Better calibration of cloud parameterizations and subgrid effects increases the fidelity of the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1
-
Published:2022-04-07
Issue:7
Volume:15
Page:2881-2916
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Ma Po-LunORCID, Harrop Bryce E., Larson Vincent E., Neale Richard B., Gettelman AndrewORCID, Morrison Hugh, Wang HailongORCID, Zhang KaiORCID, Klein Stephen A., Zelinka Mark D.ORCID, Zhang Yuying, Qian Yun, Yoon Jin-HoORCID, Jones Christopher R., Huang MengORCID, Tai Sheng-Lun, Singh Balwinder, Bogenschutz Peter A., Zheng XueORCID, Lin Wuyin, Quaas JohannesORCID, Chepfer Hélène, Brunke Michael A., Zeng Xubin, Mülmenstädt JohannesORCID, Hagos Samson, Zhang ZhiboORCID, Song HuaORCID, Liu Xiaohong, Pritchard Michael S., Wan HuiORCID, Wang Jingyu, Tang QiORCID, Caldwell Peter M., Fan JiwenORCID, Berg Larry K.ORCID, Fast Jerome D., Taylor Mark A.ORCID, Golaz Jean-ChristopheORCID, Xie Shaocheng, Rasch Philip J., Leung L. RubyORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Realistic simulation of the Earth's mean-state climate remains a
major challenge, and yet it is crucial for predicting the climate system in
transition. Deficiencies in models' process representations, propagation of
errors from one process to another, and associated compensating errors can
often confound the interpretation and improvement of model simulations.
These errors and biases can also lead to unrealistic climate projections and incorrect attribution of the physical mechanisms governing past
and future climate change. Here we show that a significantly improved global
atmospheric simulation can be achieved by focusing on the realism of process
assumptions in cloud calibration and subgrid effects using the Energy
Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1). The
calibration of clouds and subgrid effects informed by our understanding of
physical mechanisms leads to significant improvements in clouds and
precipitation climatology, reducing common and long-standing biases across
cloud regimes in the model. The improved cloud fidelity in turn reduces
biases in other aspects of the system. Furthermore, even though the
recalibration does not change the global mean aerosol and total
anthropogenic effective radiative forcings (ERFs), the sensitivity of
clouds, precipitation, and surface temperature to aerosol perturbations is
significantly reduced. This suggests that it is possible to achieve
improvements to the historical evolution of surface temperature over EAMv1
and that precise knowledge of global mean ERFs is not enough to constrain
historical or future climate change. Cloud feedbacks are also significantly
reduced in the recalibrated model, suggesting that there would be a lower
climate sensitivity when it is run as part of the fully coupled E3SM. This
study also compares results from incremental changes to cloud microphysics,
turbulent mixing, deep convection, and subgrid effects to understand how
assumptions in the representation of these processes affect different
aspects of the simulated atmosphere as well as its response to forcings. We
conclude that the spectral composition and geographical distribution of the
ERFs and cloud feedback, as well as the fidelity of the simulated base
climate state, are important for constraining the climate in the past and
future.
Funder
Battelle U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory National Nuclear Security Administration
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference139 articles.
1. Adler, R., Sapiano, M., Huffman, G., Wang, J.-J., Gu, G., Bolvin, D., Chiu, L., Schneider, U., Becker, A., Nelkin, E., Xie, P., Ferraro, R., and Shin, D.-B.: The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis (New Version 2.3) and a Review of 2017 Global Precipitation, Atmosphere, 9, 138, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9040138, 2018 (data available at: https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.gpcp.html, last access: 20 December 2021). 2. Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P.,
Watson-Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau, A.
L., Dufresne, J. L., Feingold, G., Fiedler, S., Forster, P., Gettelman, A.,
Haywood, J. M., Lohmann, U., Malavelle, F., Mauritsen, T., McCoy, D. T.,
Myhre, G., Mulmenstadt, J., Neubauer, D., Possner, A., Rugenstein, M., Sato,
Y., Schulz, M., Schwartz, S. E., Sourdeval, O., Storelvmo, T., Toll, V.,
Winker, D., and Stevens, B.: Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of
Climate Change, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000660, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660,
2020. 3. Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J. L.,
Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John,
V. O.: COSP Satellite simulation software for model assessment, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011bams2856.1, 2011. 4. Bogenschutz, P. A., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Larson, V. E., Craig, C.,
and Schanen, D. P.: Higher-Order Turbulence Closure and Its Impact on
Climate Simulations in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Climate, 26,
9655–9676, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-13-00075.1, 2013. 5. Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Chiriaco, M., Dufresne, J.-L., Klein, S., Loeb, N., Marchand, R., Pincus, R., Tanré, D., Webb, M., Winker, D., Xie, S., and Zhang, Y.: CFMIP Observations for Model evaluation, CFMIP-OBS [data set], https://climserv.ipsl.polytechnique.fr/cfmip-obs/, last access: 10 December 2021.
Cited by
24 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
|
|