FEBRUARY 2010983

XIE ET AL.

maximum in rainfall change over the Pacific. The correlation between precipitation change and spatial deviations of SST warming from the tropical mean is dueto the fact that upper-tropospheric warming is nearly
uniform in the tropics. As a result, the gross moist instability is dominated by spatial variations in SST change.
We show that horizontal distributions of precipitation
change in coupled simulations are different from the socalled wet-get-wetter pattern that dominates simulations with spatially uniform SST warming. In the latter
Cess runs with a homogeneous increase in SST, spatial
variations in gross moist instability change are due tothose in mean precipitation, and precipitation increase
largely avoids the equatorial Pacific because of weak
rainfall in the mean. In coupled runs, by contrast, theenhanced SST warming in the equatorial Pacific anchorsa band of large precipitation increase. We conclude that
SST patterns are the dominant mechanism for precipitation change.
For the same reason, the relative SST change is important for tropical cyclone response to global warming(Vecchi and Soden 2007a; Knutson et al. 2008; Swanson
2008; Vecchi et al. 2008; Zhao et al. 2009). In particular,
we suggest that the equatorial enhancement of warming(e.g., Liu et al. 2005) and the tendency for the Northern
Hemisphere subtropics to warm more than the south inresponse to greenhouse forcing are likely to be important for the resulting TC changes. In an extreme case,a global TC suppression is possible if the equatorial peakin SST warming is sufficiently strong so that the offequatorial warming cannot keep up the pace and TC
potential intensity decreases in TC genesis regions in thesubtropics.
In this general survey, we have not been able to test in
detail our proposed hypotheses for the various SST and
precipitation response patterns. For example, connections are suggested in SST warming between the extratropics and subtropics via mode water ventilation in the
Northern Hemisphere and WES feedback in the Southern Hemisphere. There is a possibility that the reduced
warming in the Southern Ocean is a cause of interhemispheric asymmetry in subtropical SST warming.
We intend to investigate these and other hypotheses infuture studies.
Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Isaac Held,
Kevin Trenberth, Jian Lu, Jerry Meehl, John Fasullo,
Anand Gnanadesikan, Ken Takahashi, Tom Knutson,
Gabriel Lau, Rong Zhang, Ingo Richter, Fumiaki
Kobashi, and Hyodae Seo for helpful discussion; Adam
Phillips for technical assistance; and Amy Clement andanonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Much of
the work was conducted when SPX was on sabbaticalleave at NCAR and GFDL. This work is supported by
NOAA, NSF, NASA, and JAMSTEC.

APPENDIX
Moist Instability Analysis
We define a gross moist instability (IM) as the difference in moist static energy h between the sea surface
and upper troposphere (Neelin and Held 1987), say at
300 hPa,surface
I M [ dhsurface
300hPa 5 (cp T a 1 Lqa ) 300hPa ,(A1)

where Ta is air temperature anomaly. Figure A1a showsthat, in the equatorial belt, upper-tropospheric temperature change TT varies by less than 0.38C, with its
gradients flatted by fast equatorial wave adjustments(Sobel et al. 2001; Bretherton and Sobel 2002). As a result, moist stability change is dominated by SST variations (Fig. A1b). It increases in the equatorial belt,
especially over the equatorial Pacific where SST warming
is locally enhanced. It becomes negative in the southern
subtropics as the increase in surface h cannot keep up thepace of upper-tropospheric warming. In general, we candecompose SST warming or the change in IM into tropicalmean and spatial deviations, denoted respectively by
angle brackets and an asterisk; for example, T 5 hTi 1
T*. The correlation with precipitation increases slightly* is used instead of T*, to 0.60 from 0.56 in CM.
if IM
The dominance of SST in IM can be explained with thefollowing analysis. From the empirical relationship (9),*q*a 5 ahqa iT* 1 qa (ahTi 1 b),(A2)where the overbar denotes the mean state. In coupledruns, o(T */hT i) ; 1, whereas spatial variations in basicstate surface humidity are much smaller than the tropical mean; that is, o(q*/hqa i)  1. Equation (A1) may beaapproximated with!
*IM
aLhqa iT*  T T*,
5 11
cp
cp

(A3)

where the coefficient aLqa /cp ;2.6 for hqa i 5 17 g kg21
(we have neglected a small moisture effect on h in theupper troposphere). Since spatial variations in TT aremuch smaller than those in SST, the gross moist instability change is dominated by SST variations, consistent with the apparent correlation in space between
SST and precipitation.

984

JOURNAL OF CLIMATEVOLUME 23

FIG. A1. Annual-mean change in CM2.1 A1B: (a) 300-hPa temperature (shading . 2.75 K) and(b) gross convective instability IM/cp (shading . 2 K).

In Cess runs (T* 5 0), the percentage change in surface
specific humidity is nearly uniform in space (Fig. 11).
Equation (A1) becomes*IML*
5 (ahTi 1 b)q*a  TT.
cp
cp

(A4)

As a result, precipitation change follows the pattern ofmean specific humidity at the surface qa* , which in turns
follows largely mean precipitation.

REFERENCES
Alexander, M. A., I. Bladé, M. Newman, J. R. Lanzante, N. C. Lau,
and J. D. Scott, 2002: The atmospheric bridge: The influence of
ENSO teleconnections on air–sea interaction over the global
oceans. J. Climate, 15, 2205–2231.
Allen, M. R., and W. J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes
in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–228.
Anderson, J. L., and Coauthors, 2004: The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2––LM2: Evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. J. Climate, 17, 4641–4673.
Bjerknes, J., 1969: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial Pacific. Mon. Wea. Rev., 97, 163–172.
Bony, S., and Coauthors, 2006: How well do we understand andevaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Climate, 19,3445–3482.
Bretherton, C. S., and A. H. Sobel, 2002: A simple model of aconvectively coupled Walker circulation using the weak temperature gradient approximation. J. Climate, 15, 2907–2920.
Cai, M., 2005: Dynamical amplification of polar warming. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 32, L22710, doi:10.1029/2005GL024481.
Cane, M. A., A. C. Clement, A. Kaplan, Y. Kushnir, D. Pozdnyakov,
R. Seager, S. E. Zebiak, and R. Murtugudde, 1997: Twentiethcentury sea surface temperature trends. Science, 275, 957–960.

Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1990: Intercomparison and interpretation of cloud-climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res., 95,
16 601–16 615.
Chang, P., and Coauthors, 2006: Climate fluctuations of tropicalcoupled system—The role of ocean dynamics. J. Climate, 19,
5122–5174.
Chen, G., J. Lu, and D. M. W. Frierson, 2008: Phase speed spectra
and the latitude of surface westerlies: Interannual variability
and global warming trend. J. Climate, 21, 5942–5959.
Chou, C., and J. D. Neelin, 2004: Mechanisms of global warming
impacts on regional tropical precipitation. J. Climate, 17,
2688–2701.
——, ——, C.-A. Chen, and J.-Y. Tu, 2009: Evaluating the ‘‘richget-richer’’ mechanism in tropical precipitation change underglobal warming. J. Climate, 22, 1982–2005.
Clement, A. C., R. Seager, M. A. Cane, and S. E. Zebiak, 1996: An
ocean dynamical thermostat. J. Climate, 9, 2190–2196.
Collins, W. D., and Coauthors, 2006: The Community Climate
System Model version 3 (CCSM3). J. Climate, 19, 2122–2143.
Delworth, T. L., and Coauthors, 2006: GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models. Part I: Formulation and simulation
characteristics. J. Climate, 19, 643–674.
Deser, C., and A. S. Phillips, 2009: Atmospheric circulation trends,
1950–2000: The relative roles of sea surface temperature
forcing and direct atmospheric radiative forcing. J. Climate,22, 396–413.
——, A. Capotondi, R. Saravanan, and A. S. Phillips, 2006: Tropical Pacific and Atlantic climate variability in CCSM3. J. Climate, 19, 2451–2481.
de Szoeke, S. P., S.-P. Xie, T. Miyama, K. J. Richards, and
R. J. O. Small, 2007: What maintains the SST front north of theequatorial cold tongue? J. Climate, 20, 2500–2514.
Dickinson, R. E., 1981: Convergence rate and stability of oceanatmosphere coupling schemes with a zero-dimensional climate
model. J. Atmos. Sci., 38, 2112–2120.
DiNezio, P. N., A. C. Clement, G. A. Vecchi, B. J. Soden, B. P.
Kirtman, and S.-K. Lee, 2009: Climate response of the equatorial Pacific to global warming. J. Climate, 22, 4873–4892.

15 FEBRUARY 2010

XIE ET AL.

Du, Y., and S.-P. Xie, 2008: Role of atmospheric adjustments in thetropical Indian Ocean warming during the 20th century inclimate models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08712, doi:10.1029/
2008GL033631.
Emanuel, K. A., 1986: An air–sea interaction theory for tropical
cyclones. Part I: Steady-state maintenance. J. Atmos. Sci., 43,
585–605.
——, 2007: Environmental factors affecting tropical cyclone power
dissipation. J. Climate, 20, 5497–5509.
Gnanadesikan, A., and Coauthors, 2006: GFDL’s CM2 global
coupled climate models. Part II: The baseline ocean simulation. J. Climate, 19, 675–697.
Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2006: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Climate, 19, 5686–5699.
Inatsu, M., and M. Kimoto, 2005: Two types of interannual variability of the mid-winter storm-tracks and their relationship to
global warming. SOLA, 1, 61–64.
Kang, S. M., I. M. Held, D. M. W. Frierson, and M. Zhao, 2008: The
response of the ITCZ to extratropical thermal forcing: Idealized slab-ocean experiments with a GCM. J. Climate, 21, 3521–
3532.
Knutson, T. R., and S. Manabe, 1995: Time-mean response over thetropical Pacific to increased CO2 in a coupled ocean–atmospheremodel. J. Climate, 8, 2181–2199.
——, J. J. Sirutis, S. T. Garner, G. A. Vecchi, and I. M. Held, 2008:
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency undertwenty-first-century warming conditions. Nat. Geosci., 1, 359–364.
Leloup, J., and A. Clement, 2009: Why is there a minimum inprojected warming in the tropical North Atlantic Ocean?
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14802, doi:10.1029/2009GL038609.
Liu, Z., 1998: On the role of ocean in the response of tropical climatology to global warming: The west–east SST contrast.
J. Climate, 11, 864–875.
——, S. Vavrus, F. He, N. Wen, and Y. Zhong, 2005: Rethinking
tropical ocean response to global warming: The enhanced
equatorial warming. J. Climate, 18, 4684–4700.
Lu, J., G. A. Vecchi, and T. Reichler, 2007: Expansion of the
Hadley cell under global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34,
L06805, doi:10.1029/2006GL028443.
——, G. Chen, and D. M. W. Frierson, 2008: Response of the zonal
mean atmospheric circulation to El Niño versus global warming. J. Climate, 21, 5835–5851.
Manabe, S., K. Bryan, and M. J. Spelman, 1990: Transient responseof a global ocean–atmosphere model to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 20, 722–749.
Meehl, G. A., W. D. Collins, B. A. Boville, J. T. Kiehl,
T. M. L. Wigley, and J. M. Arblaster, 2000: Response of the
NCAR Climate System Model to increased CO2 and the roleof physical processes. J. Climate, 13, 1879–1898.
——, and Coauthors, 2006: Climate change projections for thetwenty-first century and climate change commitment in the
CCSM3. J. Climate, 19, 2597–2616.
——, and Coauthors, 2007: Global climate projections. Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, S. Solomon et al.,
Eds., Cambridge University Press, 747–845.
Neelin, J. D., and I. M. Held, 1987: Modeling tropical convergencebased on the moist static energy budget. Mon. Wea. Rev., 115,
3–12.
Oouchi, K., J. Yoshimura, H. Yoshimura, R. Mizuta, S. Kusunoki,
and A. Noda, 2006: Tropical cyclone climatology in a globalwarming climate as simulated in a 20 km-mesh global atmospheric model: Frequency and wind intensity analyses. J. Meteor.
Soc. Japan, 84, 259–276.

985

Richter, I., and S.-P. Xie, 2008: The muted precipitation increase inglobal warming simulations: A surface evaporation perspective.
J. Geophys. Res., 113, D24118, doi:10.1029/2008JD010561.
Saji, N. H., B. N. Goswami, P. N. Vinayachandran, and T. Yamagata,
1999: A dipole mode in the tropical Indian Ocean. Nature, 401,
360–363.
Schott, F. A., S.-P. Xie, and J. P. McCreary Jr., 2009: Indian Ocean
circulation and climate variability. Rev. Geophys., 47, RG1002,
doi:10.1029/2007RG000245.
Seager, R., and R. Murtugudde, 1997: Ocean dynamics, thermocline adjustment, and regulation of tropical SST. J. Climate,
10, 521–534.
Sobel, A. H., J. Nilsson, and L. M. Polvani, 2001: The weak temperature gradient approximation and balanced tropicalmoisture waves. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 3650–3665.
Soden, B. J., and I. M. Held, 2006: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models. J. Climate, 19,3354–3360.
Stouffer, R. J., 2004: Time scales of climate response. J. Climate, 17,
209–217.
Sutton, R. T., B. Dong, and J. M. Gregory, 2007: Land/sea warming
ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results
and comparison with observations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34,
L02701, doi:10.1029/2006GL028164.
Swanson, K. L., 2008: Nonlocality of Atlantic tropical cyclone intensities. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q04V01, doi:10.1029/
2007GC001844.
Takahashi, K., 2009: Radiative constraints on the hydrologicalcycle in an idealized radiative–convective equilibrium model.
J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 77–91.
Timmermann, A., F.-F. Jin, and M. Collins, 2004: Intensificationof the annual cycle in the tropical Pacific due to greenhousewarming. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12208, doi:10.1029/
2004GL019442.
Trenberth, K. E., and J. T. Fasullo, 2009: Global warming due toincreasing absorbed solar radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L07706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037527.
Vecchi, G. A., and B. J. Soden, 2007a: Effect of remote sea surface
temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity.
Nature, 450, 1066–1070.
——, and ——, 2007b: Global warming and the weakening of thetropical circulation. J. Climate, 20, 4316–4340.
——, ——, A. T. Wittenberg, I. M. Held, A. Leetmaa, and
M. J. Harrison, 2006: Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing. Nature, 441,
73–76, doi:10.1038/nature04744.
——, K. L. Swanson, and B. J. Soden, 2008: Whither hurricane
activity? Science, 322, 687–689.
Vimont, D. J., J. M. Wallace, and D. S. Battisti, 2003: The seasonal
footprinting mechanism in the Pacific: Implications for ENSO.
J. Climate, 16, 2668–2675.
——, M. Alexander, and A. Fontaine, 2009: Midlatitude excitation of tropical variability in the Pacific: The role ofthermodynamic coupling and seasonality. J. Climate, 22,
518–534.
Williams, G. P., and K. Bryan, 2006: Ice age winds: An aquaplanet
model. J. Climate, 19, 1706–1715.
Wittenberg, A. T., A. Rosati, N.-C. Lau, and J. J. Ploshay, 2006:
GFDL’s CM2 global coupled climate models. Part III: Tropical Pacific climate and ENSO. J. Climate, 19, 698–722.
Wu, L., Z. Liu, C. Li, and Y. Sun, 2007: Extratropical control ofrecent tropical decadal climate variability: A relay teleconnection. Climate Dyn., 28, 99–112.

986

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE

Xie, S.-P., and S. G. H. Philander, 1994: A coupled ocean-atmospheremodel of relevance to the ITCZ in the eastern Pacific. Tellus,
46A, 340–350.
——, T. Kunitani, A. Kubokawa, M. Nonaka, and S. Hosoda, 2000:
Interdecadal thermocline variability in the North Pacific for
1958–97: A GCM simulation. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30, 2798–2813.
——, H. Annamalai, F. A. Schott, and J. P. McCreary, 2002:
Structure and mechanisms of South Indian Ocean climate
variability. J. Climate, 15, 864–878.
Yin, J. H., 2005: A consistent poleward shift of the storm tracks insimulations of 21st century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
L18701, doi:10.1029/2005GL023684.

VOLUME 23

Yoshimura, J., M. Sugi, and A. Noda, 2006: Influence of greenhouse warming on tropical cyclone frequency. J. Meteor. Soc.
Japan, 84, 405–428.
Zhao, M., I. M. Held, S.-J. Lin, and G. A. Vecchi, 2009: Simulationsof global hurricane climatology, interannual variability, andresponse to global warming using a 50-km resolution GCM.
J. Climate, 22, 6653–6678.
Zheng, X.-T., S.-P. Xie, G. A. Vecchi, Q. Liu, and J. Hafner, 2010:
Indian Ocean dipole response to global warming: Analysis ofocean–atmospheric feedbacks in a coupled model. J. Climate,in press.