the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A low-dimensional framework for interpreting Northern Hemisphere winter extratropical precipitation trends
Abstract. Extratropical precipitation trends are strongly affected by changes in large-scale circulation, but the relevant dynamic signals are often difficult to isolate in climate models. Here, we introduce a low-dimensional framework that reconstructs Northern Hemisphere winter precipitation trends from leading modes of 500-hPa geopotential-height variability. The framework decomposes circulation variability into transient, stationary, and interaction components, and links their EOF modes to precipitation using ERA5 and CMIP6 historical and SSP5-8.5 simulations. In ERA5, the leading circulation modes reproduce much of the observed precipitation redistribution, with drying in the subtropics and wetting in the midlatitudes. The transient storm-track component dominates the reconstruction, with shift and sharpening modes accounting for most of the circulation-linked precipitation trend. CMIP6 models capture the broad meridional structure of this response but underestimate its amplitude. The weak multi-model mean response results from large intermodel spread and sign cancellation in the pulsing and shift modes, while the sharpening mode remains more coherent across models. Under SSP5-8.5, circulation-induced precipitation trends become weaker relative to total precipitation trends, consistent with an increasing role of thermodynamic moistening. Nevertheless, the spatial structure of precipitation change remains strongly tied to storm-track variability. These results suggest that uncertainty in future extratropical precipitation redistribution depends not only on the magnitude of warming but also on how models represent the modal structure of storm-track change and its coupling to precipitation.
- Preprint
(4909 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4997 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3431', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3431', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Sep 2026
Comments on "A low-dimensional framework for interpreting Northern Hemisphere winter extratropical precipitation trends" by Kim et al.
Summary:
The manuscript by Kim et al. provides a nice analysis of boreal winter precipitation trends associated with modes of variability derived by EOF of timescale decomposed, zonal mean geopotential height. The prospect of characterizing storm track and precipitation changes using a relatively simple zonal mean approach like this is intriguing. The results showing the model-reanalysis discrepancies in the early figures and the contribution of the transient circulation changes to that are great but have been found in previous studies. The latter half of the manuscript that explores the individual EOFs and the spread across models still needs some refinement to convey a clear understanding of why these model-reanalysis discrepancies exist. This is held back by potential issues of sampling the models and potentially other forms of uncertainty (internal variability) and interpretations of the High minus Low differences. It may to some extent not be possible to do much further due to the constraints of the zonal mean framework. My recommendation is for major revisions.
Major Comments:
- I have concerns about the interpretations regarding the use of zonal mean geopotential height to separate circulation or thermodynamic-driven changes. An example of this is in the abstract, where the authors say circulation-induced precipitation trends become weaker relative to total precipitation trends. However, in reanalysis trends, the zonal mean component typically has a small contribution to the overall pattern of Z500. Whereas in the models, Z500 changes are typically more uniform and therefore the zonal mean Z500 has a large contribution to the overall pattern. This complicates the interpretations regarding the decomposition that are being applied uniformly across products. We will need to see spatial maps of Z500 to gauge if this interpretation is appropriate. Some references that may address this are Wettstein & Wallace (2010), Wills & Schneider (2016), or Wills et al (2016), which discuss the non-zonal component that is lost in this analysis. This is particularly confounding over the North Atlantic, where the jet and storm track over the period analyzed here shifted equatorward, which is opposite of the Pacific. These issues of separating dynamics and thermodynamics as well as the loss of zonally asymmetry through the approach are discussed briefly in the discussion but could be addressed more thoroughly throughout the rest of the manuscript.
- I have concerns about the sampling of models between the historical and future scenarios. I know it is difficult to get the same model outputs based on what has been made available. However, the interpretations and their utility going forward for model development and evaluation are complicated by this analysis. It would be helpful in the scatter plots to see which models lie in which High/Low groups by identifying them individually.
- The conclusions stated for the zonal mean temperature differences between groups do not seem well supported by Figure 8. In particular similarities between the historical and SSP585 scenario are difficult to see. There seems to be a consistent signal at low-levels over the Arctic, but the other aspects mentioned do not clearly convey from the figure. Perhaps it is more in their differences that the authors would like to explore more. A re-evaluation of this section is needed.
Minor Comments:
Line 20-22: This sentence is somewhat vague on what SSP5.85 refers to. Is it part of the historical record? Is it end of century? Trends?
Line 28-29: But these perspectives do not generally assume fixed relative humidity regionally in the extratropics.
Line 58: Blackport & Fyfe (2022) also show this for the wintertime North Atlantic jet and relate these model-observational discrepancies to precipitation.
Line 91-93: The description here is somewhat misleading. Since data availability is limited, the description should be expanded to include that only around 12 models have availability for the historical and future scenarios. A statement on sensitivity to only using the overlapping model outputs would be beneficial as well. Looking at the table of models used, there is much less overlap in the model outputs available in both the historical and SSP585 ensembles. This means the comparisons between the two ensembles has a lot of unaccounted for model uncertainty.
Line 126-129: How separated are the three modes using a North (1982) test?
Line 133: You show 35-yr trends for SSP585, but can you specify what time period you are using or if you are using a pseudo-ensemble type approach? I only see 2015-2100. This should also be clarified in the caption for Figure 1.
Figure 1 caption: Add the precipitation units.
Line 175-177, 191-192: Looking at Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2, the differences between the models and reanalysis look more like amplitude differences rather than pattern differences. Depending on how you define your metrics, it seems like the models would still capture a “shift”.
Line 206: The approach uses Z500, which includes a temperature component. When averaged zonally, this impact of temperature should be even stronger.
Figure 4: What does using GPCP or other observation-based precipitation datasets look like compared to ERA5 which is model generated?
Line 297: A single model large ensemble should probably be examined to make this claim, otherwise it is somewhat too speculative to disentangle these types of uncertainties.
Line 360: Can you be more specific about what aspects are broadly similar between historical and SSP585 in Figure 8?
References
Blackport, Russell, and John C. Fyfe. "Climate models fail to capture strengthening wintertime North Atlantic jet and impacts on Europe." Science Advances 8.45 (2022): eabn3112.
North, G. R., Bell, T. L., Cahalan, R. F., & Moeng, F. J. (1982). Sampling errors in the estimation of empirical orthogonal functions. Monthly weather review, 110(7), 699-706.
Wills, Robert C., Michael P. Byrne, and Tapio Schneider. "Thermodynamic and dynamic controls on changes in the zonally anomalous hydrological cycle." Geophysical Research Letters 43.9 (2016): 4640-4649.
Wills, R. C., & Schneider, T. (2016). How stationary eddies shape changes in the hydrological cycle: Zonally asymmetric experiments in an idealized GCM. Journal of Climate, 29(9), 3161-3179.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3431-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | 27 | 12 | 119 | 23 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 80
- PDF: 27
- XML: 12
- Total: 119
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Overview
Kim et al. investigate Northern Hemisphere winter extratropical precipitation trends by reconstructing the trends based on leading modes of 500-hPa geopotential height variability. The authors aim to provide a physically interpretable decomposition of precipitation change, by separating the contributions of transient, stationary, and their interaction components. They further partition transient variability into pulsing-, shift-, and sharpening-type storm-track responses.
This study argues that shift and sharpening modes of storm tracks account for most of the circulation-related precipitation trends, which tend to be underestimated in CMIP6 models. In addition, under the ssp585 scenario, circulation-related precipitation trends relative to total precipitation trends are expected to become weaker.
I enjoyed reading the manuscript and the topic fits well with the scope of WCD. Nevertheless, I find that the present study is suffering from major issues with the formulations of its framework and interpretations of the results, as detailed below. Therefore, I am unable to recommend this manuscript for publication in WCD.
Major comments
Other comments