Abstract
AbstractWe investigated positive temperature (warm) and negative precipitation (dry) biases in convection-permitting model (CPM) simulations for Europe (2.2 km grid spacing) that were considerably larger than in equivalent regional climate model (RCM) simulations (12 km grid spacing). We found that improvements in dry biases could be made by (1) using a more complex runoff scheme which takes into account topography and groundwater, (2) delaying the onset of water stress in vegetation to enhance transpiration, (3) changing the microphysics scheme to CASIM (Cloud AeroSol Interacting Microphysics) which also decreases heavy rainfall and increases light rainfall. Increasing soil moisture to the critical point can remove dry precipitation biases in southern Europe but not in northern areas, indicating that soil moisture limitation is a key contributor to precipitation biases in the south only. Instead, in the north, changing the cloud scheme of the model has more impact on precipitation biases. We found that the more intense and intermittent nature of rainfall in the CPM, which is more realistic leads to different canopy interception compared to the RCM. This can impact canopy evaporation, evapotranspiration and feed back on precipitation. Increasing rainfall storage in the canopy only leads to small improvements in warm biases, since it still fills rapidly with intense CPM rainfall, suggesting the need for an additional moisture store via improved groundwater modelling or surface pooling. Overall, this work highlights the challenge of correctly capturing land surface feedbacks in CPMs, which play an important role in future climate projections in some regions.
Funder
European Union’s Horizon 2020 EUCP project
Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Barlage M, Chen F, Rasmussen R, Zhang Z, Miguez-Macho G (2021) The importance of scale‐dependent groundwater processes in land‐atmosphere interactions over the central United States. Geophys Res Lett, 48(5), e2020GL092171.
2. Bastin S, Chiriaco M, Drobinski P (2018) Control of radiation and evaporation on temperature variability in a WRF regional climate simulation: comparison with co-located long term ground-based observations near Paris. Clim Dyn 51(3):985–1003
3. Berthou S, Kendon EJ, Chan SC, Ban N, Leutwyler D, Schär C, Fosser G (2020) Pan-european climate at convection-permitting scale: a model intercomparison study. Clim Dyn 55(1):35–59
4. Best MJ, Pryor M, Clark DB, Rooney GG, Essery R, Ménard CB et al (2011) The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description–part 1: energy and water fluxes. Geosci Model Dev 4(3):677–699
5. Boone A, Bellvert J, Best M, Brooke J, Canut-Rocafort G, Cuxart J, Hartogensis O, Le Moigne P, Miró J, Polcher J, Price J, Quintana Seguí J, Wooster M (2021) Updates on the international land surface interactions with the atmosphere over the Iberian Semi-arid Environment (LIAISE) Field Campaign. Gewex News 31(4):17–21