• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    How Well Do CMIP6 and CMIP5 Models Simulate the Climatological Seasonal Variations in Ocean Salinity?

    2022-10-27 09:44:38YuanxinLIULijingCHENGYuyingPANZhetaoTANJohnABRAHAMBinZHANGJiangZHUandJunqiangSONG
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 2022年10期

    Yuanxin LIU, Lijing CHENG, Yuying PAN, Zhetao TAN, John ABRAHAM,Bin ZHANG, Jiang ZHU*, and Junqiang SONG

    1College of Meteorology and Oceanography, College of Computer Science and Technology,National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China

    2Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China

    3Center for Ocean Mega-Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China

    4University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

    5School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas, 2115 Summit Ave., St Paul, MN 55105, USA

    6Marine Science Data Center, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China

    ABSTRACT

    Key words: salinity, climatology, seasonal cycle, CMIP5, CMIP6, upper ocean

    1. Introduction

    Ocean salinity is the key variable used to track variations in the hydrological cycle in the Earth’s climate system. This is because >80% of evaporation and >75% of precipitation at the Earth’s surface occurs over the ocean (Schmitt, 2008;Durack et al., 2012, 2018; Cheng et al., 2020). Ocean salinity also reveals changes in river runoff, the formation and melting of sea ice, and the ocean circulation (Delcroix et al., 1996).Changes in salinity are therefore an important indicator of global climate change, and ocean salinity has been identified as an essential climate variable in the Global Climate Observation System.

    Because the ocean circulation is partly driven by changes in the density of seawater (determined by the salinity and temperature), changes in salinity are also a driver for changes in ocean circulation (Roemmich et al., 1994; Lagerloef et al., 2010)-for example, the surface waters in the subpolar regions of the Atlantic become denser (colder and saltier) and sink to great depths, which maintains the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). As a potential tipping element in the Earth’s climate system, monitoring and predicting changes in the AMOC has received much attention, and one of the key tasks is to correctly simulate the temperature and salinity states in climate or earth system models (Delworth et al., 1993, 2012; Danabasoglu et al.,2012; Kwon and Frankignoul, 2012; Liu et al., 2020).

    Simulating salinity is challenging, although substantial improvements have been made in global models over recent decades. Since a standard experimental protocol and infrastructure were provided in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), scientists have been able to systematically analyze model simulations to promote model developments and study climate change (Taylor et al., 2012; Eyring et al., 2016). However, despite the importance of ocean salinity in the Earth’s climate system, few studies have comprehensively evaluated the performance of ocean salinity simulations (especially below the sea surface) in the CMIP phase 5(CMIP5) and phase 6 (CMIP6) models (Durack et al., 2014;Bindoff et al., 2019; Eyring et al., 2021). Few studies have compared the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, particularly the climatological state and seasonal variations.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 5 (IPCC-AR5) (IPCC, 2013), the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate(Bindoff et al., 2019), and the IPCC-AR6 (Eyring et al.,2021) provided several analyses of model performance in the salinity field-for example, the model bias of the zonal mean salinity of the multimodel mean (MMM). Previous IPCC assessments have shown a reasonable agreement of the basin-scale patterns of salinity between models and observations, but have also shown some biases. The IPCC-AR5 identified a negative salinity bias near the surface and a positive bias in the subsurface within 15°-90°N. The IPCCAR5 speculated that most of the salinity errors result from surface flux errors in the upper ocean and that the errors at intermediate depths are caused by the formation of water masses(Flato et al., 2013). The IPCC-AR6 provided a brief assessment of the model bias of the climatological zonal mean 0-5000-m salinity and the spatial distribution of the sea surface salinity (SSS) in the CMIP6 models (Eyring et al.,2021, Fig. 3.25), with a strong upper ocean (<300 m) negative salinity (fresh) bias and a tendency toward a positive salinity(salty) bias below 300 m in the Northern Hemisphere for the CMIP6-MMM.

    Some regional evaluations are available. For example,in the Indian Ocean, the CMIP5-MMM displays an annual and seasonal salinity bias in three regions: the western Indian Ocean (negative bias); the Bay of Bengal (positive bias); and the southeastern Indian Ocean (negative bias)(Fathrio et al., 2017). These biases are attributed to the biases in both precipitation and ocean dynamics. In the Arctic Ocean, Khosravi et al. (2021) showed that the simulated Atlantic water is too deep and thick (i.e., spanning greater water volume) in the CMIP5/6-MMM and concluded that there was no clear improvement for the CMIP6-MMM compared with the CMIP5-MMM. An analysis of the salinity budget in the tropical Pacific suggests that model biases in surface forcing are the main factors contributing to the uncertainty in salinity (Lin, 2007; Zhang and Busalacchi, 2009). All these regional studies provide useful insights.

    This study was designed to fill the gap in previous research by comprehensively evaluating the performance of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models in simulating the climatological states and seasonal variation in ocean salinity from global to regional scales, which will support further studies of model diagnostics, our understanding of mechanisms,and model development. The comparison is also useful to test whether the most recent generation of climate models has improved the simulation of ocean salinity and to gain insights into the evolution of model performance. To assess the performance of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models in simulating the climatological state and seasonal variation of ocean salinity, we used new salinity data from the surface to 2000-m depth, to provide a more complete view of the simulation of ocean salinity. The data and methods are introduced in section 2. Our results are provided in section 3, which shows the annual mean and seasonal variation of the SSS and the vertical integrated salinity for both latitude-longitude and latitude-depth sections. Section 4 presents our summary and conclusions.

    2. Data and methods

    Our evaluations are based on 40 models from CMIP5(Taylor et al., 2012; https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcmcmip/wgcm-cmip5) and 33 models from CMIP6 (Eyring et al., 2016; https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip/wgcmcmip6). Tables 1 and 2 list the model names and basic information for CMIP5 and CMIP6, respectively. Our study focused on the time period 2005-17 for consistency with the best available observations; the Argo network started to achieve near-global coverage around 2005, but much of the salinity data suffers from data bias after about 2017 (Roemmich et al., 2019). Liu et al. (2021) showed that using other time periods did not significantly change the climatological seasonal variation. We used Representative Concentration

    Pathway 4.5 (RCP 4.5) data for the CMIP5 models because most of the historical simulations ended at 2005 (Meehl et al., 2007; Van Vuuren et al., 2011). Using different RCPs did not change the results of this study because the projections under different scenarios are very similar within the time period 2005-17. We used the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5 (SSP2-4.5) projections after 2014 because the historical simulations in most of the CMIP6 models ended in 2014.Again, the difference between scenarios was negligible for the time period 2014-17. Furthermore, because different forcings being used for different time periods could potentially impact the analyses, we have replicated our results using another time period (1980-2000) to test the impact of time window choice. The results [shown in the electronic supplementary material (ESM)] reveal a very minor impact,because the long-term trends of the salinity changes are much smaller than its climatological state and seasonal variation (see Cheng et al., 2020 for long-term changes).

    Table 1. List of 40 CMIP5 models. Note that all of the models have been interpolated to 1o by 1o mesh grid before analysis.

    Table 1. (Continued.)

    The MMMs of the models were calculated from the altimetric mean of all available model results, consistent with IPCC-AR6 (Eyring et al., 2021). The standard deviation was used to define the model spread, corresponding to the inter-model 33rd and 66th percentiles defined in the IPCC reports (IPCC, 2021). As the total number of models is different in CMIP5 (40 models) and CMIP6 (33 models), which could affect the calculation, we included several tests using models (a total of 20) from the same organizations (Table S1 in the ESM) for both CMIP5 and CMIP6. The results indicated that the difference in the number of models did not affect the conclusions of this study (See the ESM).

    We used five widely available observational datasets of salinity as the reference for the model evaluations. The primary dataset used was an ocean objective analysis from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP). These data are available with a horizontal resolution of (1° × 1°) and 41 vertical levels for the upper 0-2000 m. The key advantage of these data is the application of an advanced and carefully evaluated gap-filling algorithm that reduces the bias due to imperfect sampling (Cheng et al., 2020).

    Four other products were also used. Two of the products used Argo data combined with all other available instruments(e.g., data from gliders, conductivity temperature depth measurements, bottles, moorings, and marine mammal observations): the EN4 ocean objective analysis product (EN4.2.1)from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (Good et al., 2013)and data from the Japan Meteorological Administration(Ishii et al., 2017; referred to as ISHII hereafter). These data were collectively grouped to give the All-data product.

    Two Argo-only salinity gridded products were also used: one from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography(SCRIPPS) (Roemmich and Gilson, 2009) and the Barnes objective analysis (BOA) Argo product (Li et al., 2017).Two Argo-only products were used because the Argo products are very similar to each other as a result of being based on the same data source and having similar gap-filling methodologies. The comparison between the All-data products and the Argo-only products gives an insight into the capability of the observational system (Liu et al., 2021). A comprehensive comparison of different salinity products for SSS can be found in Yu et al. (2021).

    To facilitate intercomparison and validation against the observations, all the monthly fields of salinity were re-gridded to (1.0° × 1.0°) grids using the nearest neighbor method, consistent with the horizonal resolution of the observational datasets. All the data were also interpolated to 41 standard levels from the surface to 2000 m, consistent with the observational salinity products from the IAP. For all the data, gridded monthly salinity fields from 2005 to 2017 were averaged to construct the 12-month climatological means, which were then used to analyze the seasonal variation. A three-month running smoother was applied to reduce the month-tomonth data noise; a nine-point smoother was used to smooth the spatial fields to better illustrate the large-scale patterns.

    Two observational datasets of evaporations and precipitation are used for surface freshwater flux (E-P) analyses,which helps to interpret the salinity bias. The first dataset of precipitation and evaporation data is from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Interim Reanalysis(ERA-Interim) product (Berrisford et al., 2011; Dee et al.,2011). The second E-P dataset is a combination of the precipitation from Global Precipitation Climatology Project(GPCP) Version 2.3 (Adler et al., 2018) and evaporation from Objectively Analyzed air-sea Flux (OAFlux) Version 3 (Yu and Weller, 2007). The resolution is a 1° horizontal grid, and the time span is the same as the salinity datasets(2005-17).

    3. Results

    3.1. Climatological salinity at the sea surface

    Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of the annual mean SSS for the observations and the CMIP5 and CMIP6 MMMs. The basin-scale patterns of salinity distributions for both CMIP5 and CMIP6 are consistent with the observations (Fig. 1), including several “salty pools” (salinity>35 g kg-1) located in the subtropics of all three basins and“fresh pools” in the tropics, coastal regions, and high-latitude regions. This pattern of ocean salinity is consistent with the distribution of the sea surface freshwater flux (evaporation minus precipitation or E-P) (Fig. 2), and therefore, the salinity field shows the oceanic footprint of the global water cycle (Schmitt, 2008; Durack et al., 2012, 2018; Yu et al.,2020). The pattern correlations between individual CMIP6 models and observation ensemble mean are mostly >0.9,larger than CMIP5 models (mostly between 0.85-0.9), indicating an improvement in CMIP6 models for SSS simulation.

    Although the individual models differ in the pattern of climatological SSS (Figs. S1 and S2 in the ESM), we can identify some common model biases in the MMM. In the Pacific Ocean, the MMM shows fresh biases in the subtropical regions and positive errors along the equator for both the CMIP5-MMM and CMIP6-MMM (Figs. 1g, 1h), coincident with the well-established rainfall bias patterns (Eyring et al.,2021, Fig. 3.13) and E-P bias patterns (Fig. 2). In particular,climate models always show a double intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) in the tropical Pacific, leading to excessive rainfall on both sides of the equatorial Pacific (Tian and Dong, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). The CMIP5-MMM bias is less than -0.6 g kg-1at about 5°-20°S, and the bias is stronger and more widely distributed in the CMIP6-MMM(spreading at 5°-20°S and 5°-20°N).

    The Indian Ocean shows a dipole pattern of salinity from west (saltier) to east (fresher). The higher salinity in the Arabian Sea is linked to both stronger evaporation in this region and the transport of saltier waters from the Red Sea. The higher precipitation and strong river runoff in the Bay of Bengal are responsible for its lower salinity. Both the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models show a fresher bias in the west and a saltier bias in the east (i.e., the climatological west-east salinity contrast is weaker in the models), generally consistent with E-P bias distributions. Near the equator regions, the SSS/S pattern (Figs. 1g, 1h; 3g, 3h) is different from the E-P bias (Figs. 2g, 2h), suggesting that the ocean dynamics plays a more important role. Fathrio et al. (2017)indicated that the model biases in the Indian Ocean are primarily linked to biases in the E-P (especially P) field, with ocean circulation biases having a secondary role. The spread of models is very large in the Bay of Bengal in both the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, probably linked to the poor representation of river runoff in the models because the Bay of Bengal receives large amounts of freshwater through the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Irrawaddy rivers.

    A large fresh bias of SSS occurs in most of the Atlantic Ocean (except the northern Gulf of Mexico and the gulf extension regions) for the CMIP5-MMM and CMIP6-MMM and most of the models. This bias has been identified in previous studies (e.g., Eyring et al., 2021) and has important implications for the simulation of the AMOC because the models might be too stable with a smaller near-surface salinity (Liu et al., 2020).

    Fig. 1. (a) Global climatology of the SSS and (b) spread across the five observational products. (c) MMM and (d)spread (defined as the multimodel standard deviation) for CMIP5. (e) MMM and (f) spread of CMIP6 models. The model bias between the MMM and the observational mean for the (g) CMIP5 and (h) CMIP6 models, respectively.The unit of salinity is g kg-1. Data for the time period 2005-17 are used.

    The bias shows a relatively large spread across both the observational datasets (Fig. 1b) and models (Figs. 1d, 1f) in coastal regions, mainly because the Argo network is in the open ocean and the Argo-only products do not represent coastal conditions. The large spread of salinity among the observational datasets in the Arctic Ocean is probably due to the lack of in situ observations, and the changes in Arctic salinity are subject to large uncertainties (Khosravi et al.,2021).

    Fig. 2. (a) Global climatology of the E-P and (b) spread across the two observational products. (c) MMM and (d)spread (defined as the multimodel standard deviation) for CMIP5. (e) MMM and (f) spread of CMIP6 models. The model bias between the MMM and the observational mean for the (g) CMIP5 and (h) CMIP6 models, respectively.The unit is mm d-1. Data for the time period 2005-2017 are used.

    For the global average, both the CMIP5-MMM and CMIP6-MMM show a fresher ocean at the sea surface than the observations. This negative salinity bias is more severe in the CMIP6-MMM than in the CMIP5-MMM (Figs. 1g,1h); the global mean bias is -0.44 g kg-1for the CMIP6-MMM and -0.25 g kg-1for the CMIP5-MMM. This indicates a notable increase in the model bias for CMIP6, implying that the simulation of hydrological processes is still challenging in climate simulations. The increased negative model salinity bias may be attributed to stronger negative E-P bias in CMIP6 models (Figs. 2g, 2h). Previous studies have speculated that the absence of direct feedback between ocean salinity and the atmosphere is one reason why model simulations are not well-constrained (Durack et al., 2012). Another feature of the CMIP6 models is a slightly reduced model spread compared with the CMIP5 models (Fig. 1f versus Fig. 1d; Table 3) in the Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic and South Pacific oceans. This is consistent with reduced E-P spread for the CMIP6 models (Figs. 2d, 2f).The global average model spread (the standard deviation across models) is 0.56 g kg-1for CMIP5 and 0.53 g kg-1for CMIP6.

    Because the different number of models in CMIP5 (40 models) and CMIP6 (33 models) could affect the results, we selected 20 models from the same institutes from CMIP5 and CMIP6 and re-calculated the MMM and spread. The results were generally consistent with those using all the models-for example, the global mean SSS bias is -0.40 g kg-1for 20 common CMIP6 models (with a spread of 0.48 g kg-1) and -0.21 g kg-1for 20 common CMIP5 models (with a spread of 0.54 g kg-1). This test indicates that our findings are robust (Fig. S3 in the ESM). Using a climatology from another time period (i.e., 1980-2000 in Fig. S4 in the ESM)does not impact the conclusions shown above. But the observation spread is slightly increased for the 1980-2000 climatology compared with the 2005-17 climatology (especially in the open ocean), indicating the impact of improved data quality in the recent decades.

    3.2. Climatological salinity for the 0-1000-m layer

    Figure 3 compares the spatial pattern of the 0-1000-m average salinity (S1000) for CMIP5 and CMIP6 with the observations. We selected the 0-1000-m layer because it includes most of the upper ocean water masses and the uplift of deep ocean water masses. The apparent salinity contrast between the salty Atlantic Ocean and the fresh Pacific/Indian oceans is robust in all models (Figs. 3c, 3e; individual models presented in Figs. S5 and S6 in ESM). The spatial pattern of S1000 is generally well-simulated by the models.The pattern correlations between individual CMIP6 models and the observation ensemble mean are mostly >0.9, larger than CMIP5 models (mostly between 0.85-0.9), indicating an improvement in CMIP6 models for S1000.

    However, the fresh bias of the CMIP6-MMM and CMIP5-MMM seen in the SSS is more spatially consistent and more severe for S1000 (Figs. 3g, 3h versus Figs. 1g, 1h)in the Pacific, Indian, and South Atlantic oceans, indicating the persistence of the negative bias in the ocean subsurface.The global mean S1000 bias is -0.26 g kg-1for the CMIP6-MMM and -0.07 g kg-1for the CMIP5-MMM (Table 3).Using the 20 models from the same organization gives similar results (-0.23 g kg-1for the CMIP6-MMM and-0.03 g kg-1for the CMIP5-MMM). The CMIP6-MMM bias for subsurface salinity (S1000) is therefore much stronger than the CMIP5-MMM (Figs. 3g, 3h).

    Table 3. Global mean SSS and S1000 bias and spread for CMIP5-MMM and CMIP6-MMM.

    Both the CMIP6-MMM and CMIP5-MMM show a pronounced positive bias for S1000 in the North Atlantic Ocean. The area with a positive bias is smaller in the CMIP6-MMM than in the CMIP5-MMM (0°-80°N for the CMIP5-MMM and 0°-40°N for the CMIP6-MMM), but the area with a bias >0.3 g kg-1extends more widely from the Caribbean Sea into the Strait of Gibraltar for the CMIP6-MMM than for the CMIP5-MMM. The Atlantic salinity bias patterns are less consistent with E-P biases (Figs. 3g,3h versus Figs. 2g, 2h), indicating ocean dynamics (and ice changes in the polar regions) plays a more important role. Further studies are needed to disclose the culprits with a rigorous salinity budget analysis.

    The model spread of S1000 is decreased at many locations in the CMIP6 models compared with the CMIP5 models(Figs. 3d, 3f), although the global average model spread is only marginally improved from 0.25 g kg-1for CMIP5 to 0.22 g kg-1for CMIP6. The reduction is also shown in the subset of 20 models from the same organizations (Fig. S7 in the ESM), with a global averaged spread of 0.24 g kg-1for CMIP5 and 0.20 g kg-1for CMIP6. Using a different climatology (1980-2000) does not significantly change the results(Fig. S8 in the ESM). Although the model spread is decreased for CMIP6 models in general, the improvements in many places are marginal (i.e., in the North Pacific Ocean and Southern Ocean), suggesting that the physical processes represented by the models still need to be improved.Note that the observational spread for S1000 (Fig. 3b) is smaller than SSS (Fig. 1b), mainly because the SSS is strongly impacted by river runoff, ice, and surface freshwater changes, which has more noise than a vertical integrated quantity (Cheng et al., 2020).

    3.3. Zonal mean salinity

    Figure 4 shows the vertical structure of the zonal mean salinity from the surface to 2000 m in an attempt to better link the surface salinity (section 3.1) with the vertical average salinity, which mainly reveals subsurface changes (section 3.2), and to understand the vertical distribution of the model error. The “salty pools” at midlatitudes in both hemispheres extend from the surface down to about 400 m in the observations, following the pathway of the subtropical gyre (Fig.4a). In both the CMIP5-MMM and the CMIP6-MMM, the“salty pools” are much fresher and shallower (if indexed by the 35 g kg-1contour). This model bias for freshwater extends to least 350 m in both hemispheres (Figs. 4g, 4h).

    The tropical fresh pool is broader and deeper in the models than in the observations (Figs. 4c, 4e versus Figs. 4a), consistent with strong negative E-P biases outside of the equator(Fig. 2). Notably, there is only one center of salinity minimum in the tropical fresh pool in the observations, located within the region 5°-10°N in the upper 60 m, corresponding to the location of the ITCZ. By contrast, there are two minima in the models located on both sides of the equator and extending to about 100 m, corresponding to a double ITCZ bias in the model simulation of the rainfall belts (Zhou et al., 2020).The surface freshwater flux bias is probably responsible for this salinity bias because the vertical structure of salinity is largely set by the surface freshwater flux. A further analysis of the impact of ocean dynamics should be carried out, similar to Yu (2011) for mixed-layer salinity, but is beyond the scope of this study.

    Fig. 3. (a) Global climatology of the S1000 (0-1000-m averaged salinity) and (b) spread across five observational products. (c) MMM and (d) spread (defined as the multimodel standard deviation) for CMIP5. (e) MMM and (f)spread of CMIP6 models. The model bias between the MMM and the observational mean for the (g) CMIP5 and (h)CMIP6 models, respectively. The unit of salinity is g kg-1. Data for the time period 2005-17 are used.

    Fig. 4. Zonal mean and spread (defined as the multimodel standard deviation) of the vertical salinity distributions for the world ocean in the (a, b) observations, (c, d) CMIP5 models, and (e, f) CMIP6 models. The model bias between the MMM and the observational mean for the (g) CMIP5 models (h) CMIP6 models. The unit of salinity is g kg-1.Data for the time period 2005-17 are used. Note that the depth scale of the zonally averaged plot is not linear.

    The ventilation of high-latitude (<40°S, >40°N) freshwater can be seen in both the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models (Figs.4c, 4e versus Fig. 4a), suggesting that the models can describe the process of formation of cold water and freshwater(i.e., the North Pacific Intermediate Water and the Antarctic Intermediate Water) at high latitudes, followed by subduction into the subsurface (Curry et al., 2003; Talley, 2008). However, the ventilation of freshwater seems to be too strong in the models and becomes even stronger in the CMIP6-MMM,indicating the bias in the formation of water masses in the models (Sallée et al., 2013). Because surface freshwater fluxes are key to the water mass formation, these biases can be largely traced back to the negative biases in E-P in both CMIP5 and CMIP6 models within 40°-50°N and 50°-40°S(Fig. 2). There is a small positive bias in the CMIP5-MMM in the deep layers at 400-2000 m, but this changes to a negative bias in the CMIP6-MMM (except in the Mediterranean Sea, where it shows a positive bias). The origin of such bias has not been discovered.

    The CMIP6 model spread decreases from that of CMIP5 in almost every zonal band (Figs. 4d, 4f). One exception is located in the upper 400 m within 35°-65°N, where the model spread is larger than at other locations. This is probably influenced by changes in the ice cover in polar regions and river runoff in coastal regions. The observational products also show a large spread, mainly due to the difference between the All-data and the Argo-only data. This is caused by the insufficiency of the Argo observing network, which does not sample the coastal and polar oceans (Liu et al.,2021).

    The zonal mean SSS (S1000) for each individual model and the observational products are presented in Fig. 5 (Fig.6), which shows the performance of individual models compared with the observations. The observational products have a large spread north of 40°N, mainly as a result of the difference between the Argo-only (SCRIPPS and BOA) and the All-data (IAP, ISHII, and EN4) products, as shown in Liu et al. (2021). Because the Argo-only data do not represent the salinities in the coastal and polar regions, the other three products (IAP, ISHII, and EN4) are averaged and compared with the models in Figs. 5 and 6.

    Both the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models show similar zonal fluctuations in salinity compared with the observational products (Figs. 5 and 6). The zonal mean SSS shows a salinity<35 g kg-1in the tropics (20°S-20°N) and at high latitudes(<40°S, >40°N), and a higher salinity in the subtropics (20°-40°N, 20°-40°S) (Fig. 5), consistent with the zonal-depth section in Fig. 4. By contrast, the S1000 salinity is lower in the Southern Hemisphere (34.5-35 g kg-1) than in the Northern Hemisphere (34.5-35.6 g kg-1), indicating the impact of the northward extension of fresh, intermediate waters.Almost all the CMIP6 models have a common fresh bias for the SSS and S1000 within the region 30°S-30°N, whereas several CMIP5 models show a positive bias (e.g., HadCM3,GISS-E2-H, and CESM1-WACCM) (Figs. 5b and 6b).North of 30°N, FIO-ESM has the largest negative SSS bias(>2 g kg-1) in the CMIP5 models (Fig. 5b), whereas E3SM-1-0 and HadGEM3 have the strongest SSS bias (>2 g kg-1)in the CMIP6 group (Fig. 5c). INM-CM4-8 and INM-CM5-0 show large spikes (>1 g kg-1) at some latitudes (about 65°N) for S1000, implying dramatic regional biases.

    3.4. Seasonal variation of salinity

    We assessed the seasonal variation of salinity by examining the zonally averaged SSS and S1000 relative to the annual mean (Figs. 7 and 8). Within the region 5°-20°N(20°S-5°N), the sea surface is saltier (fresher) in the first half of the year and becomes fresher (saltier) in the second half of the year (Fig. 7a). Liu et al. (2021) indicated that this variation in SSS is mainly driven by the seasonal changes in the surface freshwater fluxes (E-P) associated with the seasonal shift in the ITCZ. The minimum (less than -0.1 g kg-1)of the SSS anomalies is located at about 8°N in October in the Northern Hemisphere and at about 3°S in April in the Southern Hemisphere, corresponding to the location of the strongest ITCZ (Bingham et al., 2010, 2012; Yu et al.,2021). Both the CMIP5-MMM and the CMIP6-MMM show a similar seasonal evolution of the SSS within 20°S-20°N compared with the observations (Figs. 7c, 7e versus Fig. 7a).However, the magnitude of the seasonal variation in the models (from -0.2 g kg-1to 0.2 g kg-1for the CMIP5-MMM;Figs. 7c, 7e) tends to be stronger than that in the observations(about 0.1 g kg-1; Fig. 7a). The CMIP6-MMM is closer to the observations than the CMIP5-MMM within the region 20°S-20°N, but the spread becomes larger (Figs. 7d, f), indicating increasing model divergence in simulating the seasonal variation of the SSS in the recent generation of climate models.

    Outside the tropics (60°-20°S and 20°-60°N), the models show a similar seasonal variation (from positive anomalies before June to negative anomalies after July) to the observations (Figs. 7c, 7e versus Fig. 7a). The magnitude of the variation tends to be smaller in the northern polar regions and larger in the Southern Hemisphere. In almost all zonal bands (except the midlatitudes at about 40°S and 30°N), the CMIP6 model spreads are larger than those of the CMIP5 models. In the subpolar regions of the Northern Hemisphere(>50°N), the spread of the observations is compatible with the model spread, mainly as a result of the differences in the Argo-only and All-data products and the lack of observations.

    The observational variation does not show a clear largescale pattern for S1000 (Fig. 8a), but shows many zonal bands and fine structures. However, it is difficult to determine these structures as a result of the relatively large spread in the observations (Fig. 8b). The S1000 variation in the northern polar regions (>60°N) is broadly consistent with that of the SSS (Fig. 8a versus Fig. 7a), which is probably associated with the deep-reaching ocean circulation that conveys surface anomalies downward. This is supported by a previous study of Bingham et al. (2012), who suggests that ocean dynamics are more important in high-latitude regions than E-P for SSS seasonal variation. In contrast with the observations,both the CMIP5-MMM and CMIP6-MMM show a well-organized, large-scale pattern for S1000-that is, a transfer from positive (February-July) to negative (August-January) anomalies within 40°S-5°N and a change from negative(March-August) to positive (September-February) anomalies within 10°-30°N (Figs. 8c, 8e versus Fig. 8a). However,the spread in the observational datasets is as large as that in the models (Fig. 8b versus Figs. 8d, 8f), and there is low confidence for both the observational and modeled seasonal variation in S1000. This is surprising and suggests a limited modeling and observing capability for the variation in the subsurface salinity at the seasonal scale.

    Figures 9 and 10 show the geographical distributions of the magnitude of the seasonal variation in salinity (defined as the difference between the minimum and maximum of the seasonal change in each grid cell) for SSS and S1000,respectively. The magnitude of the variation indicates the strength of the changes in salinity at the regional scale and has important implications for the role of salinity in the regional climate (Boyer and Levitus, 2002; Liu et al., 2021)because the local change in salinity could regulate the ocean circulation. The observations show a higher magnitude of changes in SSS (>0.6 g kg-1, the 95th percentile of the regional changes in SSS) near the ITCZ regions, mainly in the northern non-equatorial oceans (Bingham et al., 2010,2012; Liu et al., 2021). However, both the CMIP5-MMM and CMIP6-MMM models show a more symmetrical distribution of the SSS maximum bands on both sides of the equator, again indicating the typical double ITCZ bias in climate models.

    Fig. 5. Zonal mean salinity (SSS) for the world ocean in (a) the observations, (b) the CMIP5 models, and (c) the CMIP6 models.

    The magnitude of the variations is also stronger in the models than in the observations within 20°S-20°N, probably due to the stronger rainfall modeled in the tropics compared to what is found in the observations (Eyring et al., 2021).The stronger surface fluxes penetrate downward and are probably responsible for the larger magnitude of variation in S1000 in Fig. 10 in the tropical Pacific (for both the CMIP5-MMM and CMIP6-MMM). Notably, the CMIP6 model spread of S1000 has increased dramatically from the CMIP5 models in the Pacific basin, leading to poorer results for CMIP6 compared to those for CMIP5 when compared with the observations in the tropics; but CMIP6 results are closer to the observations in the northwest Pacific. By contrast, the models show a weaker magnitude of variation than the observations in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, although the CMIP6-MMM is improved compared with the CMIP5-MMM, especially in the northwest Indian Ocean and the western Atlantic Ocean.

    Fig. 6. Zonal mean salinity (S1000 m) for the world ocean in (a) the observations, (b) the CMIP5 models, and (c) the CMIP6 models.

    In summary, we found that the new generation climate models (CMIP6) only show marginal improvements in simulating the seasonal variation of SSS and S1000 in some specific places. The persistent model bias in the magnitude of the seasonal variation in both the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models deserves careful analysis in the future.

    Fig. 7. Zonal mean seasonal variation and spread of the SSS in the (a, b) observations, (c, d) CMIP5 models,and (e, f) CMIP6 models for the world ocean. The unit of salinity is g kg-1. The bias is calculated as the zonal mean salinity difference between CMIP ensemble mean and observation ensemble mean at each month. The anomalies are relative to the annual mean.

    Fig. 8. Zonal mean seasonal variation and spread of the S1000 m in the (a, b) observations, (c, d) CMIP5 models,and (e, f) CMIP6 models for the world ocean. The unit of salinity is g kg-1. The anomalies are relative to the annual mean.

    Fig. 9. Magnitude of the seasonal variation of the SSS in (a) the observations, (c) the CMIP5 models, and (e) the CMIP6 models for the world ocean. The spread across observational products (b) and models (d, f) is also presented.The unit of salinity is g kg-1.

    3.5. Seasonal variation of the global mean salinity

    This section investigates the seasonal variation of the global-averaged SSS and S1000, which are associated with the global-scale ocean freshwater budget. Based on the global average, the SSS is higher from November to May and lower from June to October, showing a robust seasonal variation (Fig. 11a) (Liu et al., 2021). This seasonal variation is caused by both E-P and river runoff. The two Argo-only products do not show a complete global average and were therefore not considered in the following analyses. Most of the models simulate this seasonal variation well. The CMIP6-MMM shows much better consistency with the observational average than the CMIP5-MMM (Figs. 11b, 11c), indicating an improvement in this global metric. However,because there are viable and persistent regional biases, this slightly better agreement between the CMIP6-MMM and the observations should not be over-emphasized. Despite the general consistency between the models and observations, some individual models show almost the opposite variation (e.g., the BNU-ESM, CESM1-WACCM, and GFDLCM3 models in the CMIP5 family). Some models in the CMIP6 group show different phase changes (e.g., the INMCM4-8 and INM-CM5-0 models).

    Furthermore, we provided global SSS changes within 60°S-60°N to reduce the impact of polar regions (Fig. 12),which are less accurately represented in both observational datasets and models (Figs. 1-3). Within 60°S-60°N, the modeled global mean SSS seasonal variation becomes more consistent with observations. And the five observational products also show consistent variations, similar to the findings of Liu et al. (2021). This suggests that the polar regions play a key role in setting the seasonal variation of global SSS.

    It is surprising that the observational changes are not consistent among the five data products for the global mean S1000 (Fig. 13a). The EN4 and IAP models show a positive peak in June and a negative peak in January, but the ISHII model shows a positive peak in August. The SCRIPPS and BOA models are similar to each other, showing a weaker magnitude of variation than the other three All-data products and a change from positive anomalies in the first half of the year to negative anomalies in the second half of the year.These notable differences indicate that the current ocean subsurface observational system is still insufficient to robustly represent the global seasonal change in salinity. In contrast with the observations, most of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models show a change from positive anomalies in the first half of the year (January-July) to negative anomalies in the second half of the year (August-December), consistent with the SCRIPPS and BOA data. However, the magnitude of the variation in the models is much stronger than in the SCRIPPS and BOA data. Finally, averaged S1000 within 60oS-60oN is calculated, and the results (Fig. S9 in ESM) are generally consistent with the global average (Fig. 13), implying that the subsurface changes in the open ocean dominate the global averages for the 0-1000-m average.

    In summary, our assessment of the global mean salinity indicates a consistent representation of the SSS for the models and observations, but suggests poor constraint of the variation in subsurface salinity.

    4. Summary and discussion

    We evaluated the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models for the climatological seasonal variation in salinity and compared them with five observational products. Based on this investigation, our conclusions are as follows.

    (1) Although the basic features of ocean salinity can be well-simulated by the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, there are notable systematic errors. The common model biases include: (i) the fresh biases in the subtropical and polar Pacific and Atlantic oceans extending from the surface to at least 400 m, which are probably associated with the biases in surface flux; (ii) the global mean fresh biases for SSS and S1000; (iii) the basin-scale fresh bias for the subsurface salinity (S1000) in the Pacific, Indian, and North Atlantic oceans,but the positive bias in the North Atlantic Ocean; (iv) the magnitude of seasonal variations in salinity is stronger in the models than in the observations in the tropics for SSS in all three basins-by contrast, this error appears only in the Pacific Ocean for S1000. The Atlantic and Indian oceans show a weaker magnitude of variation for S1000.

    (2) For the climatological mean salinity state, the model spread is decreased across the CMIP6 models compared with the CMIP5 models in many locations. However, for the seasonal variation, the model spread of the CMIP6 models is larger than that of the CMIP5 models in many parts of the global ocean (except in some locations in the southern oceans).

    Fig. 11. Global mean SSS in (a) the observations, (b) the CMIP5 models, and (c) the CMIP6 models. The anomalies are relative to the annual average. The MMM is shown as the dashed black line. The red dashed line is the mean of IAP, ISHII, and EN4.

    (3) Our study is consistent with the IPCC-AR6 and IPCC-AR5 for the zonal mean salinity at different depths.In particular, we confirm the IPCC-AR6 conclusion that“the structure of the salinity biases in the multi-model mean has not changed substantially between CMIP5 and CMIP6(medium confidence), though there is limited evidence that the magnitude of subsurface biases has been reduced”.

    (4) As a result of the substantial uncertainty in the observational datasets for the global mean 0-1000-m seasonal change in salinity, the models cannot be fully evaluated.This study therefore stresses that the global ocean observation system for salinity should be extended and improved in the future.

    Most of the climate models cannot represent the melting/formation of ice sheets and have large errors in simulations of the changes in sea ice (e.g., in the Southern Ocean).These processes might contribute to the difference in the comparison between the observations and models. A detailed diagnostic study of the model biases is required in the future to fully understand the models.

    Fig. 12. Same as Fig. 11 but for SSS change within 60°S-60°N.

    Analyzing the model performance of salinity at all time scales, including inter-annual and decadal scales, helps in both fundamental research and for the creation of accurate predictions. For example, SSS in the Indo-Pacific sectors is known to experience large variations associated with ENSO and other climate variability that alter density stratification in the upper ocean (Zhu et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016;Kido et al., 2019), but such SSS variations may not be adequately represented in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models due to biases in climatological salinity.

    Our analysis of salinity provides a useful base to understand the simulation of the global energy cycle and the water cycle, because these cycles are closely coupled (Trenberth et al., 2007; Dai et al., 2009; Bronselaer and Zanna,2020). For instance, the air-sea freshwater and heat fluxes are coupled via evaporation and precipitation, and the air-sea freshwater flux bias is associated with both the salinity bias and the ocean temperature (heat content) bias. It would be an intriguing follow-on study to investigate the coupling of the water and heat cycles and to understand the formation of model bias in ocean temperatures and salinity.

    Fig. 13. Global mean S1000 m in (a) the observations, (b) the CMIP5 models, and (c) the CMIP6 models. The anomalies are relative to the annual average. The MMM is shown as the dashed black line. The red dashed line is the mean of IAP, ISHII, and EN4.

    Acknowledgements. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.42076202) and the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB42040402).

    Data availability. The salinity data produced in this study are available at http://www.ocean.iap.ac.cn/. The data are available at:ISHII (https://climate.mri-jma.go.jp/pub/ocean/ts/v7.2/); EN4 (http:// www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/en4/index.html); SCRIPPS (http://sio-argo.ucsd.edu/RG_Climatology.html); and BOA (www.argo.ucsd.edu/Gridded_fields.html).

    Electronic supplementary material: Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-1381-2.

    身体一侧抽搐| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 免费看光身美女| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 熟女电影av网| 一区福利在线观看| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 亚洲最大成人中文| 成人三级黄色视频| 两个人视频免费观看高清| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 一本精品99久久精品77| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 色综合站精品国产| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 午夜两性在线视频| 波多野结衣高清作品| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 成人18禁在线播放| 欧美日韩黄片免| 久久久久久久久大av| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 老司机福利观看| 免费看光身美女| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看 | 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 舔av片在线| 热99re8久久精品国产| 国产精品野战在线观看| 日本五十路高清| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 欧美大码av| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 99久国产av精品| 搞女人的毛片| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 国产精品,欧美在线| 69av精品久久久久久| 校园春色视频在线观看| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 久久香蕉国产精品| 日韩有码中文字幕| 三级毛片av免费| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 久久香蕉国产精品| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 久久亚洲真实| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 嫩草影视91久久| 亚洲无线在线观看| 99久国产av精品| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 亚洲内射少妇av| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 丁香六月欧美| 最好的美女福利视频网| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 久久伊人香网站| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 免费看日本二区| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 在线观看66精品国产| 美女黄网站色视频| 午夜激情欧美在线| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 日本a在线网址| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 校园春色视频在线观看| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 欧美日韩精品网址| 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 日韩国内少妇激情av| avwww免费| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| av专区在线播放| 日本与韩国留学比较| 欧美激情在线99| 级片在线观看| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 一区二区三区激情视频| 乱人视频在线观看| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美 | 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 无限看片的www在线观看| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 亚洲av二区三区四区| h日本视频在线播放| 久久久久久人人人人人| 午夜福利欧美成人| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 深夜精品福利| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 亚洲五月天丁香| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| aaaaa片日本免费| 久久人妻av系列| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 国产三级黄色录像| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 一区二区三区免费毛片| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 久久久成人免费电影| 在线观看日韩欧美| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 色综合站精品国产| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 精品人妻1区二区| 亚洲五月天丁香| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 在线视频色国产色| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 一级作爱视频免费观看| av天堂中文字幕网| 免费大片18禁| 观看免费一级毛片| 午夜福利欧美成人| xxxwww97欧美| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 怎么达到女性高潮| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | 日韩欧美在线乱码| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 91麻豆av在线| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 日本熟妇午夜| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 99热这里只有是精品50| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 久久久国产成人免费| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 亚洲在线观看片| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产精品久久视频播放| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 久久人妻av系列| 无限看片的www在线观看| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 宅男免费午夜| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 1000部很黄的大片| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 欧美激情在线99| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 国产成人福利小说| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 久久香蕉精品热| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 精品日产1卡2卡| 91久久精品电影网| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| svipshipincom国产片| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕 | 久久亚洲真实| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 国产三级中文精品| 操出白浆在线播放| 两个人的视频大全免费| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 九九在线视频观看精品| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 一本综合久久免费| 欧美性感艳星| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 国产av在哪里看| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 悠悠久久av| 国产成人影院久久av| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 亚洲激情在线av| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 一级黄色大片毛片| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 露出奶头的视频| 怎么达到女性高潮| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 级片在线观看| 国产精品一及| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 丰满的人妻完整版| 亚洲第一电影网av| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免 | 国产高清激情床上av| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 一级黄片播放器| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲av一区综合| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 香蕉丝袜av| 亚洲国产欧美网| 天堂√8在线中文| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲18禁久久av| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 91麻豆av在线| avwww免费| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 午夜激情欧美在线| 国产av在哪里看| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产成人a区在线观看| 午夜激情欧美在线| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 窝窝影院91人妻| 国产三级中文精品| 日本a在线网址| 久久久精品大字幕| 久久精品人妻少妇| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 精品国产亚洲在线| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 精品人妻1区二区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 看片在线看免费视频| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 国产精品野战在线观看| 美女大奶头视频| av片东京热男人的天堂| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 中文字幕久久专区| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 日本熟妇午夜| 极品教师在线免费播放| 一本久久中文字幕| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 特级一级黄色大片| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| av在线蜜桃| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 美女黄网站色视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 香蕉久久夜色| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 日本三级黄在线观看| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 国产成人a区在线观看| 亚洲片人在线观看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产精品久久视频播放| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 日本 av在线| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 国产av不卡久久| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 国产精品久久视频播放| 亚洲最大成人中文| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 久久伊人香网站| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 身体一侧抽搐| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 免费av观看视频| 97超视频在线观看视频| 国产单亲对白刺激| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 亚洲av熟女| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 国产一区二区激情短视频| av黄色大香蕉| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 校园春色视频在线观看| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 少妇丰满av| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 久9热在线精品视频| av福利片在线观看| 精品久久久久久久末码| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 一夜夜www| 国产探花极品一区二区| 亚洲av一区综合| 欧美日本视频| 综合色av麻豆| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 午夜福利高清视频| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | 校园春色视频在线观看| 午夜福利欧美成人| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久九九热精品免费| 在线a可以看的网站| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 亚洲激情在线av| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 日本黄色片子视频| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 热99re8久久精品国产| 国产乱人视频| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 欧美区成人在线视频| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 内射极品少妇av片p| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久 | 在线视频色国产色| 国产69精品久久久久777片| av天堂在线播放| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 午夜影院日韩av| 有码 亚洲区| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 久久久国产成人免费| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 悠悠久久av| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 不卡一级毛片| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| tocl精华| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 97碰自拍视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 成人av在线播放网站| 国产不卡一卡二| 窝窝影院91人妻| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人 | 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| av中文乱码字幕在线| 在线播放国产精品三级| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 三级毛片av免费| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 日韩欧美在线乱码| a在线观看视频网站| 日本与韩国留学比较| 男女那种视频在线观看| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| www国产在线视频色| www.999成人在线观看| 免费看光身美女| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| avwww免费| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 国产成人a区在线观看| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 亚洲成人久久性| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 香蕉av资源在线| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| eeuss影院久久| 日日夜夜操网爽| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 91字幕亚洲| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美 | 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| xxxwww97欧美| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 在线a可以看的网站| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 美女免费视频网站| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产精品 国内视频| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 久久久精品大字幕| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 午夜久久久久精精品| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 国产高潮美女av| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 亚洲人成网站在线播| 嫩草影院精品99| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美 | 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 久久久久久大精品| 不卡一级毛片| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡|