删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

Vertical Structure of Interannual Variability in Cross-Equatorial Flows over the Maritime Continent

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-02

濠电姷鏁告慨鐑藉极閹间礁纾婚柣鎰惈閸ㄥ倿鏌涢锝嗙缂佺姳鍗抽弻鐔虹磼閵忕姵鐏堢紒鐐劤椤兘寮婚悢鐓庣鐟滃繒鏁☉銏$厽闁规儳顕埥澶嬨亜椤撶偞鍋ラ柟铏矊椤曘儱螖婵犱線鍋楅梺璇″枟閿曘垽骞冮埡鍐<婵☆垳鍘х敮楣冩⒒娴gǹ顥忛柛瀣噽閹广垽宕熼姘К闂佹寧绻傞ˇ浼存偂濞嗘垟鍋撶憴鍕婵炲眰鍊濋崺銏ゅ醇閳垛晛浜鹃悷娆忓缁€鍐磼椤旇偐效妤犵偛绻樺畷銊╁级閹寸偛绁舵俊鐐€栭幐楣冨窗閹伴偊鏁婇煫鍥ㄧ⊕閳锋帡鏌涚仦鎹愬闁逞屽墮閸㈡煡婀侀梺鎼炲労閻忔稑鈽夐姀鐘殿槹濡炪倖鍔戦崐鏍р枔閹屾富闁靛牆妫楅崸濠囨煕鐎n偅灏伴柕鍥у椤㈡洟鏁愰崶鈺冩澖濠电姷顣介崜婵嬪箖閸岀偛鏄ラ柍鈺佸暞婵挳鏌ц箛鏇熷殌妤犵偐鍋撳┑鐘殿暜缁辨洟宕戦幋锕€纾归柡宥庡幗閸嬪淇婇妶鍛櫤闁稿绻濋弻鏇㈠醇濠靛洨鈹涙繝娈垮枟婵炲﹪寮婚埄鍐ㄧ窞濠电姴瀚惃鎴濃攽閳╁啫绲婚柣妤佹崌瀵鏁撻悩鑼槰闂佹寧绻傞幊宥嗙珶閺囩喓绡€闁汇垽娼цⅷ闂佹悶鍔嶅浠嬪极閸愵喖顫呴柣妯虹仛濞堥箖姊洪崨濠勭畵閻庢凹鍣e鎶藉幢濞戞瑧鍘遍梺鍝勬储閸斿本鏅堕鐣岀闁割偅绻勯悞鍛婃叏婵犲啯銇濈€规洏鍔嶇换婵嬪磼濮f寧娲樼换娑氣偓娑欋缚閻矂鏌涚€c劌鈧洟鎮惧畡鎳婃椽顢旈崟顓濈礈闂備礁鎼崐鍫曞磿閺屻儻缍栫€广儱顦伴埛鎴︽偡濞嗗繐顏╅柛鏂诲€濋弻锝嗗箠闁告柨瀛╃粋宥夊箹娓氬洦鏅濋梺闈涚墕濞层劑鏁嶅⿰鍐f斀閹烘娊宕愰弴銏犵柈妞ゆ劧绠戦崙鐘绘煛閸愩劎澧涢柣鎾寸懃椤啰鈧綆浜妤呮煃鐠囪尙澧涙い銊e劦閹瑩寮堕幋鐘辩礉婵°倗濮烽崑娑樏洪鈧偓浣糕枎閹惧厖绱堕梺鍛婃处娴滐綁宕洪崨瀛樷拻闁稿本鑹鹃埀顒勵棑缁牊绗熼埀顒勭嵁閺嶎収鏁冮柨鏇楀亾缁炬儳婀遍幉鎼佹偋閸繄鐟查梺绋款儜缁绘繂顕i崼鏇為唶婵﹩鍘介悵鏇烆渻閵堝骸浜濇繛鑼枛瀵濡搁埡鍌氫簽闂佺ǹ鏈粙鎴︻敂閿燂拷
2濠电姷鏁告慨鐑藉极閹间礁纾婚柣鎰惈閸ㄥ倿鏌涢锝嗙缂佺姵澹嗙槐鎺斺偓锝庡亾缁扁晜绻涘顔荤盎閹喖姊洪崘鍙夋儓妞ゆ垵娲ㄧ划娆掔疀濞戞瑢鎷洪梺闈╁瘜閸樺ジ宕濈€n偁浜滈柕濞垮劜椤ャ垻鈧娲滈弫濠氬春閳ь剚銇勯幒鎴濐仾闁抽攱鍨块弻娑樷槈濮楀牆浼愭繝娈垮櫙缁犳垿婀佸┑鐘诧工閹冲孩绂掓潏鈹惧亾鐟欏嫭绀冩俊鐐扮矙瀵偊骞樼紒妯轰汗閻庤娲栧ú銈夌嵁濡ゅ懏鈷掑〒姘e亾婵炰匠鍛床闁割偁鍎辩壕褰掓煛瀹擃喒鍋撴俊鎻掔墢閹叉悂寮崼婵婃憰闂佹寧绻傞ˇ顖炴倿濞差亝鐓曢柟鏉垮悁缁ㄥジ鏌涢敐搴″箻缂佽鲸鎸婚幏鍛村礈閹绘帒澹堥梻浣瑰濞诧附绂嶉鍕靛殨妞ゆ劧绠戠壕濂告煟閹邦厽缍戞繛鍫熷姍濮婃椽宕橀崣澶嬪創闂佸摜濮甸懝鎯у祫闂佸憡顨堥崑鎰板绩娴犲鐓冮柦妯侯槹椤ユ粌霉濠婂懎浠滄い顓″劵椤﹁櫕銇勯妸銉含鐎殿噮鍋嗛埀顒婄秵閸撴稓澹曢挊澹濆綊鏁愭径瀣敪婵犳鍠栭崐鎼佹箒濠电姴锕ゅΛ妤呮偂閹邦儮搴ㄥ炊瑜濋崝鐔兼煃瑜滈崜姘辩矙閹烘洘鎳屽┑鐘愁問閸ㄤ即顢氶鐘愁潟闁圭儤鍨熷Σ鍫熸叏濡も偓濡宕滄潏鈺冪=闁稿本姘ㄥ瓭闂佹寧娲忛崕鑼矚鏉堛劎绡€闁搞儴鍩栭弲婵嬫⒑闂堟稓澧曢柟宄邦儔瀵娊顢橀姀鈾€鎷洪梺鍛婃崄鐏忔瑩宕㈠☉銏$厱闁靛ǹ鍎抽崺锝団偓瑙勬礃濡炰粙宕洪埀顒併亜閹哄秹妾峰ù婊勭矒閺岀喐娼忛崜褏蓱缂佺虎鍙€閸╂牠濡甸崟顖涙櫆闁兼祴鏅濋弳銈夋⒑閸濆嫭婀扮紒瀣灴閸┿垺鎯旈妶鍥╂澑闂佸搫娲ㄦ刊顓㈠船閸︻厾纾介柛灞剧懅缁愭梻绱撻崒娑滃閾荤偤鏌涢弴銊ユ灓濞存粍鐟╁缁樻媴閸涘﹤鏆堝┑鐐额嚋缁犳挸鐣烽姀锝冧汗闁圭儤鍨归敍娑㈡⒑閸︻厼鍔嬫い銊ユ閸╂盯骞嬮敂鐣屽幈濠电娀娼уΛ妤咁敂閳哄懏鐓冪憸婊堝礈濞嗘垹绀婂┑鐘叉搐缁犳牠姊洪崹顕呭剱缂傚秴娲弻宥夊传閸曨偂绨藉┑鐐跺亹閸犲酣鍩為幋锔绘晩閻熸瑦甯為幊鎾诲煝閺傚簱妲堥柕蹇娾偓鍐插婵犲痉鏉库偓鎰板磻閹剧粯鐓冮悷娆忓閻忔挳鏌熼瑙勬珚妤犵偞鎹囬獮鎺楀幢濡炴儳顥氶梻浣哥秺濡法绮堟笟鈧弻銊╁Χ閸涱亝鏂€闂佺粯蓱瑜板啴寮搁妶鍡欑闁割偅绮庨惌娆撴煛瀹€瀣М妤犵偛娲、妤佹媴閸欏浜為梻鍌欑劍閹爼宕愬Δ鍛獥闁归偊鍠楀畷鍙夌節闂堟侗鍎忛柣鎺戠仛閵囧嫰骞掗幋婵愪患闂佺粯甯楀浠嬪蓟濞戙垹绠涙い鏍ㄧ〒閵嗗﹪姊哄ú璇插箺妞ゃ劌鎳橀崺鐐哄箣閿旂粯鏅╃紓浣圭☉椤戝棝鎮鹃崼鏇熲拺缂備焦锕╁▓鏃傜磼缂佹ê绗ч柛鎺撳浮瀹曞ジ鎮㈡搴g嵁闂佽鍑界紞鍡涘礈濞戙埄鏁婇柡鍥ュ灪閳锋垿鏌i悢鐓庝喊闁搞倗鍠庨埞鎴︻敊閻愵剚姣堥悗娈垮枟婵炲﹪宕洪敓鐘茬<婵犲﹤鎷嬮崯搴ㄦ⒑閼姐倕孝婵炲/鍥х妞ゆ劦鍋傜槐锟�547闂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹妞嬪海鐭嗗ù锝夋交閼板潡姊洪鈧粔鏌ュ焵椤掆偓閸婂湱绮嬮幒鏂哄亾閿濆簼绨介柨娑欑洴濮婃椽鎮烽弶搴撴寖缂備緡鍣崹鍫曞春濞戙垹绠虫俊銈勮兌閸橀亶姊洪崫鍕妞ゃ劌妫楅埢宥夊川鐎涙ḿ鍘介棅顐㈡祫缁插ジ鏌囬鐐寸厸鐎光偓鐎n剙鍩岄柧缁樼墵閹鏁愭惔鈥茬盎濡炪倕楠忛幏锟�4濠电姷鏁告慨鐑藉极閹间礁纾婚柣鎰惈閸ㄥ倿鏌涢锝嗙缂佺姵澹嗙槐鎺斺偓锝庡亾缁扁晜绻涘顔荤凹闁哄懏鐓¢弻娑㈠Ψ閵忊剝鐝栧銈忓瘜閸ㄨ泛顫忓ú顏呭仭闂侇叏绠戝▓鍫曟⒑缁嬫鍎戦柛鐘崇墵瀹曟椽濮€閵堝懐鐫勯梺閫炲苯澧村┑锛勬暬瀹曠喖顢欓崜褎婢戦梻浣筋潐閸庢娊顢氶鈶哄洭鏌嗗鍡忔嫼缂備礁顑嗛娆撳磿閹扮増鐓欓柣鐔哄閹兼劙鏌i敐鍛Щ妞ゎ偅绮撻崺鈧い鎺戝閳ь兛绶氬顕€宕煎┑鍡氣偓鍨攽鎺抽崐鏇㈠疮椤愶妇宓侀柟鎵閳锋帡鏌涚仦鍓ф噮妞わ讣绠撻弻娑橆潩椤掑鍓板銈庡幖閻忔繈锝炲⿰鍫濈劦妞ゆ巻鍋撻柣锝囧厴椤㈡盯鎮滈崱妯绘珖闂備線娼х换鍫ュ垂閸濆嫧鏋斿Δ锝呭暞閳锋垿姊婚崼鐔剁繁婵$嫏鍐f斀闁炽儴娅曢崰姗€鏌涢埞鍨伈鐎殿噮鍣e畷濂告偄閸濆嫬绠ラ梻鍌欒兌椤㈠﹪锝炴径鎰闁哄洢鍨洪崕宥嗙箾瀹割喕绨奸柣鎾跺枛閺岋綁寮崼鐔告殸闁荤姵鍔х槐鏇犳閹烘挻缍囬柕濞垮劤閻熸煡鎮楅崹顐g凡閻庢凹鍣i崺鈧い鎺戯功缁夐潧霉濠婂懎浠︾紒鍌涘浮閹剝鎯斿Ο缁樻澑闂備胶绮崝妯衡枖濞戞碍顫曢柨鏇炲€归悡鏇熶繆閵堝懎顏柣婵愪簻鑿愰柛銉戝秴濮涢梺閫炲苯澧紒瀣笩閹筋偅绻濆▓鍨仭闁瑰憡濞婇獮鍐ㄧ暋閹佃櫕鐎诲┑鐐叉閸ㄧ敻宕虹仦鍓х閻庢稒岣块惌鎺旂磼閻樺磭澧电€殿喛顕ч埥澶愬閻樼數鏉搁梻浣呵圭换鎰板箺濠婂牆鏋侀柡宥庡幗閳锋垹绱掗娑欑婵炲懏姊荤槐鎺旂磼濡偐鐤勯悗娈垮枦椤曆囧煡婢跺ň鍫柛娑卞灡濠㈡垿姊绘担鐟邦嚋缂佽鍊块獮濠冩償椤帞绋忛梺鍐叉惈閹冲繘鍩涢幋锔界厱婵炴垶锕崝鐔兼煙閾忣偅绀堢紒杈ㄥ笚濞煎繘濡搁敂缁㈡Ч婵°倗濮烽崑娑氭崲濮椻偓楠炲啴鍩¢崘鈺佺彴闂佽偐鈷堥崜锕傚疮鐎n喗鈷掑ù锝呮啞閸熺偛銆掑顓ф疁鐎规洖缍婇獮搴ㄥ礈閸喗鍠橀柛鈺嬬節瀹曘劑顢欑憴鍕伖闂備浇宕甸崑鐐电矙閸儱鐒垫い鎺嗗亾闁告ɑ鐗楃粩鐔煎即閵忊檧鎷绘繛杈剧到閹诧紕鎷归敓鐘插嚑妞ゅ繐妫涚壕濂告煏婵炲灝濡煎ù婊冩贡缁辨帡顢氶崨顓炵閻庡灚婢樼€氫即鐛崶顒夋晣闁绘ɑ褰冪粻濠氭⒒閸屾瑧顦﹂柟纰卞亞閳ь剚鍑归崜娑㈠箲閵忋倕绠抽柡鍐ㄦ搐灏忛梻浣告贡鏋紒銊у劋缁傚秴饪伴崼鐔哄幐闂佹悶鍎洪悡渚€顢旈崼鐔封偓鍫曟煠绾板崬鍘撮柛瀣尭閳绘捇宕归鐣屽蒋闂備胶枪椤戝懘鏁冮妶澶樻晪闁挎繂娲﹀畷澶愭偠濞戞帒澧查柣搴☆煼濮婅櫣鎷犻垾宕団偓濠氭煕韫囧骸瀚庨柛濠冪箓椤繒绱掑Ο璇差€撻梺鑽ゅ枛閸嬪﹪宕电€n剛纾藉ù锝呭閸庢劙鏌涢妸銊ュ姷婵☆偆鍠庨—鍐Χ閸℃ê钄奸梺鎼炲妼缂嶅﹪骞冮悙鍝勫瀭妞ゆ劗濮崇花濠氭⒑閸︻厼鍔嬮柛鈺侊躬瀵劍绻濆顓炩偓鍨叏濡厧浜鹃悗姘炬嫹40缂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕闁芥ɑ绻冮妵鍕冀閵娧呯厒闂佹椿鍘介幐楣冨焵椤掑喚娼愭繛鍙夌墪鐓ら柕濞у懍绗夐梺鍝勫暙閻楀﹪鎮″▎鎾寸厵妞ゆ牕妫楅懟顖氣枔閸洘鈷戠€规洖娲ㄧ敮娑欐叏婵犲倻绉烘鐐茬墦婵℃悂濡烽钘夌紦闂備線鈧偛鑻晶鐗堢箾閹寸姵鏆鐐寸墬閹峰懘宕ㄦ繝鍕ㄥ亾椤掑嫭鐓熼幖鎼灣缁夐潧霉濠婂啰鍩i柟顔哄灲瀹曞崬鈽夊▎蹇庡寲闂備焦鎮堕崕鑽ゅ緤濞差亜纾婚柟鎹愵嚙缁€鍌炴煕濞戝崬寮炬俊顐g矌缁辨捇宕掑顑藉亾瀹勬噴褰掑炊閵婏絼绮撻梺褰掓?閻掞箓宕戦敓鐘崇厓闁告繂瀚崳褰掓煢閸愵亜鏋旈柍褜鍓欓崢婊堝磻閹剧粯鐓曢柡鍥ュ妼娴滅偞銇勯幘瀛樸仢婵﹥妞介獮鎰償閿濆洨鏆ゆ繝鐢靛仩鐏忔瑦绻涢埀顒傗偓瑙勬礃閸ㄥ潡鐛Ο鑲╃<婵☆垵顕ч崝鎺楁⒑閼姐倕鏋戦柣鐔村劤閳ь剚鍑归崜鐔风暦閵忥絻浜归柟鐑樻尨閹锋椽姊洪崨濠勭畵閻庢凹鍘奸蹇撯攽鐎n偆鍘遍柟鍏肩暘閸ㄥ綊鎮橀埡鍌欑箚闁告瑥顦慨鍥殰椤忓啫宓嗙€规洖銈搁幃銏ゅ传閸曨偄顩梻鍌氬€烽懗鍓佹兜閸洖绀堟繝闈涙灩濞差亜鍐€妞ゆ劑鍎卞皬缂傚倷绶¢崑鍕偓娈垮墴濮婂宕掑顑藉亾妞嬪孩顐芥慨姗嗗厳缂傛氨鎲稿鍫罕闂備礁鎼崯顐﹀磹婵犳碍鍎楅柛鈩冾樅瑜版帗鏅查柛顐亜濞堟瑩姊洪懡銈呮瀾閻庢艾鐗撳顕€宕煎┑鍡欑崺婵$偑鍊栧Λ渚€锝炴径灞稿亾閸偆澧垫慨濠勭帛閹峰懘宕ㄦ繝鍌涙畼濠电偞鎸荤喊宥夈€冩繝鍌滄殾闁靛繈鍊栫€电姴顭跨捄鐑橆棡闁诲孩妞介幃妤呭礂婢跺﹣澹曢梻浣告啞濞诧箓宕滃☉銏犲偍闂侇剙绉甸埛鎴︽煕濠靛棗顏╅柡鍡欏仱閺岀喓绮欓崹顔规寖婵犮垼顫夊ú鐔肩嵁閹邦厽鍎熸繛鎴烆殘閻╁酣姊绘笟鈧ḿ褎顨ヨ箛鏇燁潟闁哄洠鍋撻埀顒€鍊块幊鐘活敆閸屾粣绱查梻浣告惈閸燁偊宕愰幖浣稿嚑婵炴垶鐟f禍婊堟煏韫囧﹤澧茬紒鈧€n喗鐓欐い鏃囶潐濞呭﹥銇勯姀鈩冪闁挎繄鍋ら、姗€鎮滈崱姗嗘%婵犵數濮烽弫鎼佸磻閻樿绠垫い蹇撴缁€濠囨煃瑜滈崜姘跺Φ閸曨垼鏁冮柕蹇婃櫆閳诲牓姊虹拠鈥虫珯缂佺粯绻堝畷娲焵椤掍降浜滈柟鐑樺灥椤忣亪鏌嶉柨瀣诞闁哄本绋撴禒锕傚箲閹邦剦妫熼梻渚€鈧偛鑻崢鍝ョ磼椤旂晫鎳囬柕鍡曠閳诲酣骞囬鍓ф闂備礁鎲″ú锕傚礈閿曗偓宀e潡鎮㈤崗灏栨嫼闂佸憡鎸昏ぐ鍐╃濠靛洨绠鹃柛娆忣槺婢ц京绱掗鍨惞缂佽鲸甯掕灒闂傗偓閹邦喚娉块梻鍌欐祰椤鐣峰Ο琛℃灃婵炴垯鍩勯弫浣衡偓鍏夊亾闁告洦鍓涢崢鍛婄箾鏉堝墽鍒板鐟帮躬瀹曟洝绠涢弬璁崇盎濡炪倖鎸撮崜婵堟兜閸洘鐓欏瀣閳诲牓鏌涢妸鈺冪暫鐎规洘顨婂畷銊╊敍濞戞ḿ妯嗛梻鍌氬€搁崐椋庢濮樿泛鐒垫い鎺戝€告禒婊堟煠濞茶鐏︾€规洏鍨介獮鏍ㄦ媴閸︻厼骞橀梻浣告啞閸旀ḿ浜稿▎鎾虫槬闁挎繂鎳夐弨浠嬫煥濞戞ê顏柡鍡╁墴閺岀喖顢欓悾灞惧櫚閻庢鍠栭悥濂哥嵁鐎n噮鏁囬柣鎰儗閸熷本绻濋悽闈浶fい鏃€鐗犲畷鏉课旈崨顔芥珖闂佸啿鎼幊搴g矆閸屾稓绠鹃柟瀵稿仧椤e弶銇勯锝嗙闁哄被鍔岄埞鎴﹀幢濡桨鐥柣鐔哥矌婢ф鏁Δ鍛柧闁哄被鍎查悡鏇㈡煃閳轰礁鏆熼柟鍐叉嚇閺岋綁骞橀崘娴嬪亾閹间讲鈧棃宕橀鍢壯囨煕閹扳晛濡垮ù鐘插⒔缁辨帡鎮欓浣哄嚒缂備礁顦晶搴ㄥ礆閹烘鐓涢柛娑卞枛娴滄粎绱掗悙顒€顎滃瀛樻倐瀵彃鈹戠€n偀鎷洪梻鍌氱墛缁嬫挻鏅堕弴鐔虹閻犲泧鍛殼濡ょ姷鍋涘Λ婵嬪极閹邦厼绶為悗锛卞嫬顏归梻鍌欑濠€杈ㄧ仚濠电偛顕崗姗€宕洪妷锕€绶為悗锝冨妺缁ㄥ姊洪幐搴㈩梿妞ゆ泦鍐惧殨妞ゆ洍鍋撻柡灞剧洴閸╃偤骞嗚婢规洖鈹戦敍鍕杭闁稿﹥鐗滈弫顕€骞掑Δ浣规珖闂侀潧锛忛埀顒勫磻閹炬剚娼╅柣鎰靛墮椤忥拷28缂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣椤愪粙鏌ㄩ悢鍝勑㈢痪鎹愵嚙椤潡鎳滈棃娑樞曢梺杞扮椤戝洭骞夐幖浣哥睄闁割偁鍨圭粊锕傛⒑閸涘﹤濮﹂柛鐘崇墱缁粯绻濆顓犲幈闂佽宕樼亸娆戠玻閺冨牊鐓冮柣鐔稿缁犺尙绱掔紒妯肩疄濠殿喒鍋撻梺鎸庣箓濡盯濡撮幇顑╂柨螖婵犱胶鍑归梺鍦归崯鍧楁偩瀹勬壋鏀介悗锝庝簻缁愭盯鏌f惔銏⑩姇瀹€锝呮健瀹曘垽鏌嗗鍡忔嫼闂佸憡绻傜€氼剟寮虫繝鍥ㄧ厱閻庯綆鍋呯亸鐢电磼鏉堛劌绗ч柍褜鍓ㄧ紞鍡涘磻閸涱厾鏆︾€光偓閳ь剟鍩€椤掍緡鍟忛柛锝庡櫍瀹曟垶绻濋崶褏鐣烘繛瀵稿Т椤戝懘宕归崒娑栦簻闁规壋鏅涢悘鈺傤殽閻愭潙鐏存慨濠勭帛閹峰懘宕ㄦ繝鍐ㄥ壍婵犵數鍋犻婊呯不閹达讣缍栨繝闈涱儏鎯熼梺鍐叉惈閸婂憡绂掗銏♀拺閻庡湱濮甸妴鍐偣娴g懓绲婚崡閬嶆煕椤愮姴鍔滈柣鎾寸懇閺岋綁骞囬棃娑橆潽缂傚倸绉甸崹鍧楀蓟閻旂厧绀傞柛蹇曞帶閳ь剚鍔欓弻锛勪沪閻e睗銉︺亜瑜岀欢姘跺蓟濞戙垹绠婚柛妤冨仜椤洤螖閻橀潧浠滅紒缁橈耿瀵偊骞樼紒妯绘闂佽法鍣﹂幏锟�1130缂傚倸鍊搁崐鎼佸磹閹间礁纾瑰瀣捣閻棗銆掑锝呬壕闁芥ɑ绻冮妵鍕冀閵娧呯厒闂佹椿鍘介幑鍥蓟濞戙垹绠婚柤纰卞墻濡差噣姊洪幖鐐插缂佽鐗撳濠氬Ω閳哄倸浜滈梺鍛婄箓鐎氬懘濮€閵忋垻锛滈梺閫炲苯澧寸€规洘甯¢幃娆戔偓鐢登归獮鍫熺節閻㈤潧浠﹂柛銊ョ埣閺佸啴顢曢敃鈧紒鈺冪磽娴h疮缂氱紒鐘荤畺閺屾盯顢曢敐鍥╃暭闂佺粯甯楅幃鍌炲蓟閿涘嫪娌紒瀣仢閳峰鎮楅崹顐g凡閻庢凹鍣i崺鈧い鎺戯功缁夐潧霉濠婂嫮鐭掗柨婵堝仱瀹曞爼顢楁担鍙夊闂傚倷绶¢崑鍡涘磻濞戙垺鍤愭い鏍ㄧ⊕濞呯姴螖閿濆懎鏆為柣鎾寸懇閺屾盯骞嬪▎蹇婂亾閺嶎偀鍋撳鐐
Xiaoxuan ZHAO1,2,
Riyu LU1,,

Corresponding author: Riyu LU,lr@mail.iap.ac.cn
1.State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
2.College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Manuscript received: 2019-05-08
Manuscript revised: 2019-09-04
Manuscript accepted: 2019-10-12
Abstract:This study investigates the vertical structure of variability in the cross-equatorial flows (CEFs) over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean in boreal summer, based on three reanalysis datasets: ERA-Interim, JRA-55 and NCEP-2. The results show a high consistency in the interannual variability among the reanalysis datasets, especially between ERA-Interim and JRA-55, while great uncertainty exists in the decadal or long-term changes of CEFs. Further analyses on the interannual variability in CEFs indicate that there is a significant negative relationship between the upper- and lower-level CEFs over the Maritime Continent—that is, the northerlies at the upper level and southerlies at the lower level are both enhanced or weakened. This seesaw pattern is also significantly related to the CEFs over the Indian Ocean at the upper level and lower level (i.e., the Somali jet). This close relationship between the upper- and lower-level CEFs and between the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean is manifested as the leading mode of equatorial meridional winds in the vertical?zonal section over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. Finally, it is found that ENSO is closely related to the vertical leading mode, and to all the CEFs at the upper and lower levels over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean.
Keywords: cross-equatorial flows,
vertical structure,
interannual variability,
ENSO
摘要:本文基于ERA-Interim, JRA-55及NCEP-2三套再分析资料研究了北半球夏季海洋性大陆和印度洋上空越赤道气流变率的垂直结构。结果表明:三套资料对于越赤道气流年际变率的刻画具有非常强的一致性,尤其是ERA-Interim和JRA-55。相比之下,越赤道气流的年代际及更长时间尺度的变化还存在很大的不确定性。进一步的分析表明,海洋性大陆越赤道气流的年际变率在高低空表现出很强的反相关,即高层向南的经向风与低层向北的经向风同时增强或减弱。这一反相关关系在印度洋上空也有所体现。高低空越赤道气流的反相变化是赤道经向风在垂直-纬向平面上年际变率的主模态,并与ENSO密切相关。
关键词:越赤道气流,
垂直结构,
年际变率,
ENSO





--> --> -->
1. Introduction
Cross-equatorial flows (CEFs), as the name suggests, refer to the airflow across the equator, and are characterized by several branches in the lower levels over the equatorial region (Tang et al., 1985; Peng and Jiang, 2003; Shi et al., 2007; Li and Li, 2014). During boreal summer in the Eastern Hemisphere, the strongest CEF is the Somali jet, which lies over the eastern coast of the African Plateau. In addition, there are several branches of CEFs across or adjacent to the Maritime Continent (hereafter referred to as MC-CEF).
CEFs play a crucial role in modulating interhemispheric moisture transport and the resultant monsoon rainfall. For example, the Somali jet transports a huge amount of water vapor from the Southern Hemisphere and contributes to the Indian monsoon rainfall and the East Asian summer rainfall (Ramesh Kumar et al., 1999; Halpern and Woiceshyn, 2001; Wang and Xue, 2003). In particular, MC-CEF, as the vital water vapor source to East Asia (Wang and Li, 1982; Han, 2002; Zhu, 2012), is regarded as a significant factor contributing to the climate variability in the western North Pacific and East Asia, including the western North Pacific subtropical high (Gao and Xue, 2006; Liu et al., 2009), the activity of tropical cyclones (Han, 2002; Zhao et al., 2012; Feng et al., 2017), and the western North Pacific monsoon trough (Lin et al., 2014).
CEFs are not limited to the lower levels (Xu et al., 1992; Zeng and Li, 2002; Gao and Xue, 2006; Shi et al., 2007; Zhu, 2012), though the lower-level CEFs are the main objective of research. While southerlies prevail in the lower levels in boreal summer, northerlies prevail in the upper levels. The strongest northerlies appear at about 150 hPa, while the strongest southerlies locate at 925 hPa for the MC-CEF and at 850 hPa for the Somali jet. However, the CEFs in the upper levels, especially their variability, have been basically ignored in previous studies. There are only a few previous studies on the vertical structure of the variability in the Somali jet (Qiu and Sun, 2013; Qiu et al., 2014), but these studies focused on the vertical scope below 600 hPa. Integrated analyses of both the lower- and upper-level CEFs are necessary and should prove helpful for a better understanding of CEF variability, particularly if there is a close relationship between the lower- and upper-level CEFs.
It has been well documented that ENSO is the main driver behind the interannual variability of the lower-level MC-CEF and Somali jet. Corresponding to warmer sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial central and eastern Pacific, the MC-CEF tends to be strengthened, while the Somali jet weakens (Xu et al., 1992; Wang et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2005), and thus ENSO plays a significant role in the seesaw pattern between the MC-CEF and the Somali jet (Li and Li, 2014; Li et al., 2017a, b). However, whether the variability of the upper-level CEFs is related to ENSO remains unknown.
In this study, we focus on the interannual variability in the CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean, though the CEFs over other regions also have remarkable impacts on climate, such as those over the eastern Pacific affecting ENSO (Wu et al., 2018; Hu and Fedorov, 2018). We also briefly discuss the decadal changes in CEFs, emphasizing the discrepancies among them in different reanalysis datasets. After a description of the datasets and methods in section 2, we evaluate the climatological vertical structure of CEFs and their variability based on three reanalysis datasets in section 3. Section 4 presents the relationship between upper- and lower-level CEFs on the interannual timescale. Lastly, a summary is presented in section 5.

2. Data and methods
In this study, the monthly meridional winds are from three atmospheric circulation reanalysis datasets: ERA-Interim (Dee et al., 2011), with a horizontal resolution of 0.75°×0.75°; JRA-55 (Kobayashi et al., 2015; Harada et al., 2016), with a resolution of 1.25° × 1.25°; and NCEP-2 (Kanamitsu et al., 2002), with a resolution of 2.5° × 2.5°. There are 37 levels extending from 1000 hPa to 1 hPa in ERA-Interim and JRA-55, while there are 17 levels from 1000 hPa to 10 hPa in NCEP-2. We use these three reanalysis datasets to evaluate the consistency of results on CEFs, considering the appreciable differences of CEFs found previously between reanalysis datasets (Zhao and Li, 2006). When different datasets are involved in calculations, interpolation is performed from high-resolution grids to low-resolution grids by using local area averaging. All the analyses are performed for boreal summer (June?July?August, JJA), and the time span is from 1979 to 2016.
In this study, a 9-yr Gaussian filter is applied to separate the decadal and interannual components. In addition, we perform empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis on the meridional winds in a zonal and vertical section along the equator to obtain the leading mode of the CEFs’ variability. For the EOF analysis, data on each grid are mass weighted, following Thompson and Wallace (2000) and Luo and Zhang (2015), i.e., multiplied by the square root of the pressure interval.
In order to quantitatively estimate the relationship between lower- and upper-level CEFs on the interannual time scale, we define several indexes based on the standardized JJA-mean meridional wind anomalies along the equator averaged over specified longitudinal scopes as follows:
● Index for the high-level CEFs over the Maritime Continent (MC-HCEFI): 200 hPa, 110°?170°E;
● Index for the high-level CEFs over the Indian Ocean (IO-HCEFI): 150 hPa, 45°?75°E;
● Index for lower-level CEFs over the Maritime Continent (MC-LCEFI): 925 hPa, 102.5°?110°E, 122.5°?130°E, 147.5°?152.5°E;
● Index for the Somali jet (Somali-I): 850 hPa, 37.5°?62.5°E.
The reasons for these pressure levels and longitudinal scopes are given in section 4.

3. Features of CEFs: climatology and variability
Figure 1 shows the climatology of JJA-mean meridional winds along the equator based on ERA-Interim, JRA-55 and NCEP-2, respectively. Northerlies prevail in the upper troposphere and southerlies prevail in the lower troposphere for all three datasets. Upper-level CEFs appear roughly between 100 hPa and 300 hPa, 45°E and 160°E. Strong northerlies, which are highlighted in the figure by values greater than 6 m s?1, are concentrated over 70°?120°E, 200?150 hPa. Unlike the well-organized upper-level CEFs, lower-level CEFs are scattered as five branches, which is well known to result from the distribution of topography. The Somali jet is the leftmost one, followed by the Bay of Bengal CEF, and the other three have been collectively referred to as Maritime Continent CEF (MC-CEF) by Li and Li (2014). The strongest one is the Somali jet, with the maximum wind speed exceeding 12 m s?1 at 850 hPa. By contrast, the other four branches are much weaker, and the cores appear roughly at 925 hPa. On the other hand, there are some distinctions between the datasets in depicting the climatological CEFs. For instance, the core of upper-level CEFs appear at about 150 hPa for both ERA-Interim and JRA-55, and the maximum wind speed exceeds 7 m s?1; whereas, the core for NCEP-2 is relatively lower and the intensity is weaker.
Figure1. Climatology of the JJA-mean meridional winds along the equator based on (a) ERA-Interim, (b) JRA-55, and (c) NCEP-2. Solid (dashed) contours represent positive (negative) wind speed (contour interval: 1 m s?1), and the zero contours are omitted. The shaded regions represent a northerly velocity greater than 6 m s?1.


Figure 2 displays the variance of meridional winds along the equator. In the upper troposphere, there are two areas of large variance, appearing roughly over 110°?170°E and 50°?90°E, respectively, for all datasets (Figs. 2a-c). This distribution of variance is quite different to that of climatological CEFs (Fig. 1), implying that the physical mechanisms are different for the formation of climatological CEFs and their variations. In the lower levels, the MC-CEF exhibits much stronger variability than the Somali jet and the Bay of Bengal CEF, although the former is much weaker than or similar to the latter in climatology, implying again that the physical mechanisms are different for variability and climatology. The strongest variability appears around 925 hPa over the Maritime Continent, which can be more easily seen in Figs. 2d-f.
Figure2. Variance of meridional winds along the equator based on (a) ERA-Interim, (b) JRA-55, and (c) NCEP-2. The contour interval is 0.4 m2 s?2, and the zero contours are omitted. The regions framed by the rectangle in (a?c) are magnified to (d?f), respectively. The shaded regions represent values greater than 0.8 m2 s?2.


However, there are large differences in variance between the datasets. First, variances show strong differences to the west of 90°E. They are much greater in JRA-55 and NCEP-2 at the upper levels in comparison with ERA-Interim. In addition, the large values shown at the western edge of Fig. 2b extend to 10°E, with the maximum locating around 30°E (not completely shown in Fig. 2b), and these strong variances are related to the decadal time scale (Fig. 3b). Furthermore, there are two cores of strong variance in the upper troposphere and mid?lower troposphere for NCEP-2 (Fig. 2c), which are absent for ERA-Interim (Fig. 2a). Second, in the upper troposphere over the Maritime Continent, variances are characterized by one core at 150°E for NCEP-2 but by several cores for ERA-Interim and JRA-55. Third, in the lower troposphere over the Maritime Continent, which is highlighted in Figs. 2d-f, variances measured by JRA-55 are stronger than in ERA-Interim, and strong variances tend to appear over larger scopes in NCEP-2 than in the other two datasets.
Figure3. Variance of the interdecadal component of meridional winds along the equator based on (a) ERA-Interim, (b) JRA-55, and (c) NCEP-2. The contour interval is 0.4 m2 s?2, and the zero contours are omitted. The shaded regions represent values greater than 0.8 m2 s?2.


Figure 3 shows the variance of meridional winds along the equator on the decadal time scale. Large differences can be found between the datasets. Variances are greater in JRA-55 and NCEP-2 at the upper levels to the west of 90°E than in ERA-Interim. In addition, there are two cores of strong variance in the upper troposphere and mid?lower troposphere for NCEP-2 (Fig. 3c). Furthermore, NCEP-2 shows larger variances at both the upper and lower levels over the Maritime Continent. These differences in variance between the datasets are roughly consistent with those for total variance shown in Fig. 2, implying that decadal variance contributes significantly to the differences in total variance between the datasets.
The interannual variance (Fig. 4) is much more consistent between the datasets. To the west of 90°E, variances are strong in the upper troposphere and weak in the lower troposphere, although the strong variances in the upper troposphere appear further eastward in NCEP-2 in comparison with the two other datasets. Over the Maritime Continent, strong variances appear both in the upper troposphere and at lower levels for all the datasets. In the upper troposphere, the interannual variation is consistently large from 110°E to 170°E, although for NCEP-2 strong variances tend to be concentrated around 150°E. In the lower troposphere over the Maritime Continent (Figs. 4d-f), large variances are also very similar in both intensity and distribution, though JRA-55 shows slightly larger values and NCEP-2 shows weaker values and a smoother distribution. These strong variances are roughly consistent with the strong prevailing southerlies shown in Fig. 1, but with appreciable differences. For instance, at around 150°E the climatological southerlies are weak, while the variances are strong. All the datasets show very weak variances in the domain of the Somali jet. These consistent features of interannual variance and large differences in decadal variance suggest that the distinctions in total variance mainly result from the decadal variability.
Figure4. As in Fig. 2 but for the interannual component.


To more clearly illustrate the consistency among the three datasets in depicting the interannual variability, we show in Fig. 5 the ratios of the interannual standard deviation of the equatorial meridional winds between the datasets. The domains where the ratios are greater than 1.25 or lower than 0.8 are dotted and checked, respectively, and the consistency of the interannual variability between the datasets is highlighted by the blank areas. The strongest consistency appears between ERA-Interim and JRA-55, indicated by the largest blank area in Fig. 5a, which extends from the upper troposphere downward to the lowest level from 90°E to 165°E. Consistency also appears in the upper troposphere over the Maritime Continent, particularly around 200 hPa, between NCEP-2 and the other two datasets (Figs. 5b and c). Consistency tends to exist at 925 hPa around 130°E and 150°E, where the interannual variance is relatively larger (Fig. 4).
Figure5. Ratio of the interannual standard deviation of meridional winds between (a) ERA-Interim and JRA-55, (b) ERA-Interim and NCEP-2, and (c) JRA-55 and NCEP-2. The isolines represent the values of 1.25 and 0.8. Values less than 0.8 are marked by checks, and those larger than 1.25 are marked by dots.


Figure 6 shows the vertical?longitude section of the correlation coefficient of the interannual variations in equatorial meridional winds between the datasets. Only two contours, i.e., 0.85 and 0.95, are shown in this figure to highlight the domains of high correlation. The strongest consistency appears between ERA-Interim and JRA-55, both in the upper troposphere and in the lower levels over the Maritime Continent, in agreement with the high consistency in interannual standard deviation (Fig. 5a). High correlation coefficients appear from 90°E to 170°W in the upper troposphere, centered at about 200 hPa (Fig. 6a). In the lower levels, on the other hand, high correlations are centered around 105°E, 130°E and 150°E, respectively (Fig. 6d), which is closely consistent with the three branches of relatively larger interannual variance (Figs. 4d and e). Furthermore, high correlations also appear in the upper troposphere and over the three branches in the lower levels over the Maritime Continent between NCEP-2 and the other two datasets (Figs. 6b, c, e and f). These high correlations exhibit a very similar distribution in comparison with those between ERA-Interim and JRA-55 (Figs. 6a and d), although showing a weak intensity.
Figure6. Correlation coefficients of the equatorial meridional winds on the interannual time scale between (a) ERA-Interim and JRA-55, (b) ERA-Interim and NCEP-2, and (c) JRA-55 and NCEP-2. The isolines represent the values of 0.85 and 0.95. Regions shaded gray denote values greater than 0.95. The regions framed by the rectangle in (a?c) are magnified to (d?f), respectively.


So far, we have illustrated the vertical structure of the climatology and variability of CEFs and validated that the three datasets have higher consistency on the interannual time scale, especially between ERA-Interim and JRA-55, while the interdecadal component varies widely. Thus, further investigation in this study will mainly focus on the interannual variability.

4. Relationship between upper- and lower-level CEFs on the interannual time scale
It has been shown in Fig. 4 that strong variability in equatorial meridional winds appears in both the upper and lowest level of the troposphere over the Maritime Continent. A question therefore arises: Is there a linkage between upper- and lower-level CEFs on the interannual time scale? To address this question, we regress the meridional winds along the equator onto the low-level MC-CEF index (MC-LCEFI), which is defined as the standardized JJA-mean meridional wind anomalies at 925 hPa averaged over 102.5°?110°E, 122.5°?130°E, and 147.5°?152.5°E, following Li and Li (2014). The only difference between the present definition and theirs is that we use the equatorial anomalies in order to match with the other analyses in this study, while they used the averages over 2.5°S?2.5°N. However, our index is almost identical to theirs, as indicated by extremely high correlation coefficients between the two indices, which range from 0.9986 to 0.9998 among the three datasets.
The meridional wind anomalies regressed onto the MC-LCEFI are shown in Fig. 7. There are significant northerly anomalies in the upper troposphere and southerly anomalies in the lower levels of the troposphere over the Maritime Continent in all datasets. This indicates a strengthening of both the upper and lower branches of CEFs over the Maritime Continent. The northerly anomalies consistently appear between 90°E and 170°E around 200 hPa, with the strongest one at about 150°E. Although we define the MC-LCEFI using the three branches to the east of 100°E, there are also significant southerly anomalies between 90°E and 100°E in the lower troposphere. Weak but significant southerly anomalies appear in the mid troposphere over the Maritime Continent in both ERA-Interim and JRA-55, but these are absent in NCEP-2. In addition, to the west of 90°E, there are southerly anomalies in the upper troposphere and northerly anomalies in the lower levels. The upper-tropospheric southerly anomalies are very similar between ERA-Interim and JRA-55, but shift eastward in NCEP-2. The low-level northerly anomalies are significant, and this out-of-phase relationship between the Somali jet and the MC-LCEFs has been well documented by Li and Li (2014), Li et al. (2017a), and Li et al. (2017b). However, the anomalies associated with the Somali jet are much weaker, consistent with the weak interannual variance (Fig. 4), and they appear relatively eastward in NCEP-2.
Figure7. Regression of the interannual component of the meridional winds along the equator onto the lower-level MC-CEF index based on (a) ERA-Interim, (b) JRA-55, and (c) NCEP-2. The contour interval is 0.2 m s?1, and the zero contours are omitted. The red (blue) shading denotes positive (negative) values, and dots represent regions significant at the 95% confidence level based on the Student’s t-test.


This negative relationship between the upper and lower troposphere over the Maritime Continent can also be confirmed from the viewpoint of upper-tropospheric CEFs. Figures 8a-c show the correlation coefficients of equatorial meridional winds between the reference point (200 hPa, 150°E) and all the grids. This reference point shows the strongest meridional wind anomaly associated with the low-level CEFs (Figs. 7a and b) and the greatest interannual variance (Figs. 4a and b) in ERA-Interim and JRA-55. The correlation coefficients over the Maritime Continent are characterized by positive values in the upper troposphere and negative ones in the lower levels in all the datasets. Strong negative correlations in the lower levels are centered in several branches, consistent with the large interannual variance (Figs. 4d-f). Besides, there are negative and positive correlations to the west of 90°E in the upper and lower troposphere, centered around 150 hPa and 850 hPa, respectively. This distribution is very similar to that shown in Fig. 7, including the negative correlations (Fig. 8) and southerly anomalies (Fig. 7) in the mid troposphere over the Maritime Continent, in ERA-Interim and JRA-55 but not in NCEP-2.
Figure8. One-point correlation coefficient for the interannual component of the meridional winds along the equator based on (a) ERA-Interim, (b) JRA-55, and (c) NCEP-2. The reference point (200 hPa, 150°E) is marked by the white cross. The contour interval is 0.1, and values between ?0.4 and 0.4 are omitted. The red (blue) shading denotes positive (negative) values, and dots represent regions significant at the 95% confidence level based on the Student’s t-test. As in (a?c) (d?f) are for the reference point (150 hPa, 150°E).


Considering that the strongest interannual variance and northerly anomaly in NCEP-2 appear at 150 hPa (Figs. 4c and 7c), we use (150 hPa, 150°E) as the reference point and repeat the analysis. The results (Figs. 8d-f) are similar, and the largest positive values appear at 200 hPa to the west of 135°E, even though the reference point is shifted to 150 hPa.
The above results demonstrate the significant negative relationship in the equatorial meridional winds between the upper and lowest level of the troposphere, over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. The domains of significant correlation are closely consistent with those of large interannual variance. All these results imply that the negative relationship may play an important role in the interannual variability of the equatorial meridional winds over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. To verify this, we perform an EOF analysis on the equatorial meridional winds in the domain of (30°E?160°W, 1000?70 hPa), which is the same as those for Figs. 4, 7 and 8. The first mode (EOF1) is separable from the other modes according to North et al. (1982), and accounts for 34.3%, 32.5% and 29.2% of the total interannual variance in ERA-Interim, JRA-55 and NCEP-2, respectively. Figure 9 shows the equatorial meridional wind anomalies regressed onto the standardized principal component of the first mode (PC1). EOF1 is characterized by northerly (southerly) anomalies in the upper (lower) troposphere over the Maritime Continent and southerly anomalies in the upper troposphere over the Indian Ocean in all the datasets. There are also significant, albeit weak, anomalies of the Somali jet. This distribution resembles very well the distributions shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
Figure9. Regression of the interannual component of the meridional winds along the equator onto the normalized PC1, with the EOF analysis performed for the domain identical to that shown in the figure, based on (a) ERA-Interim, (b) JRA-55, and (c) NCEP-2. The contour interval is 0.2 m s?1, and the zero contours are omitted. The red (blue) shading denotes positive (negative) values, and dots represent regions significant at the 95% confidence level based on the Student’s t-test.


To compare the first mode and these significant meridional wind anomalies over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean, we define several indexes to depict the meridional wind anomalies. First, considering the distribution of the anomalies over the Maritime Continent shown in Figs. 7 and 8 and the large variances shown in Fig. 4, we define MC-HCEFI as the standardized JJA-mean equatorial meridional winds at 200 hPa averaged over 110°?170°E. Second, we define IO-HCEFI at 150 hPa over 45°?75°E along the equator based on a similar consideration. Third, as mentioned before, we define MC-LCEFI, following Li and Li (2014), but only the equatorial winds are used here. We also follow Li and Li (2014) and define the Somali jet index (Somali-I) by averaging the equatorial meridional winds at 850 hPa over 37.5°?62.5°E.
Figure 10 shows the interannual and decadal variations of these indexes. High consistency exists among the three datasets in depicting the interannual variability in the upper troposphere and low-level branches over the Maritime Continent (Figs. 10a and b), consistent with the results shown in the preceding section. For instance, the correlation coefficient between ERA-Interim and JRA-55 is 0.98 for MC-HCEFI and 0.99 for MC-LCEFI. The similarity among different datasets over the Indian Ocean on the interannual time scale, albeit weaker than that over the Maritime Continent, can also be found from the series of IO-HCEFI and Somali-I (Figs. 10c and d), with the correlation coefficient being 0.88 for IO-HCEFI and 0.92 for Somali-I. In contrast, the decadal indexes show large differences (Figs. 10e-h). ERA-Interim and JRA-55 tend to show consistent decadal variations of the low-level CEFs over the Maritime Continent (Fig. 10f), but they show quite different variations of the high-level MC-CEF and the CEFs over the Indian Ocean (Figs. 10e, g and h). The large differences shown by the decadal indexes indicate that there is great uncertainty in the decadal variations of CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean in the current reanalysis data.
Figure10. Time series of (a) MC-HCEFI, (b) MC-LCEFI, (c) IO-HCEFI, and (d) Somali-I calculated by the interannual component based on ERA-Interim, JRA-55 and NCEP-2. As in (a?d) (e?h) are for the interdecadal component.


We calculate the correlation coefficients between PC1 and these indexes and show them in Table 1. PC1 is highly correlated with MC-HCEFI and MC-LCEFI, suggesting that the first mode can explain the majority of the interannual variance of CEFs in both the upper and lowest level of the troposphere over the Maritime Continent. In addition, PC1 is also significantly correlated with IO-HCEFI and Somali-I. These correlation coefficients confirm the close relationship between the first mode and CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. Or, in other words, the relationship between the CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean, particularly the seesaw pattern between the upper and lower troposphere over the Maritime Continent, contributes significantly to the first mode.
IndexMC-HCEFIMC-LCEFIIO-HCEFISomali-IPC1
MC-LCEFI?0.86????
IO-HCEFI?0.610.72???
Somali-I0.48?0.68?0.55??
PC1?0.980.930.68?0.59?
Ni?o3.4?0.670.830.68?0.620.75


Table1. Correlation coefficients between the indexes used in this study based on ERA-Interim. Results based on JRA-55 and NCEP-2 are very similar with ERA-Interim and are therefore not shown here.


In addition, a strong relationship between CEFs and ENSO, especially for MC-CEF, can be found in Fig. 10. For example, MC-HCEFI reaches a minimum (maximum) in 1997 (1998), which was a developing summer for a strong El Ni?o (La Ni?a). This relationship can be verified by the correlation coefficients with the Ni?o3.4 index (Table 1), which is defined as the standardized JJA-mean SST anomalies averaged over (5°S?5°N, 120°?170°W), using the monthly mean SST data provided by ERSST.v5. Actually, the Ni?o3.4 index is also highly correlated with PC1 (0.75; Table 1). All these strong correlation coefficients suggest that ENSO may contribute much to the leading mode. To confirm this, we regress the equatorial meridional wind anomalies onto the JJA-mean Ni?o3.4 index, and show the results in Fig. 11. Over the Maritime Continent there are northerly anomalies in the upper troposphere and southerly anomalies in the low-level branches. There are also southerly anomalies in the upper troposphere over the Indian Ocean and weak northerly anomalies in the lower troposphere around 50°E. This distribution is closely consistent with the leading mode shown in Fig. 9. All these results indicate that ENSO contributes much to the leading mode of equatorial meridional winds and the linkage between CEFs in the upper and lower troposphere over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. The ENSO-related meridional wind anomalies tend to appear over a relatively narrow scope around 200 hPa in the vertical direction over the Maritime Continent, in comparison with those associated with PC1 (Fig. 9), indicating that ENSO is most strongly correlated with CEFs at 200 hPa and thus providing an extra advantage of defining CEFs by using 200-hPa meridional winds.
Figure11. Regression of the interannual component of the meridional winds along the equator onto the Ni?o3.4 index in JJA based on (a) ERA-Interim, (b) JRA-55, and (c) NCEP-2. The contour interval is 0.2 m s?1, and the zero contours are omitted. The red (blue) shading denotes positive (negative) values, and dots represent regions significant at the 95% confidence level based on the Student’s t-test.



5. Conclusions and discussion
In this study, we evaluate the vertical structure of variability in CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean in boreal summer, based on three reanalysis datasets: ERA-Interim, JRA-55 and NCEP-2. The results show that there is high consistency in the interannual variability of CEFs among the three datasets, especially for CEFs in both the upper and lower troposphere over the Maritime Continent between ERA-Interim and JRA-55. By contrast, CEFs over both the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean show remarkable discrepancies on the decadal time scale among the three reanalysis datasets, indicating great uncertainty in the long-term changes in CEFs in the current reanalysis datasets.
Further analysis is performed to illustrate the vertical structure of the interannual variability in CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. The results show that there is a significant negative relationship between the upper and lowest-tropospheric CEFs over the Maritime Continent, i.e., enhanced cross-equatorial southerly flows in the low levels correspond to intensified northerly flows in the upper levels. In other words, CEFs are enhanced simultaneously in both the lower and upper branches over the Maritime Continent. This seesaw pattern over the Maritime Continent is also significantly related to CEFs over the Indian Ocean: enhanced CEFs over the Maritime Continent correspond to weakened CEFs over the Indian Ocean—that is, both the Somali jet in the lower levels and returning northerly flows in the upper levels are weakened. This correspondence in CEFs, both zonally and vertically, is manifested as the leading mode of equatorial meridional winds over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. Finally, it is found that ENSO is closely related to the vertical structure of the interannual variability in CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. The summer Ni?o3.4 index is significantly correlated to the leading mode and lower- and upper-level CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean. This suggests that ENSO may contribute remarkably to the vertical structure of the interannual variability in CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean.
This study reveals the vertical structure of CEFs over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean on the interannual time scale and the effect of ENSO on the vertical structure. Associated with the vertical structure, CEFs shows close relationships between the lower and upper branches, and between the Maritime Continent and Somali jet. This is partially consistent with previous studies, which have demonstrated the relationship between lower-level CEFs over the Maritime Continent and the Somali jet (Li and Li, 2014). This study, however, does not examine the horizontal distribution of circulation anomalies associated with the vertical structure of CEFs. The horizontal distribution of circulation anomalies can help us better understand the climate anomalies associated with the variability of CEFs and the physical mechanisms underlying their variability. Therefore, further analyses on this issue are required in the future.
Based on the present results, we suggest that using 200-hPa meridional winds is a good choice to define the upper-level CEFs over the Maritime Continent in consideration of the following facts. First, at this pressure level, CEFs are roughly strongest in climatological terms and show the greatest interannual variability over the Maritime Continent. Therefore, the definition can appropriately depict the variability of CEFs. Second, the meridional winds at this level are most strongly related to both the leading mode and ENSO, and the significant meridional wind anomalies occupy the largest zonal scope over the Maritime Continent. Finally, around 200 hPa, the three reanalysis datasets show their highest consistency in depicting the interannual variability of meridional winds along the equator. On the other hand, 150 hPa is suggested for the definition of upper-level CEFs over the Indian Ocean, for similar reasons.
Acknowledgements. This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41721004).

相关话题/Vertical Structure Interannual