Characteristics of, and fundamental differences between, the radiative‐convective equilibrium (RCE) climate states following the Radiative‐Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project (RCEMIP) protocols in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5) and version 6 (CAM6) are presented. This paper explores the characteristics of clouds, moisture, precipitation and circulation in the RCE state, as well as the tropical response to surface warming, in CAM5 and CAM6 with different parameterizations. Overall, CAM5 simulates higher precipitation rates that result in larger global average precipitation, despite lower outgoing longwave radiation compared to CAM6. Differences in the structure of clouds, particularly the amount and vertical location of cloud liquid, exist between the CAM versions and can, in part, be related to distinct representations of shallow convection and boundary layer processes. Both CAM5 and CAM6 simulate similar peaks in cloud fraction, relative humidity, and cloud ice, linked to the usage of a similar deep convection parameterization. These anvil clouds rise and decrease in extent in response to surface warming. More generally, extreme precipitation, aggregation of convection, and climate sensitivity increase with warming in both CAM5 and CAM6. This analysis provides a benchmark for future studies that explore clouds, convection, and climate in CAM with the RCEMIP protocols now available in the Community Earth System Model. These results are discussed within the context of realistic climate simulations using CAM5 and CAM6, highlighting the usefulness of a hierarchical modeling approach to understanding model and parameterization sensitivities to inform model development efforts.
The Single Column Atmosphere Model (SCAM) is a single column model version of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM). Here we describe the functionality and features of SCAM6, available as part of CAM6 in the Community Earth System Model, version 2 (CESM2). SCAM6 features a wide selection of standard cases, as well as the ability to easily configure a case specified by the user based on a particular point in a CAM 3‐D simulation. This work illustrates how SCAM6 reproduces CAM6 results for physical parameterizations, mostly of moisture and clouds. We demonstrate how SCAM6 can be used for model development through different physics selections, as well as with parameter sweep experiments to highlight the sensitivity of cloud properties to the specification of the vapor deposition process in the cloud microphysics. Furthermore, we use SCAM6 to illustrate the sensitivity of CAM6 cloud radiative properties and precipitation to variable drop number (cloud microphysics properties). Finally, we illustrate how SCAM6 can be used to explore critical emergent processes such as cloud feedbacks and show that CAM6 cloud responses to surface warming in stratus and stratocumulus regimes are similar to those in CAM5. CAM6 has a larger response in the shallow cumulus regime than CAM5. CAM6 cloud feedbacks in the shallow cumulus regime are sensitive to turbulence parameters. SCAM6 is thus a valuable tool for model development, evaluation, and scientific analy sis and an important part of the model hierarchy in Community Earth System Model, version 2.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10460675
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1942-2466
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 1381-1401
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract. There has been a growing concern that most climate models predict precipitation that is too frequent, likely due to lack of reliable subgrid variabilityand vertical variations in microphysical processes in low-level warm clouds.In this study, the warm-cloud physics parameterizations in the singe-columnconfigurations of NCAR Community Atmospheric Model version 6 and 5 (SCAM6and SCAM5, respectively) are evaluated using ground-based and airborneobservations from the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Aerosol and Cloud Experiments in the EasternNorth Atlantic (ACE-ENA) field campaign near the Azores islands during2017–2018. The 8-month single-column model (SCM) simulations show that both SCAM6 and SCAM5 cangenerally reproduce marine boundary layer cloud structure, majormacrophysical properties, and their transition. The improvement in warm-cloud properties from the Community Atmospheric Model 5 and 6 (CAM5 to CAM6) physics can be found through comparison with the observations. Meanwhile, both physical schemes underestimate cloud liquidwater content, cloud droplet size, and rain liquid water content butoverestimate surface rainfall. Modeled cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)concentrations are comparable with aircraft-observed ones in the summer but areoverestimated by a factor of 2 in winter, largely due to the biases in thelong-range transport of anthropogenic aerosols like sulfate. We also testthe newly recalibrated autoconversion and accretion parameterizations thataccount for vertical variations in droplet size. Compared to theobservations, more significant improvement is found in SCAM5 than in SCAM6.This result is likely explained by the introduction of subgrid variationsin cloud properties in CAM6 cloud microphysics, which further suppresses thescheme's sensitivity to individual warm-rain microphysical parameters. Thepredicted cloud susceptibilities to CCN perturbations in CAM6 are within areasonable range, indicating significant progress since CAM5 which produces anaerosol indirect effect that is too strong. The present study emphasizes theimportance of understanding biases in cloud physics parameterizations bycombining SCM with in situ observations.
-
more » « less
Abstract Southern Ocean (S. Ocean) clouds are important for climate prediction. Yet previous global climate models failed to accurately represent cloud phase distributions in this observation‐sparse region. In this study, data from the Southern Ocean Clouds, Radiation, Aerosol, Transport Experimental Study (SOCRATES) experiment is compared to constrained simulations from a global climate model (the Community Atmosphere Model, CAM). Nudged versions of CAM are found to reproduce many of the features of detailed in situ observations, such as cloud location, cloud phase, and boundary layer structure. The simulation in CAM6 has improved its representation of S. Ocean clouds with adjustments to the ice nucleation and cloud microphysics schemes that permit more supercooled liquid. Comparisons between modeled and observed hydrometeor size distributions suggest that the modeled hydrometeor size distributions represent the dual peaked shape and form of observed distributions, which is remarkable given the scale difference between model and observations. Comparison to satellite observations of cloud physics is difficult due to model assumptions that do not match retrieval assumptions. Some biases in the model's representation of S. Ocean clouds and aerosols remain, but the detailed cloud physical parameterization provides a basis for process level improvement and direct comparisons to observations. This is crucial because cloud feedbacks and climate sensitivity are sensitive to the representation of S. Ocean clouds.
-
To assess deep convective parameterizations in a variety of GCMs and examine the fast-time-scale convective transition, a set of statistics characterizing the pickup of precipitation as a function of column water vapor (CWV), PDFs and joint PDFs of CWV and precipitation, and the dependence of the moisture–precipitation relation on tropospheric temperature is evaluated using the hourly output of two versions of the GFDL Atmospheric Model, version 4 (AM4), NCAR CAM5 and superparameterized CAM (SPCAM). The 6-hourly output from the MJO Task Force (MJOTF)/GEWEX Atmospheric System Study (GASS) project is also analyzed. Contrasting statistics produced from individual models that primarily differ in representations of moist convection suggest that convective transition statistics can substantially distinguish differences in convective representation and its interaction with the large-scale flow, while models that differ only in spatial–temporal resolution, microphysics, or ocean–atmosphere coupling result in similar statistics. Most of the models simulate some version of the observed sharp increase in precipitation as CWV exceeds a critical value, as well as that convective onset occurs at higher CWV but at lower column RH as temperature increases. While some models quantitatively capture these observed features and associated probability distributions, considerable intermodel spread and departures from observations in various aspects of the precipitation–CWV relationship are noted. For instance, in many of the models, the transition from the low-CWV, nonprecipitating regime to the moist regime for CWV around and above critical is less abrupt than in observations. Additionally, some models overproduce drizzle at low CWV, and some require CWV higher than observed for strong precipitation. For many of the models, it is particularly challenging to simulate the probability distributions of CWV at high temperature.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Climate models struggle to accurately represent the highly reflective boundary layer clouds overlying the remote and stormy Southern Ocean. We use in situ aircraft observations from the Southern Ocean Clouds, Radiation and Aerosol Transport Experimental Study (SOCRATES) to evaluate Southern Ocean clouds in a cloud‐resolving large‐eddy simulation (LES) and two coarse resolution global atmospheric models, the CESM Community Atmosphere Model (CAM6) and the GFDL Atmosphere Model (AM4), run in a nudged hindcast framework. We develop six case studies from SOCRATES data which span the range of observed cloud and boundary layer properties. For each case, the LES is run once forced purely using reanalysis data (fifth generation European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts atmospheric reanalysis, “ERA5 based”) and once strongly nudged to an aircraft profile(“Obs based”). The ERA5‐based LES can be compared with the global models, which are also nudged to reanalysis data and are better for simulating cumulus. The Obs‐based LES closely matches an observed cloud profile and is useful for microphysical comparisons and sensitivity tests and simulating multilayer stratiform clouds. We use two‐moment Morrison microphysics in the LES and find that it simulates too few frozen particles in clouds occurring within the Hallett‐Mossop temperature range. We tweak the Hallett‐Mossop parameterization so that it activates within boundary layer clouds, and we achieve better agreement between observed and simulated microphysics. The nudged global climate models (GCMs) simulate liquid‐dominated mixed‐phase clouds in the stratiform cases but excessively glaciate cumulus clouds. Both GCMs struggle to represent two‐layer clouds, and CAM6 has low droplet concentrations in all cases and underpredicts stratiform cloud‐driven turbulence.
