Analyses of atmospheric heat and moisture budgets serve as an effective tool to study convective characteristics over a region and to provide large‐scale forcing fields for various modeling applications. This paper examines two popular methods for computing large‐scale atmospheric budgets: the conventional budget method (CBM) using objectively gridded analyses based primarily on radiosonde data and the constrained variational analysis (CVA) approach which supplements vertical profiles of atmospheric fields with measurements at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface to conserve mass, water, energy, and momentum. Successful budget computations are dependent on accurate sampling and analyses of the thermodynamic state of the atmosphere and the divergence field associated with convection and the large‐scale circulation that influences it. Utilizing analyses generated from data taken during Dynamics of the Madden‐Julian Oscillation (DYNAMO) field campaign conducted over the central Indian Ocean from October to December 2011, we evaluate the merits of these budget approaches and examine their limitations. While many of the shortcomings of the CBM, in particular effects of sampling errors in sounding data, are effectively minimized with CVA, accurate large‐scale diagnostics in CVA are dependent on reliable background fields and rainfall constraints. For the DYNAMO analyses examined, the operational model fields used as the CVA background state provided wind fields that accurately resolved the vertical structure of convection in the vicinity of Gan Island. However, biases in the model thermodynamic fields were somewhat amplified in CVA resulting in a convective environment much weaker than observed.
This paper provides a comprehensive derivation of the total energy equations for the atmospheric components of Earth System Models (ESMs). The assumptions and approximations made in this derivation are motivated and discussed. In particular, it is emphasized that closing the energy budget is conceptually challenging and hard to achieve in practice without resorting to ad hoc fixers. As a concrete example, the energy budget terms are diagnosed in a realistic climate simulation using a global atmosphere model. The largest total energy errors in this example are spurious dynamical core energy dissipation, thermodynamic inconsistencies (e.g., coupling parameterizations with the host model) and missing processes/terms associated with falling precipitation and evaporation (e.g., enthalpy flux between components). The latter two errors are not, in general, reduced by increasing horizontal resolution. They are due to incomplete thermodynamic and dynamic formulations. Future research directions are proposed to reconcile and improve thermodynamics formulations and conservation principles.more » « less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
Sensitivity analysis with atmospheric chemical transport models may be used to quantify influences of specific emissions on pollutant concentrations. This information facilitates efficient environmental decision‐making regarding emissions control strategies for pollutants that affect human health and public welfare. The multicomplex step method (MCX) is a sensitivity analysis approach that enables calculation of first‐ and higher‐order sensitivities of a nonlinear algorithm with analytical accuracy. Compared to the well‐known finite difference method, the MCX method is also straight‐forward to compute yet does not suffer from precision errors due to subtracting numbers with common leading digits and eliminates the requirement of tuning the step size. The aerosol inorganic equilibrium thermodynamic model, ISORROPIA, which treats ammonium, chloride, nitrate, sodium, sulfate, calcium, potassium, and magnesium, was augmented to leverage the multicomplex step method (ISORROPIA‐MCX) to analyze the influence that the total amount of a pollutant has on concentrations partitioned into different phases. This enables simultaneous calculation of the first‐order, second‐order, and cross‐sensitivity terms in the Taylor Series expansion when evaluating the impact of changes in input parameters on an output variable, increasing the accuracy of the estimated effect when the functions are nonlinear. ISORROPIA encodes highly nonlinear processes which showcases the computational advantages of the multicomplex step method as well as the limitations of the approach for fractured solution surfaces. With ISORROPIA‐MCX, the influence of total concentrations of aerosol precursors on aerosol acidity are evaluated with cross‐sensitivity terms for the first time.
Abstract For the Community Atmosphere Model version 6 (CAM6), an adjustment is needed to conserve dry air mass. This adjustment exposes an inconsistency in how CAM6’s energy budget incorporates water—in CAM6 water in the vapor phase has energy, but condensed phases of water do not. When water vapor condenses, only its latent energy is retained in the model, while its remaining internal, potential, and kinetic energy are lost. A global fixer is used in the default CAM6 model to maintain global energy conservation, but locally the energy tendency associated with water changing phase violates the divergence theorem. This error in energy tendency is intrinsically tied to the water vapor tendency, and reaches its highest values in regions of heavy rainfall, where the error can be as high as 40 W m −2 annually averaged. Several possible changes are outlined within this manuscript that would allow CAM6 to satisfy the divergence theorem locally. These fall into one of two categories: 1) modifying the surface flux to balance the local atmospheric energy tendency and 2) modifying the local atmospheric tendency to balance the surface plus top-of-atmosphere energy fluxes. To gauge which aspects of the simulated climate are most sensitive to this error, the simplest possible change—where condensed water still does not carry energy and a local energy fixer is used in place of the global one—is implemented within CAM6. Comparing this experiment with the default configuration of CAM6 reveals precipitation, particularly its variability, to be highly sensitive to the energy budget formulation. Significance Statement This study examines and explains spurious regional sources and sinks of energy in a widely used climate model. These energy errors result from not tracking energy associated with water after it transitions from the vapor phase to either liquid or ice. Instead, the model used a global fixer to offset the energy tendency related to the energy sources and sinks associated with condensed water species. We replace this global fixer with a local one to examine the model sensitivity to the regional energy error and find a large sensitivity in the simulated hydrologic cycle. This work suggests that the underlying thermodynamic assumptions in the model should be revisited to build confidence in the model-simulated regional-scale water and energy cycles.more » « less
Atmospheric model systems, such as those used for weather forecast and reanalysis production, often have significant and systematic errors in their representation of the Arctic surface energy budget and its components. The newly available observation data of the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition (2019/2020) enable a range of model analyses and validation in order to advance our understanding of potential model deficiencies. In the present study, we analyze deficiencies in the surface radiative energy budget over Arctic sea ice in the ERA5 global atmospheric reanalysis by comparing against the winter MOSAiC campaign data, as well as, a pan-Arctic level-2 MODIS ice surface temperature remote sensing product. We find that ERA5 can simulate the timing of radiatively clear periods, though it is not able to distinguish the two observed radiative Arctic winter states, radiatively clear and opaquely cloudy, in the distribution of the net surface radiative budget. The ERA5 surface temperature over Arctic sea ice has a conditional error with a positive bias in radiatively clear conditions and a negative bias in opaquely cloudy conditions. The mean surface temperature error is 4°C for radiatively clear situations at MOSAiC and up to 15°C in some parts of the Arctic. The spatial variability of the surface temperature, given by 4 observation sites at MOSAiC, is not captured by ERA5 due to its spatial resolution but represented in the level-2 satellite product. The sensitivity analysis of possible error sources, using satellite products of snow depth and sea ice thickness, shows that the positive surface temperature errors during radiatively clear events are, to a large extent, caused by insufficient sea ice thickness and snow depth representation in the reanalysis system. A positive bias characterizes regions with ice thickness greater than 1.5 m, while the negative bias for thinner ice is partly compensated by the effect of snow.
Random‐noise‐induced biases are inherent issues to the accurate derivation of second‐order statistical parameters (e.g., variances, fluxes, energy densities, and power spectra) from lidar and radar measurements. We demonstrate here for the first time an altitude‐interleaved method for eliminating such biases, following the original proposals by Gardner and Chu (2020,
https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.400375) who demonstrated a time‐interleaved method. Interleaving in altitude bins provides two statistically independent samples over the same time period and nearly the same altitude range, thus enabling the replacement of variances that include the noise‐induced biases with covariances that are intrinsically free of such biases. Comparing the interleaved method with previous variance subtraction (VS) and spectral proportion (SP) methods using gravity wave potential energy density calculated from Antarctic lidar data and from a forward model, this study finds the accuracy and precision of each method differing in various conditions, each with its own strengths and weakness. VS performs well in high‐SNR, yet its accuracy fails at lower‐SNR as it often yields negative values. SP is accurate and precise under high‐SNR, remaining accurate in worse conditions than VS would, yet develops a positive bias under low‐SNR. The interleaved method is accurate in all SNRs but requires a large number of samples to drive random‐noise terms in covariances toward zero and to compensate for the reduced precision due to the splitting of return signals. Therefore, selecting the proper bias removal/elimination method for actual signal and sample conditions is crucial in utilizing lidar/radar data, as neglecting this can conceal trends or overstate atmospheric variability.