Intercomparison of the weather and climate physics suites of a unified forecast–climate model system (GRIST-A22.7.28) based on single-column modeling
-
Published:2023-05-31
Issue:10
Volume:16
Page:2975-2993
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Li Xiaohan, Zhang YiORCID, Peng Xindong, Zhou Baiquan, Li Jian, Wang Yiming
Abstract
Abstract. As a unified weather-forecast–climate model system,
Global-to-Regional Integrated forecast SysTem (GRIST-A22.7.28) currently
employs two separate physics suites for weather forecast and typical
long-term climate simulation, respectively. Previous AMIP-style experiments
have suggested that the weather (PhysW) and climate (PhysC) physics suites,
when coupled to a common dynamical core, lead to different behaviors in
terms of modeling clouds and precipitation. To explore the source of their
discrepancies, this study compares the two suites using a single-column
model (SCM). The SCM simulations demonstrate significant differences in the
simulated precipitation and low clouds. Convective parameterization is found
to be a key factor responsible for these differences. Compared with PhysC,
parameterized convection of PhysW plays a more important role in moisture
transport and rainfall formation. The convective parameterization of PhysW
also better captures the onset and retreat of rainfall events, but stronger
upward moisture transport largely decreases the tropical low clouds in
PhysW. These features are in tune with the previous 3D AMIP simulations.
Over the typical stratus-to-stratocumulus transition regime such as the
Californian coast, turbulence in PhysW is weaker than that in PhysC, and
shallow convection is more prone to be triggered and leads to larger
ventilation above the cloud layer, reducing stratocumulus clouds there.
These two suites also have intrinsic differences in the interaction between
cloud microphysics and other processes, resulting in different time step
sensitivities. PhysC tends to generate more stratiform clouds with
decreasing time step. This is caused by separate treatment of stratiform
cloud condensation and other microphysical processes, leading to a tight
interaction between macrophysics and boundary layer turbulence. In PhysW,
all the microphysical processes are executed at the same temporal scale, and
thus no such time step sensitivity was found.
Funder
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference52 articles.
1. Bechtold, P., Semane, N., Lopez, P., Chaboureau, J. P., Beljaars, A., and
Bormann, N.: The role of shallow convection in ECMWF's Integrated
Forecasting System, ECMWF Technical Memoranda, 2014. 2. Bretherton, C. S. and Park, S.: The University of Washington Shallow
Convection and Moist Turbulence Schemes and Their Impact on Climate
Simulations with the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Climate, 22,
3449–3469, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2557.1, 2009. 3. Bogenschutz, P. A., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Larson, V. E., Schanen, D. P., Meyer, N. R., and Craig, C.: Unified parameterization of the planetary boundary layer and shallow convection with a higher-order turbulence closure in the Community Atmosphere Model: single-column experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1407–1423, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1407-2012, 2012. 4. Brown, A., Milton, S., Cullen, M., Golding, B., Mitchell, J., and Shelly,
A.: Unified Modeling and Prediction of Weather and Climate: A 25-Year
Journey, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1865–1877,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00018.1, 2012. 5. Chepfer, H., Bony, S., Winker, D., Cesana, G., Dufresne, J. L., Minnis, P.,
Stubenrauch, C. J., and Zeng, S.: The GCM-oriented CALIPSO cloud product (CALIPSO-GOCCP), J.
Geophys. Res., 115, D00H16,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012251, 2010.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|