the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Two distinct modes of North American spring temperature evolution shaped by tropical SST regimes and midlatitude circulation
Abstract. Abnormal temperature fluctuations during spring can substantially impact vegetation growth, agricultural productivity, and ecosystem stability. However, the drivers of year-to-year variations in the evolution of North American spring temperature anomalies remain poorly understood. Here, we apply Season-reliant Empirical Orthogonal Function (S-EOF) analysis to identify the leading modes of spring temperature evolution over North America. We focus on the first two modes here, which differ from conventional responses to winter El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and are instead linked to distinct evolutions of tropical sea surface temperature (SST). The first mode (S-EOF1) features rapidly decaying tropical Pacific SST anomalies from winter to spring and the emergence of tropical North Atlantic (TNA) SST anomalies, leading to a persistent north–south temperature dipole over North America. This mode is jointly influenced by the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO), largely independent of winter ENSO, and TNA-driven North Atlantic circulation anomalies. In contrast, the second mode (S-EOF2) is associated with more persistent tropical Pacific SST anomalies and the absence of TNA SST anomalies, resulting in evolving temperature patterns with temporal phase reversals across large parts of North America. This mode is primarily driven by the North Pacific (NP) pattern, which is further amplified by persistent tropical Pacific SST anomalies. Dominance analysis further quantifies the relative contributions of tropical SST and midlatitude circulation patterns. These findings highlight the critical roles of ENSO decay rate, TNA SST variability, and their coupling with midlatitude circulation in shaping distinct spring temperature evolution patterns, with important implications for improving seasonal prediction.
- Preprint
(2959 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(954 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2967', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2967', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2026
This manuscript investigates the month-to-month evolution of North American spring temperature anomalies using Season-reliant EOF (S-EOF) analysis and identifies two distinct evolution modes associated with different tropical SST regimes and midlatitude circulation patterns. The study is well motivated, the methodology is appropriate, and the manuscript is clearly written. The combination of S-EOF analysis and dominance analysis provides a useful perspective on spring temperature evolution beyond seasonal-mean variability. Overall, I find the study suitable for publication after minor revision. My primary comments focus on strengthening the physical interpretation rather than questioning the main results.
- The manuscript argues that S-EOF1 is primarily associated with the spring NPO, whereas S-EOF2 is primarily associated with the spring NP pattern. However, the S-EOF modes describe the month-to-month evolution of North American temperature anomalies from March through May, whereas the NPO and NP are atmospheric circulation modes that themselves exhibit substantial temporal variability during spring, unlike the more slowly varying oceanic indices of ENSO and TNA SST. The manuscript demonstrates the association between seasonal-mean NPO/NP and the S-EOF modes, but it remains unclear how the month-to-month evolution of the NPO and NP gives rise to the distinct monthly pattern of S-EOF1 and S-EOF2. For example, does the monthly evolution of the NP circulation correspond to the evolving temperature pattern in S-EOF2? A clearer discussion, or additional analysis illustrating the month-to-month behavior of the associated circulation patterns, would strengthen the proposed dynamical linkage.
- Throughout the manuscript, terms such as drive, govern, determine, and shape are frequently used to describe the relationships among ENSO, TNA SST, NPO/NP, and the two S-EOF modes. While the statistical analyses (S-EOF, regression, correlation, and dominance analysis) consistently demonstrate robust associations, they do not by themselves establish causality. I encourage the authors to distinguish more clearly between statistical relationships and physical causation, or to moderate the wording where appropriate. This would improve the precision of the physical interpretation without changing the main conclusions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2967-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 96 | 49 | 14 | 159 | 20 | 5 | 7 |
- HTML: 96
- PDF: 49
- XML: 14
- Total: 159
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments:
This manuscript investigates the interannual variability of North American spring temperature evolution using Season-reliant Empirical Orthogonal Function (S-EOF) analysis. Two leading S-EOF modes, characterized by persistent and temporally reversing monthly temperature anomalies, are identified. The authors further explore the physical mechanisms associated with these modes, highlighting the roles of tropical sea surface temperature (SST) evolution from winter to spring and midlatitude circulation anomalies through both Atlantic and Pacific pathways. A dominance analysis is also conducted to quantify the relative contributions of tropical SST variability and midlatitude circulation.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and presents a novel perspective on North American spring temperature variability by focusing on its subseasonal evolution rather than the seasonal mean alone. This study also provides valuable insights into how tropical SST variability and midlatitude circulation jointly shape distinct spring temperature evolution patterns. Several comments and suggestions are provided below, which I believe will help improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript.
Specific comments:
Technical comments:
Line 329: Please include the affiliations of all individuals mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.