3.1 ASM Climatological characteristics
The seasonal model’s fidelity to replicating the climatological characteristics of the ASM for mean and bias of rainfall, GPH200, and wind circulation at 850 hPa and 200 hPa are presented and compared with GPCP data during the JJA season. Figure 1 shows the climatological mean and bias of GPH200 (contour) and rainfall (shaded) obtained from ERAI and seasonal models. It is noticed that the orographic regions receive more rain, for instance, the northeastern parts and Western Ghats (above 10 mm day− 1) in India, north-eastern African region, and south-east Asian countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, and Cambodia (Fig. 1a). The central parts of India also receive considerable amounts of rainfall due to synoptic disturbances such as lows and depressions from the Bay of Bengal (Krishnamurthy and Ajayamohan 2010). The northwestern parts and southern peninsular India receive less rainfall during the JJA. High geopotential height at 200 hPa (12240 m) is seen over the northern Indian region, extending in an east-west direction in the ERAI analysis (Fig. 1a), and consistent with that of Wei et al. (2019). All models have captured the spatial JJA mean rainfall patterns over the entire ASM region with varying magnitudes (Fig. 1b, d, f, and h). The CANCM4 (Fig. 1b-c) and CFSv2 (Fig. 1d-e) models could show mean orographic rainfall over the northeastern and western Ghats region of the Indian subcontinent, showing wet bias (Fig. 1c, e). These two models also show wet bias in the northeastern central African region, but CFSv2 is better than CANCM4 (Fig. 1c, e). All the models, except CANCM4, show dry bias over the northeastern states of India. However, the dry bias over most Indian regions is reduced compared to other models. All models show wet bias over Myanmar, Thailand, and Cambodia except CANCM4 (Fig. 1c, e, g, i). The CFSv2 and CANSIP models reasonably capture the mean GPH and zonal extension close to verifying analysis (Fig. 1a) than other models, unlike in the observation and CANCM4, NEMO models.
Table 2 shows the mean, standard deviation, bias, RMSE, and skill of rainfall of seasonal models against GPCP rainfall over all Indian region. The observation or GPCP rainfall shows the highest mean (7.32) and highest STD (0.64) for all India rainfall. Among the models, the CFSv2 has reproduced the mean (6.309 mm day-1) rainfall, close to the GPCP rainfall. All the models underestimated the interannual variability (STD) compared to that of GPCP. The RMSE is low for CFSv2 (1.18) and CANCM4 (1.69) models and is more for NEMO and CANSIP with similar magnitude (2.34). All the models exhibit similar skill varying between 0.4 to 0.41, except for CANCM4 (0.35). These statistics have also been prepared for the monsoon core region (not shown). Similar performance of the models has been noticed in the monsoon core regions. The CFSv2 exhibited higher skill (0.52), while the remaining models show skill between 0.3 to 0.37 (not shown).
Table 2
Statistical scores of the mean seasonal rainfall (mm day− 1) from GPCP and seasonal models for the JJA season.
| MEAN | STD | BIAS | RMSE | Rainfall SKILL |
OBSERVATION | 7.32 | 0.64 | | | |
CANCM4 | 5.76 | 0.55 | -1.55 | 1.69 | 0.35 |
CFSv2 | 6.30 | 0.43 | -1.01 | 1.18 | 0.40 |
NEMO | 5.06 | 0.49 | -2.25 | 2.34 | 0.41 |
CANSIP | 5.06 | 0.49 | -2.25 | 2.34 | 0.41 |
Table 3
Skill for INW−SE and IEW indexes in NMME, CFSv2 models and observation.
INDEX | INW−SE | IEW |
| ISMR | ISMR_CORE | ISMR | ISMR_CORE |
OBS | 0.62 | 0.77 | -0.57 | -0.66 |
CANCM4 | 0.54 | 0.70 | -0.65 | -0.63 |
CFSV2 | 0.74 | 0.83 | -0.55 | -0.59 |
NEMO | 0.55 | 0.75 | -0.59 | -0.69 |
CANSIP | 0.60 | 0.78 | -0.67 | -0.74 |
The climatology of 850 hPa wind circulation and its bias during the JJA season from ERAI and individual models are shown in Fig. 2. The ASM region is distinguished by a strong cross-equatorial flow, prevalently known as low-level jet (LLJ)/Findlater jet (Joseph and Raman 1966; Findlater 1969) over the Arabian Sea (AS) in the analysis (Fig. 2a). This strong LLJ supports intense rainfall in the windward side of the Western Ghats (Fig. 1a). The ERAI study shows a significant cyclonic circulation over the North Bay of Bengal (Fig. 2a), which contributes to higher amounts of rain south of the monsoon trough across India (Fig. 1a). All the models reasonably captured the mean circulation over the Asian region, especially the LLJ over the AS region with varying wind speeds (Fig. 2b,d,f,h). The CANCM4 and CFSv2 (Fig. 2b, d) models are better in showing wind maxima and location of wind maxima than the other two models (Fig. 2a, b, d, f). All three NMME models exhibit easterly wind bias over the equatorial Indian Ocean, whereas CFSv2 models show strong westerly wind bias over the same region (Fig. 2c, e, g, i). Further, a weak cyclonic circulation (negative bias) is noticed over the central Bay of Bengal in all four models, which may be one of the reasons for dry bias in rainfall over the Indian land mass (refer Fig. 1c, e, g, i). The NEMO and CANSIP models underestimate the wind magnitudes over the Somalia region compared to CFSv2 and CANCM4 models.
Another important component of ASM is the upper tropospheric (200 hPa) anticyclone over the Tibetan plateau. The ERAI analysis could bring out the upper-level subtropical westerly jet and tropical easterly jet (TEJ) north and south of the Tibetan Plateau anticyclonic circulation, respectively (Fig. 3a). The strength of the TEJ plays a crucial role in ASM rainfall (Chen and Van Loon 1987; Chen and Yen 1991; Pattanaik and Satyan 2000) and it is related to strength of the LLJ, hence increases the ISMR (Tanaka 1982). Hence, proper representation of TEJ in coupled models is essential to anticipate a better prediction of the ISM. All models reasonably produced mean anticyclonic circulation over the Tibetan region with different magnitudes (Fig. 3b, d, f, h). The three NMME models have strong westerly wind bias over the Indian Ocean and easterly bias over the sub-tropical region (Fig. 3c, g, i), unlike in the CFSv2 model where the TEJ is represented with relatively less bias. The results of the CFSv2 model are consistent with the earlier study by Ramu et al. (2016). Overall, the CFSv2 model performs better than the other models in reproducing the climatological characteristics of rainfall along with ASM components in the lower and upper troposphere. Although the CANCM4 model replicates the climatological rainfall, the statistical skill appears to be poorer than the other models. The NEMO and CANSIP models resulted in higher errors and poor representation of climatological features. Note that the CFSv2 is also consistently better for inter-annual rainfall variability, indicating similar rainfall peaks as that of the GPCP observation, unlike other seasonal models. The better performance of the CFSv2 model for rainfall and monsoon components could be due to (i) higher resolution, (ii) improved physical processes, mainly reduction of upper-level anticyclonic wind bias and improved TEJ, and (iii) better ocean coupling, etc (Ramu et al. 2016).
3.1 Relationship between ISMR and SAH
This section reports the association between rainfall over India as a whole and monsoon core regions, and SAH indices in the observation and individual models during JJA season. INW−SE and IEW indices are estimated as discussed in the Methodology section from NMME models and CFSv2 and compared with that of the ERAI. Figure 4 presents the relationship between observed and model-captured indices at 200 hPa GPH. All models have reasonably captured the INW−SE index with high correlation (r > 0.5) thus the better skill, except in the CANCM4 model (0.45) (Fig. 4a-d). The IEW index is highly varying in the seasonal models, unlike ERAI, leading to less correlation/skill (Fig. 4e-h).
Figure 5 shows the year-to-year variability of the rainfall over the monsoon core region (22°-30°N and 75°-87°E) and both the indices (INW−SE and IEW) during this study period. It is observed that both the rainfall and INW−SE and IEW indices exhibit strong interannual variability. All NMME and CFSv2 models have presented in-phase variability between ISMR and INW−SE most of the time (Fig. 5a-e), while the IEW index and ISMR are negatively related in the monsoon core region (Fig. 5f-j). Figure 6 shows the scatter plot between rainfall over the monsoon trough region and two SAH indices during the study period. INW−SE index is positively correlated (r = 0.77) with rainfall, whereas IEW index is negatively correlated (r=-0.66) in the observation/verifying analysis (Fig. 6a, f). All seasonal prediction models have replicated almost similar relationships with slight variations (Fig. 6b-e). Similarly, the relationship with IEW is comparable and reasonably captured in the seasonal models (Fig. 6g-j) with the observation/verifying analysis (Fig. 6f). Note that the association between the SAH indices and all India rainfall is also analyzed (Figure S2). These findings are consistent with an earlier study by Wei et al. (2014).
3.2 Teleconnection between SAH and different SST indices
The association of SAH indices with different SST indices (IOD and NINO3.4) has also been studied. Figure 7 depicts the relationship between the IOD index with INW−SE and IEW index during this study period. A weak negative correlation (-0.05 and − 0.19) in both indices with IOD in the observations/verifying analysis indicates no significant relation between IOD with INW−SE and IEW indices (Fig. 7a, f). However, all models show a stronger and significant (90%) negative correlation with IOD. This relation between IOD and IEW is the opposite. Among all the seasonal models, the CFSv2 shows a better relation between IOD and INW−SE (Fig. 7b-e). The IOD and IEW are positively correlated, unlike observed indicating strong (or overestimated) association (Fig. 7g-j). Better performance of CFSv2 could be attributed to (i) improved ocean coupling, which led to a realistic representation of tropical SST over the Indian Ocean (Figure S1) and a better representation of 200 hPa GPH and zonal extension (Fig. 1). The CANCM4 model follows the CFSv2 model. The higher errors due to weaker GPH200 magnitudes could be one of the reasons for the poor capturing of the association between IOD and SAH indices in NEMO and CANSIP models.
Further, the INW−SE and NINO3.4 relationship also represents a negative correlation in observations/verifying analysis (-0.33) and all the seasonal models (Fig. 8a-e). Among the seasonal models, the NEMO and CANSIP models highly overestimated the relation, while CFSv2 and CANCM4 are comparable with observation/verifying analysis (Fig. 8a-e). On the other hand, the association or relation between NINO3.4 and IEW (zonal) indices is weak and positive in observation (0.13), which is strongly estimated in the seasonal models, except CANCM4 (Fig. 8f–j). Overall, the seasonal models are unable to generate the teleconnection between SST and SAH indices during the JJA season. The poor performance of the seasonal models could be mainly due to the large diversity of SST indices in representing the ISMR teleconnection with Pacific Ocean conditions. It is perceived that all the models have exhibited strong El Niño features, unlike in the observations (Ramu et al. 2022).
3.3 Relation between SAH indices and anomalies of rainfall and wind speed
Figure 9 illustrates the regressed JJA rainfall anomalies (mm day− 1) against the SAH (INW−SE and IEW) indices during the study period. Here, it is observed that positive rainfall anomalies (90% significant) are observed over the central India, eastern places of the monsoon core region, the foothills of the Himalayas, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, South China, and surrounding regions during INW−SE years in the observation (Fig. 9a). The study period is divided into INW−SE and IEW years based on rainfall amount in a particular season, following Wei et al. (2014, 2015, 2019b, 2021). Weak INW−SE induced negative rainfall anomalies are observed over the Arabian Sea, the Western Ghats, most parts of northeast India, and the northwestern Pacific region in the observations (Fig. 9a). The SAH (INW−SE) induced rainfall anomalies over the Indian region are reasonably captured by all seasonal prediction models with different magnitudes and more spread when compared to the observation except CFSv2 (Fig. 9b-e). For example, the CANCM4 model is notable for the negative rainfall anomalies over the Arabian Sea and northwestern Pacific region and underestimated over the western Pacific Ocean, South China, and surrounding areas, whereas slightly overestimated over the eastern African, equatorial Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal regions (Fig. 9b). The CFSv2, NEMO and CANSIP models capture the strong negative rainfall anomalies over the Arabian Sea, western equatorial Pacific Ocean, and weak negative anomalies over the northwestern pacific region (Fig. 9c, d and e). Positive rainfall anomalies were simulated over the eastern African region, south China and surrounding regions, and the east Bay of Bengal in the CFSv2 model (Fig. 9c). NEMO and CANSIP models have simulated the less positive rainfall anomalies over the eastern African region, south China sea and strong positive rainfall anomalies over the western and equatorial pacific region like observation and strong negative anomalies are Myanmar and Bangladesh and surrounding regions (Fig. 9d and e). The results from analyses and seasonal models infer that the SAH shifting towards north-westward favors the ISMR, while the shift to south-eastward suppresses the ISMR and favors the rainfall over the South China region. These features have been observed from the analyses in the earlier studies (Wei et al. 2015, 2019b), however, the seasonal models have been employed for the first time to assess this relationship in this study.
Analysis indicates that the IEW index is negatively correlated to the JJA rainfall anomalies over central India, eastern parts of the monsoon core region, the foothills of the Himalayas, Bangladesh, Myanmar, the South China Sea, and western and equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 9f). It is caused by strong negative relative vorticity over south Asian region. Further, a strong El Nino-like pattern has been seen in the eastern Pacific (Figure not shown). Strong Positive rainfall anomalies are observed over the northwestern Pacific region, and weak positive rainfall anomalies are observed over the Arabian Sea (Fig. 9f). In CFSv2, NEMO, and CANSIP models, except for the Indian subcontinent, regions like the southern Arabian Sea and the southern Indian Ocean are strongly linked with negative rainfall because there is a strong anticyclonic circulation over those regions (Fig. 10f). Thus, realistic simulation of SAH is critical in seasonal prediction models to accurate prediction of ISMR.
In this section, the lower-level (850 hPa) atmospheric relative vorticity over the Asian region during the SAH years in the JJA season (through regression) is studied to understand the possible reasons for SAH shifting and rainfall distribution (Fig. 10). The central Arabian Sea, the foothills of Himalayas, the western Pacific Ocean, and the Mongolian region are experiencing the anomalous negative relative vorticity anomalies (Fig. 10a) which may be one of the reasons for negative rainfall anomalies over those regions (Fig. 9a). The significant positive relative vorticity anomalies are seen over the monsoon trough region, the northern Arabian Sea, Saudi Arabia and the surrounding areas, the south China Sea, and the northwestern Pacific Ocean in observation (Fig. 10a) during SAH years (INW−SE index) which resulted into significant positive rainfall anomalies (Fig. 9a). The seasonal models are able to simulate SAH induced relative negative vorticity anomalies over the central Arabian Sea, and the Himalayan region with less magnitude less spatial distribution when compared to observations whereas positive vorticity anomalies are over the monsoon trough region with less spatial extent and shift westward compared to the observation (Fig. 10b-e). Whereas the seasonal models are unable to capture the north Bay of Bengal vorticity pattern like in the observation, except NEMO model. Unlike the observation, all models have shown substantial positive vorticity anomalies over the south Bay of Bengal. Moreover, Except for the NEMO model, all models reasonably captured the SAH induced vorticity anomalies over the western Pacific Ocean (Fig. 10b-e). Similarly, the opposite relative vorticity pattern is seen over the Asian region during the second SAH (IEW) index years in observation and models (Fig. 10f-j). Overall, there is a large diversity to produce the SAH-induced relative vorticity anomalies during the JJA season over the Asian region in current seasonal prediction models.
The upper tropospheric velocity potential and divergent wind component have been studied to recognize the large-scale circulation patterns in both the observational analysis and the models. Figure 11 shows the regressed JJA velocity potential (shaded) and divergent flow anomalies (vectors) at 200 hPa against the SAH indices (INW−SE and IEW) during the study period. In the observational analysis, noticed that a weak divergence (convergence) over the South Asian (Eastern Pacific) region during the INW−SE years, represented by negative (positive) velocity potential anomalies, respectively (Fig. 11a). Except CFSv2, all NMME models exhibit the westward shifting of divergent and convergent centers in the both Asian and Pacific regions with higher magnitude (Fig. 11b-e). The opposite velocity potential and divergent winds pattern are observed during IEW years in the same season in observations (Fig. 11f). All seasonal prediction models have captured the large-scale convective centers during IEW years in JJA season with slight westward shift and more magnitude (Fig. 11g-j). The response of tropical circulation to rainfall over the Asian region during SAH years is presented in Fig. 12 through the regression analysis of the stream function and rotational wind component at 850 hPa for observational analysis and models. The regressed anomalies of stream function are negative for cyclonic circulations observed over the Indian landmass and either side of the equator around (west) the dateline (Fig. 12a). The result is consistent with the earlier studies (Matsuno 1966; Gill 1980). Most models reasonably simulated the SAH induced two off-equatorial cyclonic circulations on either side of the equator around (west) date line with more magnitude (Fig. 12b-e). Models like CFSv2, NEMO, and CANSIP have captured the stream function and rotational with patted over the Indian Ocean and northwest Indian region like in the observations (Fig. 12c-e). Similarly, opposite rotational wind and stream function anomalies are observed over the Indo-Pacific region during SAH (IEW Index) in the observational study (Fig. 12f). Most models can capture SAH (IEW Index) induced stream function and rotational wind component with overestimation in the magnitude (Fig. 12g-j). Overall, all models appear to better represent the SAH-induced large-scale circulation pattern at 850 hPa over the Indo-Pacific region.