View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Intercomparison of two model climates simulated by a unified weather-climate model system (GRIST), part I: mean state.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Intercomparison of two model climates simulated by a unified weather-climate model system (GRIST), part I: mean state.
Authors: Fu, Zhen1,2 (AUTHOR), Zhang, Yi1,2,3 (AUTHOR) zhangyi_fz@piesat.cn, Li, Xiaohan4 (AUTHOR), Rong, Xinyao5 (AUTHOR)
Source: Climate Dynamics. Jul2024, Vol. 62 Issue 7, p6273-6291. 19p.
Subjects: Atmospheric models, Statistical equilibrium, Radiative forcing, Ice clouds, Weather forecasting
Abstract: This study made an intercomparison of two model climates, simulated by a unified weather-climate model system (GRIST), under the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) experimental protocol. These two model AMIP simulations with PhysW and PhysC (AMIPW and AMIPC hereafter) are configured with different physics suites, but both generated by a unified dynamical core framework. PhysW and PhysC are originally designed for weather forecasting and climate simulation, respectively. Both AMIPW and AMIPC reach statistical equilibrium in the climate integration. They overall produce comparable model climates, while distinctive bias features also exist. Compared with the AMIP experiments of 54 climate models from CMIP6, both AMIPW and AMIPC demonstrate competitive performances in the mean state simulations. They capture the observed spatial distribution of large-scale circulation and precipitation, as well as replicate the seasonal migration and primary frequency-intensity structures of precipitation. However, due to different parameterization schemes such as convection and microphysics being utilized, the most notable differences between the models lie in processes related to moist physics. For instance, AMIPW tends to overestimate (underestimate) global shortwave (longwave) cloud radiative forcing, while AMIPC provides a more balanced estimation, with a significantly stronger longwave cloud radiative forcing over the tropics. In addition, AMIPC well reproduces cloud fraction and liquid content but underestimates cloud ice water content, whereas AMIPW significantly overestimates all these variables. Overall, the similarity between two model climates is higher than their discrepancy. The results demonstrate that the extent to which the selection of two distinct physics suites can influence the simulated model climate, within a unified model system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Climate Dynamics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 179815406
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Intercomparison of two model climates simulated by a unified weather-climate model system (GRIST), part I: mean state.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fu%2C+Zhen%22">Fu, Zhen</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhang%2C+Yi%22">Zhang, Yi</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> zhangyi_fz@piesat.cn</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li%2C+Xiaohan%22">Li, Xiaohan</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rong%2C+Xinyao%22">Rong, Xinyao</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Climate+Dynamics%22">Climate Dynamics</searchLink>. Jul2024, Vol. 62 Issue 7, p6273-6291. 19p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Atmospheric+models%22">Atmospheric models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+equilibrium%22">Statistical equilibrium</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Radiative+forcing%22">Radiative forcing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ice+clouds%22">Ice clouds</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Weather+forecasting%22">Weather forecasting</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study made an intercomparison of two model climates, simulated by a unified weather-climate model system (GRIST), under the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) experimental protocol. These two model AMIP simulations with PhysW and PhysC (AMIPW and AMIPC hereafter) are configured with different physics suites, but both generated by a unified dynamical core framework. PhysW and PhysC are originally designed for weather forecasting and climate simulation, respectively. Both AMIPW and AMIPC reach statistical equilibrium in the climate integration. They overall produce comparable model climates, while distinctive bias features also exist. Compared with the AMIP experiments of 54 climate models from CMIP6, both AMIPW and AMIPC demonstrate competitive performances in the mean state simulations. They capture the observed spatial distribution of large-scale circulation and precipitation, as well as replicate the seasonal migration and primary frequency-intensity structures of precipitation. However, due to different parameterization schemes such as convection and microphysics being utilized, the most notable differences between the models lie in processes related to moist physics. For instance, AMIPW tends to overestimate (underestimate) global shortwave (longwave) cloud radiative forcing, while AMIPC provides a more balanced estimation, with a significantly stronger longwave cloud radiative forcing over the tropics. In addition, AMIPC well reproduces cloud fraction and liquid content but underestimates cloud ice water content, whereas AMIPW significantly overestimates all these variables. Overall, the similarity between two model climates is higher than their discrepancy. The results demonstrate that the extent to which the selection of two distinct physics suites can influence the simulated model climate, within a unified model system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Climate Dynamics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=179815406
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s00382-024-07205-2
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 6273
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Atmospheric models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical equilibrium
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Radiative forcing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ice clouds
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Weather forecasting
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Intercomparison of two model climates simulated by a unified weather-climate model system (GRIST), part I: mean state.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fu, Zhen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhang, Yi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Li, Xiaohan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rong, Xinyao
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Text: Jul2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09307575
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Climate Dynamics
              Type: main
ResultId 1