A Multiscale Modeling System: Developments, Applications, and Critical IssuesSource: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:;2009:;volume( 090 ):;issue: 004::page 515Author:Tao, Wei-Kuo
,
Lau, William
,
Simpson, Joanne
,
Chern, Jiun-Dar
,
Atlas, Robert
,
Randall, David
,
Khairoutdinov, Marat
,
Li, Jui-Lin
,
Waliser, Duane E.
,
Jiang, Jonathan
,
Hou, Arthur
,
Lin, Xin
,
Peters-Lidard, Christa
DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2542.1Publisher: American Meteorological Society
Abstract: A multiscale modeling framework (MMF), which replaces the conventional cloud parameterizations with a cloud-resolving model (CRM) in each grid column of a GCM, constitutes a new and promising approach for climate modeling. The MMF can provide for global coverage and two-way interactions between the CRMs and their parent GCM. The CRM allows for explicit simulation of cloud processes and their interactions with radiation and surface processes, and the GCM allows for global coverage. A new MMF has been developed that is based on the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) finite-volume GCM (fvGCM) and the Goddard Cumulus Ensemble (GCE) model. This Goddard MMF produces many features that are similar to another MMF that was developed at Colorado State University (CSU), such as an improved surface precipitation pattern, better cloudiness, improved diurnal variability over both oceans and continents, and a stronger propagating Madden?Julian oscillation (MJO) compared to their parent GCMs using traditional cloud parameterizations. Both MMFs also produce a large and positive precipitation bias in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific during the Northern Hemisphere summer. However, there are also notable differences between the two MMFs. For example, the CSU MMF simulates less rainfall over land than its parent GCM. This is why the CSU MMF simulated less overall global rainfall than its parent GCM. The Goddard MMF simulates more global rainfall than its parent GCM because of the high contribution from the oceanic component. A number of critical issues (i.e., the CRM's physical processes and its configuration) involving the Goddard MMF are discussed in this paper.
|
Collections
Show full item record
contributor author | Tao, Wei-Kuo | |
contributor author | Lau, William | |
contributor author | Simpson, Joanne | |
contributor author | Chern, Jiun-Dar | |
contributor author | Atlas, Robert | |
contributor author | Randall, David | |
contributor author | Khairoutdinov, Marat | |
contributor author | Li, Jui-Lin | |
contributor author | Waliser, Duane E. | |
contributor author | Jiang, Jonathan | |
contributor author | Hou, Arthur | |
contributor author | Lin, Xin | |
contributor author | Peters-Lidard, Christa | |
date accessioned | 2017-06-09T16:21:53Z | |
date available | 2017-06-09T16:21:53Z | |
date copyright | 2009/04/01 | |
date issued | 2009 | |
identifier issn | 0003-0007 | |
identifier other | ams-66512.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4207857 | |
description abstract | A multiscale modeling framework (MMF), which replaces the conventional cloud parameterizations with a cloud-resolving model (CRM) in each grid column of a GCM, constitutes a new and promising approach for climate modeling. The MMF can provide for global coverage and two-way interactions between the CRMs and their parent GCM. The CRM allows for explicit simulation of cloud processes and their interactions with radiation and surface processes, and the GCM allows for global coverage. A new MMF has been developed that is based on the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) finite-volume GCM (fvGCM) and the Goddard Cumulus Ensemble (GCE) model. This Goddard MMF produces many features that are similar to another MMF that was developed at Colorado State University (CSU), such as an improved surface precipitation pattern, better cloudiness, improved diurnal variability over both oceans and continents, and a stronger propagating Madden?Julian oscillation (MJO) compared to their parent GCMs using traditional cloud parameterizations. Both MMFs also produce a large and positive precipitation bias in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific during the Northern Hemisphere summer. However, there are also notable differences between the two MMFs. For example, the CSU MMF simulates less rainfall over land than its parent GCM. This is why the CSU MMF simulated less overall global rainfall than its parent GCM. The Goddard MMF simulates more global rainfall than its parent GCM because of the high contribution from the oceanic component. A number of critical issues (i.e., the CRM's physical processes and its configuration) involving the Goddard MMF are discussed in this paper. | |
publisher | American Meteorological Society | |
title | A Multiscale Modeling System: Developments, Applications, and Critical Issues | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 90 | |
journal issue | 4 | |
journal title | Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society | |
identifier doi | 10.1175/2008BAMS2542.1 | |
journal fristpage | 515 | |
journal lastpage | 534 | |
tree | Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:;2009:;volume( 090 ):;issue: 004 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |