4566 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 27

Land–Sea Thermal Contrast and Intensity of the North American Monsoon under
Climate Change Conditions

ABRAHAM TORRES-ALAVEZ, TEREZA CAVAZOS, AND CUAUHTEMOC TURRENT

Department of Physical Oceanography, Centro de Investigaci
on Cientı́fica y de Educaci
on Superior de Ensenada, Ensenada,
Baja California, Mexico

(Manuscript received 12 September 2013, in final form 17 January 2014)

ABSTRACT

The hypothesis that global warming during the twenty-first century will increase the land–sea thermal
contrast (LSTC) and therefore the intensity of early season precipitation of the North American monsoon
(NAM) is examined. To test this hypothesis, future changes (2075–99 minus 1979–2004 means) in LSTC,
moisture flux convergence (MFC), vertical velocity, and precipitation in the region are analyzed using six
global climate models (GCMs) from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) under
the representative concentration pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) emission scenario. A surface LSTC index shows that
the continent becomes warmer than the ocean in May in the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
and ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim) and in June in the mean ensemble of the GCMs
(ens_GCMs), and the magnitude of the positive LSTC is greater in the reanalyses than in the ens_GCMs
during the historic period. However, the reanalyses underestimate July–August precipitation in the NAM
region, while the ens_GCMs reproduces the peak season surprisingly well but overestimates it the rest of the
year. The future ens_GCMs projects a doubling of the magnitude of the positive surface LSTC and an earlier
start of the continental summer warming in mid-May. Contrary to the stated hypothesis, however, the mean
projection suggests a slight decrease of monsoon coastal precipitation during June–August (JJA), which is
attributed to increased midtropospheric subsidence, a reduced midtropospheric LSTC, and reduced MFC in
the NAM coastal region. In contrast, the future ens_GCMs produces increased MFC and precipitation
over the adjacent mountains during JJA and significantly more rainfall over the entire NAM region during
September–October, weakening the monsoon retreat.

1. Introduction conditions during spring would lead to a convective

barrier, which could reduce early season rainfall. Fur-
Evaluations of the global climate models (GCMs)
thermore, Fasullo (2012) argues that future atmospheric
participating in both phases 3 (e.g., Seager et al. 2007;
warming over the continent will cause the saturation
Seth et al. 2011; Cavazos and Arriaga-Ramirez 2012)
specific humidity to increase (i.e., a greater amount of
and 5 (Cook and Seager 2013; Seth et al. 2013; Maloney
water vapor per unit volume will be necessary to reach
et al. 2014) of the Coupled Model Intercomparison
saturation).
Project (CMIP3 and CMIP5, respectively) have in-
Monsoonal circulations modulate regional precipi-
dicated that North American monsoon (NAM) pre-
tation through seasonal changes in the wind caused by
cipitation may decrease in the future. Specifically, Seth
an initial large-scale land–sea thermal contrast (LSTC)
et al. (2011, 2013) and Cook and Seager (2013) suggest
(Li and Yanai 1996; Rodwell and Hoskins 2001; Zhu
that future changes in the annual cycle of monsoon
et al. 2007; Turrent and Cavazos 2009, 2012). For the
precipitation will be associated with an increase in tro-
NAM, Turrent and Cavazos (2009) found that the in-
pospheric stability during winter and spring, reinforced
tensity of the regional LSTC modulates the low-level
by a decrease in available surface moisture. Dry
moisture transport over the Gulf of California and ac-
counts for roughly half of all early season (June–July)
Corresponding author address: Tereza Cavazos, Department of monsoon precipitation variability over northwestern
Physical Oceanography, Centro de Investigacion Cientıfica y de
Mexico. Sutton et al. (2007) concluded from an evalua-
Educacion Superior de Ensenada, Carretera Ensenada-Tijuana
3918, Zona Playitas, 22860 Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. tion of the CMIP3 GCMs that global surface tempera-
E-mail: tcavazos@cicese.mx tures should be expected to increase faster over the

DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00557.1

Ó 2014 American Meteorological Society

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
15 JUNE 2014 TORRES-ALAVEZ ET AL.
TABLE 1. Coupled ocean–atmosphere GCMs from the CMIP5 dataset used in this analysis. The modeling center, the number of model
realizations analyzed, and the spatial resolution of the global atmospheric grid are indicated. ESMs include interactive prognostic aerosol,
chemistry, and dynamical vegetation (Taylor et al. 2012).
Model Expanded model name
CanESM2 Second Generation Canadian Earth
System Model
CNRM-CM5 Centre National de Recherches
Meteorologiques Coupled Global
Climate Model, version 5
HadGEM2-ES Hadley Centre Global Environment
Model, version 2—Earth System
MIROC-ESM- Model for Interdisciplinary Research
CHEM on Climate, Earth System Model,
Chemistry Coupled
MPI-ESM-LR Max Planck Institute Earth System
Model, low resolution
MRI-CGCM3 Meteorological Research Institute
Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean General
Circulation Model, version 3
continents than over the oceans, with the greatest land/
sea warming ratios occurring in subtropical latitudes,
regardless of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
scenario. Based on those results alone, early season
monsoon circulations would be expected to intensify
under global warming conditions. However, most of the
GCMs of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 simulations suggest
that by the end of the twenty-first century the NAM
region may become drier and, according to the CMIP3
results, this will be mainly due to the expansion and
weakening of the large-scale tropical circulation pat-
terns (viz., the Walker and Hadley cells; Held and Soden
2006; Lu et al. 2007). The CMIP5 models also present
a weakening of the Walker circulation but, in contrast
to CMIP3 results, they project a strengthening of the
Hadley cell during boreal winter (Lee and Wang
2014). The response of the surface temperatures and
the LSTC to the radiative forcings associated to
increased concentrations of GHG and aerosols in
CMIP5 probably adds additional complexity to the
regional climatic response in the phase 5 simulations
(e.g., Villarini and Vecchi 2012), with regards to
CMIP3.
The aim of this study is to examine the changes in the
thermodynamical mechanisms associated to the annual
cycle of precipitation in the NAM region that are ex-
pected for the late twenty-first century (2075–99), as
revealed by an ensemble of six CMIP5 GCMs (Table 1).
Specifically, changes in the role of the LSTC, moisture
flux convergence (MFC), and vertical velocity are
evaluated under the most extreme scenario from the
CMIP5 dataset [representative concentration pathway
4567
Modeling center Realizations (resolution)
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling 5 (2.88 3 2.88)
and Analysis, Canada
Meteo-France/Centre National de 1 (1.48 3 1.48)
Resherches Meteorologiques, France
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and 4 (1.88 3 1.28)
Research/Met Office, United Kingdom
Center for Climate System Research, 1 (1.88 3 1.28)
National Institute for Environmental
Studies, and Frontier Research Center
for Global Change, Japan
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, 3 (1.88 3 1.88)
Germany
Meteorological Research Institute, Japan 1 (1.18 3 1.18)
8.5 (RCP8.5); Taylor et al. 2012]. Although there is no
relationship between individual CMIP3 and CMIP5
GCMs because of changes in model physics, resolution,
and aerosol forcings in the CMIP5 models (Taylor et al.
2012), for consistency the six models selected for the
ensemble (ens_GCMs) were chosen based on their
ability to adequately resolve the key features of the
NAM system in CMIP3 (e.g., Liang et al. 2008; Lin et al.
2008; Cavazos and Arriaga-Ramirez 2012) and CMIP5
studies (e.g., Bukovsky et al. 2013; Geil et al. 2013), as
well as key features of the intraseasonal atmospheric
variability of the eastern tropical Pacific based on the
CMIP5 models (Jiang et al. 2013).
The paper is organized as follows: The data and
methodology are described in section 2. Results of the
validation of the GCMs through comparison with ob-
servational datasets during the historical period (1979–
2004) are shown in section 3. Climate change projections
for the late twenty-first century (2075–99) based on the
six GCMs and their mean ensemble under the RCP8.5
radiative forcing scenario are discussed in section 4.
Summary and conclusions are given in section 5.
2. Data and methodology
Observed gauge-based monthly gridded precipitation
and surface air temperature, at 0.58 spatial resolution,
were obtained from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
of the University of East Anglia dataset (version 3.1:
1901–2009; available online at http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/
browse/badc/cru/data/cru_ts_3.10; Mitchell and Jones
2005). Gridded monthly precipitation was also obtained
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
4568 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP),
version 2.1 (Huffman et al. 2009), which is a satellite–gauge
combination with a spatial resolution of 2.58. The GPCP
is freely available online (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/
data/gridded/data.gpcp.html).
Additionally, model-derived monthly estimates of
various surface and atmospheric variables at different
vertical levels with 1.58 spatial resolution were obtained
for the 1979–2004 historical period from the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)
Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim; available online at
http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/interim_moda/; Dee
et al. 2011). Daily surface variables and atmospheric
fields at different levels were also obtained from the
North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR), which
has a spatial resolution of approximately 0.38 (32 km).
NARR is freely available online (http://www.esrl.noaa.
gov/psd/data/gridded/data.narr.html). For comparison
purposes, all monthly fields were regridded to the
0.58 latitude–longitude CRU grid, using bilinear
interpolation.
The monthly averaged output of six GCMs from the
CMIP5 dataset (Table 1; Taylor et al. 2012) was ob-
tained from different sites of the CMIP5 webpage
(http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/data_getting_started.
html). For each GCM, two experiments were chosen:
1) historical simulations that used realistic values of ra-
diative forcing for the late twentieth century and 2) the
RCP8.5 projections that simulate future climate change
using a high GHG radiative forcing scenario that rea-
ches 8.5 W m22 by 2100. The monthly GCM data that
were analyzed consisted of mean precipitation, surface
air temperature (Tas), surface temperature (Tskin),
and 500–1000-hPa thickness, together with wind (u, y,
and v), air temperature (Ta), and specific humidity
(q) at vertical levels ranging from 1000 to 200 hPa.
Each GCM has a different number of realizations
(Table 1). Thus, the monthly realizations were aver-
aged to create a single output for each variable and
model and a multimodel ensemble mean was calcu-
lated for each variable.
The NAM region considered here is shown in Fig. 1; it
includes the core region over northwestern Mexico and
the northernmost extension of the NAM over Arizona
and New Mexico. To evaluate the annual cycle, pre-
cipitation is averaged over the entire NAM region; this
results in quantities smaller than the average pre-
cipitation for the core monsoon, as implied from Fig. 1.
This is why the annual cycle of mean monsoon pre-
cipitation and its future changes documented in this
study may differ from the quantities reported by other
studies that have used different monsoon areas or have
only focused on the core monsoon (e.g., Bukovsky et al.
VOLUME 27
2013; Cook and Seager 2013; Geil et al. 2013; Maloney
et al. 2014).
Surface LSTC was evaluated using the annual cycles
of the area average of Tskin over the continental and
oceanic regions relevant to the NAM (see Fig. 4): namely,
1) the thermal low region spanning the Arizona Sonoran
Desert (328–348N, 1128–1168W; Tang and Reiter 1984)
and 2) an oceanic area in the eastern tropical Pacific,
south of the Gulf of California (158–238N, 1058–1108W),
which is the principal source of low-level moisture for the
core monsoon region (Turrent and Cavazos 2009). A
midtropospheric LSTC index was also obtained based on
the 500–1000-hPa temperature thickness difference be-
tween the two regions.
The vertically integrated moisture flux Q was com-
puted from the surface to the 200-hPa level using the
following equation:
ð sfc
1
Q5 qv dp , (1)
g 200 hPa
where g is the acceleration of gravity, q is specific hu-
midity, p is pressure, and v is the horizontal wind vector.
Additionally, the horizontal MFC was calculated,
MFC 5 2$
Q . (2)
3. Historical validation
a. Precipitation
The spatial pattern of mean summer rainfall over the
NAM region estimated by the ens_GCMs is similar to
that of the CRU and the GPCP observed datasets and
to NARRs pattern, with maximum precipitation
(.3 mm day21) over the Sierra Madre Occidental (Fig. 1).
ERA-Interim has a dry bias over the core monsoon
region, with precipitation .3 mm day21 greatly under-
estimated. Individually, CNRM-CM5, HadGEM2-ES,
MPI-ESM-LR, and MRI-CGCM3 reproduce the spatial
rainfall pattern over the Sierra Madre Occidental very
well (Fig. 1; see Table 1 for expanded model names).
CanESM2 is the driest model (Figs. 1f, 2b), while MPI-
ESM-LR is the wettest over the monsoon region (Figs.
1j, 2b). The mean annual cycle of precipitation over the
NAM region (Fig. 2a) shows maximum precipitation
during July–August (;2.8 mm day21), which is surpris-
ingly well captured by the ens_GCMs, but it is over-
estimated (underestimated) by GPCP (by NARR and
ERA-Interim).
The GPCP, NARR, and ERA-Interim datasets agree
well with the CRU precipitation annual cycle, with some
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
15 JUNE 2014 TORRES-ALAVEZ ET AL. 4569

FIG. 1. Mean summer (JJA) precipitation (mm day21) during 1979–2004 for (a) CRU and (b) GPCP observations;
reanalyses from (c) ERA-Interim and (d) NARR; and GCMs: (e) ens_GCMs, (f) CanESM2, (g) CNRM-CM5,
(h) HadGEM2-ES, (i) MIROC-ESM-CHEM, (j) MPI-ESM-LR, and (k) MRI-CGCM3. The NAM region consid-
ered here is the area limited by 238–368N, 1048–1148W.

biases, as seen in Fig. 2a. The dry summer bias in ERA-
Interim’s annual cycle is also seen in the spatial pattern
in the core monsoon over northwestern Mexico (see the
4 mm day21 contour in Figs. 1c and 3b) and in the in-
terannual summer precipitation (Fig. 2c), especially af-
ter 1990. The ens_GCMs greatly overestimates spring,
fall, and winter precipitation, as compared to the ob-
servations (Figs. 2a,b). However, the ens_GCMs
summer estimate is an improvement with regards to the
CMIP3 models, consistent with the results of Geil et al.
(2013); many CMIP3 models underestimated summer
precipitation and had a late rainfall peak in September
that delayed the monsoon retreat (Seth et al. 2011;
Cavazos and Arriaga-Ramirez 2012). The CMIP5
models also manifest a similar weak monsoon re-
treat (Figs. 2a,b), which is particularly evident in the

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC

4570 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 27

FIG. 2. Mean precipitation rate and metrics of skill (mm day21) in the NAM region (dashed area in Fig. 1) during 1979–2004. (a) Annual
cycle for CRU, GPCP, NARR, ERA-Interim, and the ens_GCMs; (b) annual cycle for CRU, ens_GCMs, CanESM2, HadGEM2-ES,
CNRM-CM5, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, MPI-ESM-LR, and MRI-CGCM3; (c) JJA precipitation for the CRU, GPCP, NARR, ERA-Interim,
and the ens_GCMs; and (d) measures of skill: standard deviation (STD) for the observations (CRU and GPCP), reanalyses (ERA-Interim
and NARR), and the GCMs and MAE for the GCMs as compared to CRU. Note the difference in the y-axis scale between (a) and (b).

MIROC-ESM-CHEM, MPI-ESM-LR, and MRI-
CGCM3 model results (Fig. 2b). Previous studies using
a large number of models have also described the late
monsoon retreat in CMIP5 (Cook and Seager 2013;
Geil et al. 2013). Geil et al. (2013) argued that the in-
accuracy of the spatial gradients of the geopotential
height fields across a larger region prevents some
models to produce a realistic representation of the
onset and retreat of the monsoon. In the present study
all models, except CanESM2, produce reasonable
monsoon onsets at the monthly time scale, although
differences may exist at the daily time scale, as docu-
mented by Geil et al. (2013). The largest mean absolute
errors (MAEs) are produced by MIROC-ESM-CHEM,
MPI-ESM-LR, and MRI-CGCM3 (Fig. 2d). HadGEM2-
ES is the model that best reproduces the annual cycle of
precipitation (Fig. 2b) and has both the lowest MAE and
the closest standard deviation to observations (Fig. 2d),
consistent with Bukovsky et al. (2013) and Geil et al.
(2013), while CanESM2 is unable to reproduce the an-
nual cycle. A recent study by Martinez-Sanchez and
Cavazos (2014) showed that HadGEM2-ES includes
a very good representation of the annual cycle of sea
surface temperatures (SST) of the eastern tropical Pa-
cific, while the SSTs in CanESM2 are highly over-
estimated from April to December, which may be
partially responsible for the dry precipitation bias in the
NAM region.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC

15 JUNE 2014 TORRES-ALAVEZ ET AL.
FIG. 3. Mean summer (JJA) precipitation (mm day21) during 1979–2004 for (a) GPCP, (b) ERA-Interim, (c) ens_GCMs, (d) CanESM2,
(e) CNRM-CM5, (f) HadGEM2-ES, (g) MIROC-ESM-CHEM, (h) MPI-ESM-LR, and (i) MRI-CGCM3.
Interannually, June–August (JJA) monsoon pre-
cipitation in GPCP, NARR, and ERA-Interim are
highly correlated (.0.8) with CRU (Fig. 2d) over the
NAM region. ERA-Interim and NARR exhibit a mar-
ginal negative trend (p 5 0.1) in summer precipitation
that it is not observed in the other datasets (Fig. 2d). The
negative trend in NARR may be due to problems in the
assimilated precipitation in the core monsoon region,
which is known to have large gaps after the 1990s
(Arriaga-Ramirez and Cavazos 2010). It is possible that
ERA-Interim assimilated precipitation suffers from
a similar problem. Monsoon precipitation in the ob-
served CRU data also has a weak negative trend since
1979 over several parts of the NAM, especially along the
coastal region (not shown). Castro et al. (2007) also
found a negative trend of NAM coastal precipitation
derived from a regional model and argued that it is
possibly related to the recent warming of the eastern
tropical Pacific that has been documented in several
studies (e.g., Webster et al. 2005; Santer et al. 2006; Elsner
et al. 2008; Knutson et al. 2013; Martinez-Sanchez and
Cavazos 2014), but the warming cannot be attributed to
anthropogenic forcing (Knutson et al. 2013).
An important feature of the summer season is the
location and intensity of the intertropical convergence
zone (ITCZ), which reaches its most northerly position
over the eastern tropical Pacific at the height of the
boreal summer. The observations and models both place
the core of the ITCZ near 108N, 1108W during JJA. The
4571
ens_GCMs adequately simulates the position and in-
tensity of the ITCZ as compared to the ERA-Interim
and GPCP data (Fig.3). However, some models have
deficiencies in the simulation of the ITCZ core: CNRM-
CM5 and MIROC-ESM-CHEM simulate a weak core,
while it is stronger than the observed estimate in
HadGEM2-ES and MPI-ESM-LR. It is interesting to
note the large-scale precipitation pattern of CanESM2
(the driest ensemble member for the NAM region; Figs.
1f, 2b). Although the mean position and intensity of the
ITCZ is well reproduced (Fig. 3d), the 2 mm day21
contour is too far south in the NAM region, possibly
because of other factors such as the intensity and posi-
tion of the subtropical highs [see Fig. 4 in Maloney et al.
(2014)] and a weaker LSTC (due to a warmer ocean, as
mentioned above).
b. LSTC and MFC
Figure 4 presents a comparison of the mean annual
cycles of Tskin over the continental and oceanic regions
involved in the NAM LSTC estimated from ERA-
Interim, NARR, and the ens_GCMs. During boreal
winter and at the peak of the monsoon season, NARR is
slightly warmer over land than ERA-Interim. Over the
ocean, the mean ens_GCMs is in good agreement with
the two reanalyses, being only roughly 18C warmer from
March through September. However, over land the
GCMs have a significant cold bias, with Tskin being
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
4572 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
FIG. 4. Mean annual cycles of Tskin (8C) for regions over the sea
(black) and over land (gray) linked to the NAM LSTC for
(a) ERA-Interim (solid line) and the ens_GCMs data (dashed line)
and (b) NARR (solid line) and the ens_GCMs (dashed line) during
the historical period (1979–2004). The vertical arrows indicate the
mean calendar date during the annual cycle on which the continent
becomes warmer than the ocean (i.e., a positive LSTC). From the
inset map, the oceanic (dark) region over the eastern tropical Pa-
cific is bounded by 158–238N, 1058–1108W, and the continental
(gray) region over the Arizona Sonoran Desert is bounded by 328–
348N, 1128–1168W.
about 38C cooler than ERA-Interim and NARR, espe-
cially from March through September. The cooler land
surface temperatures are a likely consequence of the
GCMs wet bias during the fall and winter (Fig. 3a),
a problem that was also seen in CMIP3 (Cavazos and
Arriaga-Ramirez 2012) and in regional models of the
North American Regional Climate Change Assessment
Program (NARCCAP) forced by some CMIP5 models
(Bukovsky et al. 2013). The month in which the conti-
nent becomes warmer, on average, than the ocean (i.e.,
VOLUME 27
signaling the start of the positive LSTC that presumably
drives the NAM precipitation onset) is mid-May for
ERA-Interim (Fig. 4a) and NARR (Fig. 4b) and June
for the ens_GCMs (Fig. 4). According to the proposed
LSTC hypothesis, the delayed continental warming and
weaker seasonal LSTC in the historical ens_GCMs
should mean delayed and/or weak early season pre-
cipitation (June–July) compared to NARR and ERA-
Interim’s precipitation, but this is not the case. In spite of
their strong surface LSTC, the two reanalyses have
a slight dry bias in July–August (Fig. 2a), while the
ens_GCMs mean JJA precipitation agrees well with the
observations.
Another factor that has an important influence on
NAM precipitation is the MFC in the core region
(Barlow et al. 1998; Ruiz-Barradas and Nigam 2005;
Turrent and Cavazos 2009), which at the onset of the
monsoon is partially modulated by the LSTC (Turrent
and Cavazos 2012). During boreal winter and spring, the
MFC pattern indicates that the ITCZ is weak with
strong easterly flux centered at 88N and west of 1208W
(Figs. 5a,c). The winter southward position of the ITCZ
and the expansion into the tropics—because of meridi-
onal migration of the Hadley cell—of the divergence
associated with the North Pacific subtropical high
(NPSH) and North Atlantic subtropical high (NASH)
generate strong moisture divergence over large areas of
Mexico and Central America, causing the dry season
over the region. Weak winter moisture convergence is
only observed over the mountains in NARR (Fig. 5b)
and over eastern Mexico in ERA-Interim and the
ens_GCMs (Figs. 5a,c).
During the boreal summer (Fig. 5d) and autumn (not
shown), ERA-Interim has the core of the ITCZ located
over the eastern tropical Pacific with moisture con-
vergence greater than 10 mm day21 roughly centered
near 108N, 1008W, consistent with the precipitation
pattern shown in Fig. 3b. This high moisture pool
presumably feeds the NAM core region, where MFC
values reach 8 mm day21. The corresponding summer
spatial pattern of the ens_GCMs is weaker over the
NAM region than what is observed for ERA-Interim
(Fig. 5f). The NARR and ERA-Interim patterns are
similar north of 128N. However, the NARR field has
greater detail because of its finer spatial resolution,
which generates areas of convergence over the Sierra
Madre Occidental and local divergent cells along both
sides of the mountains. Extended regions of intense
divergence over eastern Mexico (210 mm day21), the
subtropical eastern Pacific Ocean, the Baja California
peninsula, and the U.S. West Coast (24 mm day21) are
found to the east and west of the NAM core region
(Figs. 5d–f).
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
15 JUNE 2014 TORRES-ALAVEZ ET AL. 4573

FIG. 5. Mean seasonal vertically integrated moisture flux (vectors; kg m21 s21) and its convergence (shading; mm day21) for (a),(d)
ERA-Interim, (b),(e) NARR, and (c),(f) ens_GCMs during the historical period (1979–2004) for (top) December–February (DJF) and
(bottom) JJA.

Overall, the ens_GCMs adequately reproduces the 4. Climate change projections

patterns of moisture transport and divergence seen in
ERA-Interim during both the cold and warm seasons
(Figs. 5c,f). However, during winter the ensemble has
a much weaker moisture divergence over the NAM re-
gion, which may be partially responsible for the wet bias
(Fig. 2a). During summer, the convergence zones in the
ens_GCMs are slightly weaker in the NAM core region
than in ERA-Interim. Therefore, the stronger LSTC
and stronger MFC pattern—but weaker precipitation
response—seen in ERA-Interim (as compared to the
ens_GCMs) both suggest that the reanalysis may have
a dry convective scheme, among other possible factors.
The CMIP5 models, especially the Earth system models
(ESMs) in Table 1 (Taylor et al. 2012), have made no-
table improvements to the model physics and aerosol
forcing, and some have increased their spatial resolu-
tion relative to their CMIP3 versions, which may par-
tially explain the improvement in the warm season
precipitation.
a. Changes in the summer LSTC and precipitation
Figure 6a compares the ERA-Interim annual cycle of
the surface LSTC (land minus sea Tskin) during the
historical period (1979–2004) with the corresponding
annual cycles of ens_GCMs for both the historical and
the RCP8.5 scenario. The ens_GCMs underestimates
ERA-Interim’s surface LSTC by several degrees
throughout most of the historical annual cycle (Fig. 6a).
ERA-Interim’s LSTC shows a cumulative continental
warming (positive values of the thermal difference in
Fig. 6a) of 12.98C, spanning mid-May through Septem-
ber. In contrast, the corresponding value in the historical
ens_GCMs is only 4.48C, with positive values of the
thermal difference occurring only from June through
mid-August. At the end of the twenty-first century, the
surface LSTC is projected to nearly double during the
monsoon season, with an earlier start of the continental
warming in mid-May. However, the future LSTC in the

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC

4574 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
FIG. 6. (a) Mean annual cycles of an LSTC index estimated from
Tskin (land minus sea Tskin averaged over regions in Fig. 4) for
ERA-Interim during the historical period (1979–2004; solid line)
and for the ens_GCMs for both the historical period (dashed line)
and the future RCP8.5 projections (2075–99; dotted line). (b) As in
(a), but for a midtropospheric LSTC index based on the 500–1000-
hPa thickness. Positive values indicate that the atmosphere over the
continent has greater heat content than over the ocean. (c) Mean
changes in the annual cycle of the precipitation rate over the NAM
region shown as the RCP8.5 (2075–99) minus historical (1979–2004)
projections. The median change of the ens_GCMs is also indicated.
VOLUME 27
ens_GCMs is still weaker than the ERA-Interim LSTC
in the historical period. The midtropospheric positive
LSTC begins in June in both the historical and future
projections (Fig. 6b), in synchrony with the onset of
monsoon precipitation.
Based on the LSTC hypothesis alone, one would
expect that, with an earlier and intensified surface
LSTC in the RCP8.5 scenario (Fig. 6a), the early season
(June–July) monsoon precipitation would also increase
relative to the historical period, but the modeled sce-
narios actually resulted in a small decrease in July
rainfall spread across the entire NAM region (Table 2;
Fig. 6c). However, a significant increase in precip-
itation is projected for the end of the monsoon season
in September (Table 2; Fig. 6c) that extends the peak
of the monsoon season from July–August to July–
September (JAS), postponing or weakening the mon-
soon’s retreat phase.
The lack of statistical significance in the changes of
JJA monsoon precipitation averaged over the entire
NAM region reflects the discrepancy among the differ-
ent model projections, which can be clearly seen in
Fig. 7. Other studies that have used a larger number of
models (e.g., Cook and Seager 2013; Maloney et al. 2014)
have found that the uncertainty of the projected pre-
cipitation changes is stronger in the northern portion
of the NAM region, in the transition to the subtropics
(Figs. 7, 8); higher consensus of negative precipitation
changes are expected in the core monsoon region during
winter, spring (Fig. 8), and summer (Fig. 7g), particularly
in July (Fig. 6c), in agreement with Cook and Seager
(2013).
Understanding the cause of the apparent inconsistency
in the response of the summer monsoon precipitation
to increased warming, which leads us to reject the initial
LSTC hypothesis, is fundamental for understanding
changes in the NAM onset and circulation under global
warming conditions. Lee and Wang (2014) attribute the
weakening of monsoon precipitation in future projections
of CMIP5 to stabilization of the atmosphere due to ver-
tically differential warming. At the height of the monsoon
season (July), the ens_GCMs projects increased low-level
ascending motion over the foothills and peaks of the Si-
erra Madre Occidental but a marginal increase in mid-
tropospheric stability throughout the NAM region (Fig. 9).
The midtropospheric LSTC analysis, based on the 500–
1000-hPa thickness, shows a weakening (215 m) of the
meridional thermal contrast for July in the future
RCP8.5 scenario (Fig. 6b), which is possibly related to
weaker vertical ascending motion above 700 hPa in the
coastal areas (Fig. 9). This increase in midtropospheric
stability is the likely cause for the projected reduction
in JJA rainfall (Figs. 7g, 8), especially over the coastal
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
15 JUNE 2014 TORRES-ALAVEZ ET AL.
TABLE 2. Monthly precipitation differences, expressed both in millimeters per day and as a percentage of change, between the median
monthly ens_GCMs RCP8.5 scenario projection (2075–99) and the mean monthly values in the historical period (1979–2004).
Jan Feb Mar Apr
Diff (mm day21) 20.16* 20.12* 20.13** 20.31**
Diff (%) 213.1 29.9 211.9 233.2
* Four GCMs (out of six) agreed on the sign of the median change of precipitation.
** Five GCMs (out of six) agreed on the sign of the median change of precipitation.
plains. The mean negative summer rainfall changes
along the Pacific coast are mainly driven by HadGEM2-
ES, MPI-ESM-LR, and MIROC-ESM-CHEM and, to
a lesser degree, by CanESM2 (Fig. 7).
b. Changes in MFC, seasonal precipitation, and
circulation
An increase in moisture flux divergence is projected
during the boreal winter, spring, and summer over large
regions of the tropical oceans, Mexico, and Central
America (Fig. 10). The divergent moisture fluxes over
the eastern tropical Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic are projected to
intensify and migrate toward the coastal regions of
Mexico and Central America during JJA. This implies
a reduction of the moisture transported from both
oceanic basins into the NAM region, limiting the major
monsoon convergence to regions over Mexico’s high-
lands and displacing the ITCZ south of 108N, which
results in a higher (lower) percentage of precipitation
over the coastal (mountain) areas of the NAM (Fig. 8c)
relative to the annual precipitation. Moreover, summer
precipitation in southern Mexico and Central America
is projected to decrease in association with increasing
precipitation in the southward-displaced ITCZ core
region (Fig. 8c). During the fall, the eastern Pacific
and North Atlantic divergent circulations (related to
the NPSH and NASH) weaken, allowing a northward
migration of the ITCZ and moisture transport into
the NAM region (Fig. 10d), which can explain
the significant increase of precipitation in September
throughout the entire intra-American seas region
noted above (Table 2; Figs. 6c, 8d) and in other studies
(Cook and Seager 2013; Maloney et al. 2014; Seth et al.
2013).
The divergent circulations over the eastern tropical
Pacific and the North Atlantic, linked to the Hadley
cells, intensify equatorward during the boreal winter
(Fig. 10a), consistent with Lee and Wang (2014). Winter
precipitation over northwestern Mexico and the south-
western United States is strongly influenced by the po-
sition and intensity of the subtropical westerly jet and by
Pacific teleconnections (e.g., Gershunov and Barnett
1998; Gershunov and Cayan 2003; Cavazos and Rivas
4575
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
20.25** 20.01 20.09 0.03 0.33* 0.17* 20.07* 20.28**
229.9 20.8 23.2 0.9 13.8 11.6 25.7 221.5
2004; Neelin et al. 2013; Polade et al. 2013). During late
fall, the North Pacific jet stream tends to migrate to the
subtropics, with intense westerly winds (20–30 m s21) at
the 200-hPa level (Bluestein 1993). The winter patterns
of the 200-hPa zonal winds from ERA-Interim and the
ens_GCMs are similar during the historical period
(Figs. 11a,b), but the ens_GCMs simulates stronger
winds and a deeper trough off the western coast of
North America, as well as weaker moisture divergence
(Fig. 5d); these factors may be linked to the wet winter
bias in the historical ens_GCMs (Fig. 3).
Under the high radiative forcing scenario (RCP8.5),
the subtropical westerly jet does not show a significant
change in its latitudinal position over the subtropical
Pacific but rather an intensification and eastward ex-
pansion with a stronger jet off Southern California and
over the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 11c), which is a result
consistent with the study by Neelin et al. (2013) that
used 12 CMIP5 models. This is in sharp contrast to the
CMIP3 results, which projected a significant northward
migration of the jet (Yin 2005) and significantly less
winter precipitation over the southwestern United
States and northwestern Mexico (e.g., Seager and
Vecchi 2010; Cavazos and Arriaga-Ramirez 2012). The
observed winter pattern results in a north–south pre-
cipitation anomaly (Fig. 8a), with increased pre-
cipitation over California and reduced rainfall over
northwestern Mexico; the dry anomaly over north-
western Mexico is located under the southern flank of
the jet stream. Furthermore, increased winter pre-
cipitation is expected over the Caribbean region be-
cause of an enhanced jet stream over the Gulf of
Mexico.
5. Summary and conclusions
The objective of this study was to evaluate the hy-
pothesis that global warming during the twenty-first
century will increase the land–sea thermal contrast
(LSTC) and consequently the intensity of early mon-
soon (June–July) circulation and precipitation over the
NAM region. The hypothesis was tested with NARR
and ERA-Interim, and the mean ensemble (ens_GCMs)
of the six CMIP5 models that best reproduced key
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
4576 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 27

FIG. 7. Mean JJA changes in precipitation rate (mm day21) expressed as the difference
between the RCP8.5 projection of the ens_GCMs and the results for each of the six GCMs
during the historical period (1979–2004): (a) CanESM2, (b) CNRM-CM5, (c) HadGEM2-
ES, (d) MIROC-ESM-CHEM, (e) MPI-ESM-LR, (f) MRI-CGCM3, and (g) ens_GCMs.

features of the monsoon during the historical period,
according to previous studies. NARR has a slightly
larger LSTC than ERA-Interim, but both annual cycles
are similar. Thus, the comparisons with the ens_GCMs
were done with ERA-Interim, because for other fields
NARR has the disadvantage of not covering the ITCZ
region.
Even though ERA-Interim has stronger summer
LSTC and MFC over the NAM region than the
ens_GCMs, the reanalysis underestimates summer pre-
cipitation, especially after 1990, which may be
associated to a dry convection scheme or data assimi-
lation problems (e.g., Dee et al. 2011), among other
possible factors. The historical precipitation in the NAM
region was not found to have a significant trend, while
NARR and ERA-Interim exhibit a marginal negative
trend (p 5 0.1) during JJA. Surprisingly, the ens_GCMs
of the CMIP5 improved the estimate of summer pre-
cipitation, as compared to the CMIP3 simulations;
however, the ens_GCMs greatly overestimates fall,
winter, and spring CRU precipitation; a similar wet bias
was observed in CMIP3 (e.g., Seth et al. 2011; Cavazos

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC

15 JUNE 2014 TORRES-ALAVEZ ET AL. 4577

FIG. 8. Seasonal precipitation changes expressed as the percentage difference between the mean ens_GCMs of the 2075–99 RCP8.5 pro-
jections and the historical period (1979–2004) for (a) DJF, (b) March–May (MAM), (c) JJA, and (d) September–November (SON). The contour
interval is 2 mm day21. The gray-shaded areas indicate grid points for which at least four of the six models agree on the sign of the change.

and Arriaga-Ramirez 2012) and in other studies based scenarios from CMIP3, which projected winter and
on CMIP5 results (Geil et al. 2013; Seth et al. 2013). spring reductions of 10%–20% over the southwestern
The CMIP5 models have improved the representation United States and northwestern Mexico (Cavazos and
of key Pacific winter climate modes and tele- Arriaga-Ramirez 2012).
connections (Polade et al. 2013), but our results in-
dicate that the ens_GCMs still has large wet and cold
biases in the NAM region during the fall and winter
seasons, which may be partially attributed to an intense
subtropical westerly jet and weak moisture divergence
(as compared to ERA-Interim).
During winter, contrary to what was suggested by the
CMIP3 models (Lorenz and DeWeaver 2007), the sub-
tropical westerly jet stream in the ens_GCMs does not
present a significant northward migration in the future
RCP8.5 scenarios. Instead, it has an intensification and
eastward expansion of the jet stream than the historical
simulations, consistent with Neelin et al. (2013). This
results in small positive changes in winter precipitation
(4%–8%) over California and stronger subsidence and
reduced precipitation (4%–8%) over northwestern
Mexico, under the southern flank of the subtropical jet FIG. 9. July changes in the meridionally averaged (258–308N) mean
stream. The projected dry anomaly is consistent with vertical velocity v (Pa s21), expressed as the difference between the
other studies that included a larger number of CMIP5 mean ens_GCMs of the RCP8.5 projection (2075–99) and the his-
torical period (1979–2004). Negative values indicate increased mag-
models (e.g., Cook and Seager 2013; Neelin et al. 2013; nitude of ascending vertical velocity. The gray-shaded areas indicate
Seth et al. 2013). The CMIP5 precipitation response to grid points for which at least four of the six models agree on the sign of
the RCP8.5 forcing scenario is much weaker than the A2 the change. Dark areas represent the mountains.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC

4578 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
FIG. 10. Mean seasonal differences between the ens_GCMs RCP8.5 projections (2075–99) and the historical period
(1979–2004) for the vertically integrated moisture flux (vectors; kg m21 s21) and its convergence (shading; mm day21).
During the boreal summer, the CMIP5 models ex-
hibit regional changes that appear to be linked to
a decrease in the midtropospheric LSTC, enhanced
atmospheric stability, and a southward displacement of
the ITCZ. At the end of the twenty-first century, the
surface LSTC is projected to double during the mon-
soon season under the RCP8.5 scenario, with an earlier
onset of the continental warming in mid-May. How-
ever, contrary to our initial LSTC hypothesis, early
monsoon precipitation is not likely to increase. This
apparent inconsistency—the weakening of the mon-
soon onset response—can be explained by differential
changes in the midtropospheric LSTC, which is ex-
pected to decrease over the coastal region of the NAM,
especially during July. Increased vertically integrated
MFC over the mountains produces midtropospheric
subsidence on the coastal region of the NAM, in spite
of the increased surface LSTC and the corresponding
low-level ascending motion. Previous studies that have
used the CMIP5 models are in agreement with our
summer results and also highlight increased tropo-
spheric stability (Cook and Seager 2013; Seth et al.
2013) and an increase in the height of the lifting con-
densation level over the continent (Dirmeyer et al.
2013) as major factors involved in the changes to the
monsoon dynamics.
VOLUME 27
Because of the great societal relevance of the onset and
retreat of the monsoon rains, it is very important to reduce
the large uncertainties that the current and future modeled
scenarios present. The role of atmospheric stability and of
the surface and midtropospheric LSTCs as major factors
for changes to the monsoon onset dynamics needs to be
further investigated at the daily time scale (e.g., Geil et al.
2013), as well as the causes of the weak monsoon retreat,
with higher-resolution regional climate models that permit
dynamical downscaling of the GCMs output (e.g., Liang
et al. 2006; Castro et al. 2012). The causes of the weak
monsoon retreat and of the wet and cold biases during
winter and spring of the historic GCMs need to be under-
stood so the uncertainties can be reduced. Dynamical
downscaling initiatives such as the North American Re-
gional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP;
Mearns et al. 2009; Bukovsky et al. 2013) and the Co-
ordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment
(CORDEX; Giorgi et al. 2009; http://wcrp-cordex.ipsl.
jussieu.fr/) for Central America (e.g., Fuentes-Franco
et al. 2013) represent good opportunities to further
pursue this research.
Acknowledgments. We greatly appreciate the com-
ments and suggestions of two reviewers, which helped to
improve this manuscript. We acknowledge the World
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
15 JUNE 2014 TORRES-ALAVEZ ET AL.
FIG. 11. Mean DJF zonal wind (m s21) at the 200-hPa level for
(a) ERA-Interim, (b) the historical ens_GCMs (1979–2004), and (c)
the RCP8.5 projection (2075–99) minus the historical ens_GCMs
mean. The contour interval is 5 m s21 for (a),(b) and 1 m s21 for (c).
Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on
Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and
thank the climate modeling groups for producing and
making available their model output. Partial funding for
this work was provided by CONACYT through the
REDESClim Network and a graduate scholarship to the
4579
first author (Registry 242911); additional funding was
received through an internal CICESE grant.
REFERENCES
Arriaga-Ramirez, S., and T. Cavazos, 2010: Regional trends of daily
precipitation indices in northwest Mexico and southwest United
States. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D14111, doi:10.1029/2009JD013248.
Barlow, M., S. Nigam, and E. H. Berbery, 1998: Evolution of
the North American monsoon system. J. Climate, 11, 2238–2257,
doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011,2238:EOTNAM.2.0.CO;2.
Bluestein, H. B., 1993: Observations and Theory of Weather Sys-
tems. Vol. 2, Synoptic-Dynamic Meteorology on Midlatitudes,
Oxford University Press, 594 pp.
Bukovsky, M. S., D. J. Gochis, and L. O. Mearns, 2013: Towards
assessing NARCCAP regional climate model credibility for
the North American monsoon: Current climate simulations.
J. Climate, 26, 8802–8826, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00538.1.
Castro, C. L., R. A. Pielke Sr., J. O. Adegoke, S. D. Schubert, and
P. J. Pegion, 2007: Investigation of the summer climate of the
contiguous United States and Mexico using the Regional At-
mospheric Modeling System (RAMS). Part II: Model climate
variability. J. Climate, 20, 3866–3887, doi:10.1175/JCLI4212.1.
——, H.-I. Chang, F. Dominguez, C. Carrillo, J.-K. Schemm, and
H.-M. H. Juang, 2012: Can a regional climate model improve
the ability to forecast the North American monsoon? J. Cli-
mate, 25, 8212–8237, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00441.1.
Cavazos, T., and D. Rivas, 2004: Variability of extreme pre-
cipitation events in Tijuana, Mexico. Climate Res., 25, 229–
243, doi:10.3354/cr025229.
——, and S. Arriaga-Ramirez, 2012: Downscaled climate change
scenarios for Baja California and the North American mon-
soon during the twenty-first century. J. Climate, 25, 5904–5915,
doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00425.1.
Cook, B. I., and R. Seager, 2013: The response of the North
American monsoon to increased greenhouse gas forcing.
J. Geophys. Res., 118, 1690–1699, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50111.
Dee, D. P., and Coauthors, 2011: The ERA-Interim reanalysis:
Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597, doi:10.1002/qj.828.
Dirmeyer, P., Y. Jin, B. Singh, and X. Yan, 2013: Evolving
land–atmosphere interactions over North America from
CMIP5 simulations. J. Climate, 26, 7313–7327, doi:10.1175/
JCLI-D-12-00454.1.
Elsner, J. B., J. P. Kossin, and T. H. Hagger, 2008: The increasing
intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones. Nature, 455, 92–95,
doi:10.1038/nature07234.
Fasullo, J. T., 2012: A mechanism for land–ocean contrasts in
global monsoon trends in a warming climate. Climate Dyn., 39,
1137–1147, doi:10.1007/s00382-011-1270-3.
Fuentes-Franco, R., E. Coppola, F. Giorgi, F. Graef, and E. G.
Pavia, 2013: Assessment of RegCM4 simulated inter-annual
variability and daily-scale statistics of temperature and pre-
cipitation over Mexico. Climate Dyn., 42, 629–647, doi:10.1007/
s00382-013-1686-z.
Geil, K. L., Y. L. Serra, and X. Zeng, 2013: Assessment of CMIP5
model simulations of the North American monsoon system.
J. Climate, 26, 8787–8801, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00044.1.
Gershunov, A., and T. Barnett, 1998: Interdecadal modulation of
ENSO teleconnections. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 79, 2715–2725,
doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079,2715:IMOET.2.0.CO;2.
——, and D. Cayan, 2003: Heavy daily precipitation frequency
over the contiguous United States: Sources of climate vari-
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC
4580 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
ability and seasonal predictability. J. Climate, 16, 2752–2765,
doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016,2752:HDPFOT.2.0.CO;2.
Giorgi, F., C. Jones, and G. R. Asrar, 2009: Addressing climate
information needs at the regional level: The CORDEX
frameworks. WMO Bull., 58, 175–183.
Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2006: Robust responses of the hy-
drological cycle to global warming. J. Climate, 19, 5686–5699,
doi:10.1175/JCLI3990.1.
Huffman, G. J., R. F. Adler, D. T. Bolvin, and G. Gu, 2009: Im-
proving the global precipitation record: GPCP version 2.1.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17808, doi:10.1029/2009GL040000.
Jiang, X., E. D. Maloney, J. L. Li, and D. E. Waliser, 2013: Simulations
of the eastern North Pacific intraseasonal variability in CMIP5
GCMs. J. Climate, 26, 3489–3510, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00526.1.
Knutson, T. R., F. Zeng, and A. T. Wittenberg, 2013: Multimodel
assessment of regional surface temperature trends: CMIP3
and CMIP5 twentieth-century simulations. J. Climate, 26,
8709–8743, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00567.1.
Lee, J., and B. Wang, 2014: Future change of global monsoon in the
CMIP5. Climate Dyn., 42, 101–119, doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1564-0.
Li, C., and M. Yanai, 1996: The onset and interannual variability
of the Asian summer monsoon in relation to land–sea
thermal contrast. J. Climate, 9, 358–375, doi:10.1175/
1520-0442(1996)009,0358:TOAIVO.2.0.CO;2.
Liang, X.-Z., J. Pan, J. Zhu, K. E. Kunkel, J. X. L. Wang, and
A. Dai, 2006: Regional climate model downscaling of the
U.S. summer climate and future change. J. Geophys. Res., 111,
D10108, doi:10.1029/2005JD006685.
——, J. Zhu, K. E. Kunkel, M. Ting, and J. X. L. Wang, 2008: Do
CGCMs simulate the North American monsoon precipitation
seasonal–interannual variability? J. Climate, 21, 4424–4448,
doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2174.1.
Lin, J. L., B. E. Mapes, K. M. Weickmann, G. N. Kiladis, S. D.
Schubert, M. J. Suarez, J. T. Bacmeister, and M. I. Lee, 2008:
North American monsoon and convectively coupled equato-
rial waves simulated by IPCC AR4 coupled GCMs. J. Climate,
21, 2919–2937, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI1815.1.
Lorenz, D. J., and E. T. DeWeaver, 2007: Tropopause height and
zonal wind response to global warming in the IPCC scenario
integrations. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D10119, doi:10.1029/
2006JD008087.
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.
Maloney, E., and Coauthors, 2014: North American climate in CMIP5
experiments. Part III: Assessment of twenty-first-century pro-
jections. J. Climate, 27, 2230–2270, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00273.1.
Martinez-Sanchez, J. N., and T. Cavazos, 2014: Eastern tropical
Pacific hurricane variability and landfall on Mexican coasts.
Climate Res., 58, 221–234, doi:10.3354/cr01192.
Mearns, L. O., W. J. Gutowski, R. Jones, L.-Y. Leung, S. McGinnis,
A. M. B. Nunes, and Y. Qian, 2009: A regional climate change
assessment program for North America. Eos, Trans. Amer.
Geophys. Union, 90, 311–312, doi:10.1029/2009EO360002.
Mitchell, T. D., and P. D. Jones, 2005: An improved method of
constructing a database of monthly climate observations and
associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 693–712,
doi:10.1002/joc.1181.
Neelin, J. D., B. Langenbrunner, J. E. Meyerson, A. Hall, and
N. Berg, 2013: California winter precipitation change under
global warming in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Pro-
ject phase 5 ensemble. J. Climate, 26, 6238–6256, doi:10.1175/
JCLI-D-12-00514.1.
VOLUME 27
Polade, S. J., A. Gershunov, D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger, and
D. W. Pierce, 2013: Natural climate variability and tele-
connections to precipitation over the Pacific-North American
region in CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40,
2296–2301, doi:10.1002/grl.50491.
Rodwell, M. J., and B. J. Hoskins, 2001: Subtropical anticyclones
and summer monsoons. J. Climate, 14, 3192–3211, doi:10.1175/
1520-0442(2001)014,3192:SAASM.2.0.CO;2.
Ruiz-Barradas, A., and S. Nigam, 2005: Warm-season rainfall vari-
ability over the U.S. Great Plains in observations, NCEP and
ERA-40 reanalyses, and NCAR and NASA atmospheric model
simulations. J. Climate, 18, 1808–1829, doi:10.1175/JCLI3343.1.
Santer, B. D., and Coauthors, 2006: Forced and unforced ocean
temperature changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclo-
genesis regions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 13 905–
13 910, doi:10.1073/pnas.0602861103.
Seager, R., and G. A. Vecchi, 2010: Greenhouse warming and the
21st century hydroclimate of southwestern North America.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 21 277–21 282, doi:10.1073/
pnas.0910856107.
——, and Coauthors, 2007: Model projections of an immi-
nent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North-
America. Science, 316, 1181–1184, doi:10.1126/science.1139601.
Seth, A., S. A. Rauscher, M. Rojas, A. Giannini, and S. Camargo,
2011: Enhanced spring convective barrier for monsoons in
a warmer world? Climatic Change, 104, 403–414, doi:10.1007/
s10584-010-9973-8.
——, ——, M. Biasutti, A. Giannini, S. J. Camargo, and M. Rojas,
2013: CMIP5 projected changes in the annual cycle of pre-
cipitation in monsoon regions. J. Climate, 26, 7328–7351,
doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00726.1.
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.
Tang, M., and E. R. Reiter, 1984: Plateau monsoons of the
Northern Hemisphere: A comparison between North Amer-
ica and Tibet. Mon. Wea. Rev., 112, 617–637, doi:10.1175/
1520-0493(1984)112,0617:PMOTNH.2.0.CO;2.
Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, 2012: An overview of
CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
93, 485–498, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.
Turrent, C., and T. Cavazos, 2009: Role of the land-sea thermal contrast
in the interannual modulation of the North American mon-
soon. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02808, doi:10.1029/2008GL036299.
——, and ——, 2012: Numerical investigation of wet and dry onset
modes in the North American monsoon core region. Part I: A
regional mechanism for interannual variability. J. Climate, 25,
3953–3969, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00215.1.
Villarini, G., and G. A. Vecchi, 2012: Twenty-first-century pro-
jections of North Atlantic tropical storms from CMIP5 models.
Nat. Climate Change, 2, 604–607, doi:10.1038/nclimate1530.
Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H. R. Chan, 2005:
Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in
a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844–1846, doi:10.1126/
science.1116448.
Yin, J. H., 2005: A consistent poleward shift of the storm tracks in
simulations of 21st century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
L18701, doi:10.1029/2005GL023684.
Zhu, C., T. Cavazos, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2007: Role of ante-
cedent land surface conditions in warm season precipita-
tion over northwestern Mexico. J. Climate, 20, 1774–1791,
doi:10.1175/JCLI4085.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 06/14/23 04:32 AM UTC