We introduce a new perspective of climate change by revealing the changing characteristics of atmospheric information flow in a warming climate. The key idea is to interpret large-scale atmospheric dynamical processes as information flow around the globe and to identify the pathways of this information flow using a climate network based on causal discovery and graphical models. We construct such networks using the daily geopotential height data from the Community Climate System Model Version 4.0 (CCSM4.0)'s 20 th century climate simulation and 21 st century climate projection. We show that in the CCSM4.0 model under enhanced greenhouse gases (GHGs) forcing, prominent midlatitude information pathways in the midtroposphere weaken and shift poleward, while major tropical information pathways start diminishing. Averaged over the entire Northern Hemisphere, the atmospheric information flow weakens. The implications of this weakening for the interconnectivity among different geographical locations and for the intrinsic predictability of the atmosphere are discussed.
Climate Networks Based on Causal DiscoveryThe traditional idea of climate networks is to define a correlation network of nodes where each node represents a point on a global grid [Tsonis and Roebber, 2004]. Any two nodes are connected if the correlation of a specific atmospheric and/or oceanic variable measured at the two nodes is beyond a threshold [Tsonis and Roebber, 2004;Tsonis et al., 2006]. The introduction of a climate network effectively brought the vast framework of network analysis to climate science and triggered a flurry of research activity in this area, including classification of network type, analysis of network properties such as density of connections, backbone of the network, and effects of natural modes of climate variability (e.g., El Niño) on network properties [Tsonis et al., 2007;Tsonis and Swanson, 2008;Gozolchiani et al., 2008;Yamasaki et al., 2008;Donges et al., 2009;Steinhaeuser et al., 2010]. While correlation networks remain the most common type, three more definitions have recently been proposed. MI networks [Donges et al., 2009] use mutual information, rather than correlation, to decide whether two nodes should be connected. Phase synchronization networks [Yamasaki et al., 2009] use the level of robust phase synchronization between nodes as criterion for connections, and event synchronization networks [Boers et al., 2013] focus on the level of synchronization of extreme events (maxima and minima) in the nodes' time series. While correlation and MI networks emphasize instantaneous connections, synchronization networks focus on connections over time by considering temporal lags. All of the above network definitions, however, decide whether an edge exists between two nodes, X and Y, in the network based only on a test involving those two nodes. Thus, they do not truly distinguish between direct and indirect causal connections. Furthermore, the results for many of them have been described as being fairly similar to corr...