How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?

Abstract This study assesses a 40‐day 3.25‐km global simulation of the Simple Cloud‐Resolving E3SM Model (SCREAMv0) using high‐resolution ground‐based observations from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Green Ocean Amazon (GoAmazon) field campaign. SCREAMv0 reasonably captures the diurnal...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jingjing Tian, Yunyan Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Christopher R. Terai, Peter M. Caldwell, Hassan Beydoun, Peter Bogenschutz, Hsi‐Yen Ma, Aaron S. Donahue
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2024-07-01
Series:Geophysical Research Letters
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL108113
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849321353643032576
author Jingjing Tian
Yunyan Zhang
Stephen A. Klein
Christopher R. Terai
Peter M. Caldwell
Hassan Beydoun
Peter Bogenschutz
Hsi‐Yen Ma
Aaron S. Donahue
author_facet Jingjing Tian
Yunyan Zhang
Stephen A. Klein
Christopher R. Terai
Peter M. Caldwell
Hassan Beydoun
Peter Bogenschutz
Hsi‐Yen Ma
Aaron S. Donahue
author_sort Jingjing Tian
collection DOAJ
description Abstract This study assesses a 40‐day 3.25‐km global simulation of the Simple Cloud‐Resolving E3SM Model (SCREAMv0) using high‐resolution ground‐based observations from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Green Ocean Amazon (GoAmazon) field campaign. SCREAMv0 reasonably captures the diurnal timing of boundary layer clouds yet underestimates the boundary layer cloud fraction and mid‐level congestus. SCREAMv0 well replicates the precipitation diurnal cycle, however it exhibits biases in the precipitation cluster size distribution compared to scanning radar observations. Specifically, SCREAMv0 overproduces clusters smaller than 128 km, and does not form enough large clusters. Such biases suggest an inhibition of convective upscale growth, preventing isolated deep convective clusters from evolving into larger mesoscale systems. This model bias is partially attributed to the misrepresentation of land‐atmosphere coupling. This study highlights the potential use of high‐resolution ground‐based observations to diagnose convective processes in global storm resolving model simulations, identify key model deficiencies, and guide future process‐oriented model sensitivity tests and detailed analyses.
format Article
id doaj-art-a254aec4d3bc4ef788a67f21d9bc2f55
institution Kabale University
issn 0094-8276
1944-8007
language English
publishDate 2024-07-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Geophysical Research Letters
spelling doaj-art-a254aec4d3bc4ef788a67f21d9bc2f552025-08-20T03:49:46ZengWileyGeophysical Research Letters0094-82761944-80072024-07-015114n/an/a10.1029/2023GL108113How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?Jingjing Tian0Yunyan Zhang1Stephen A. Klein2Christopher R. Terai3Peter M. Caldwell4Hassan Beydoun5Peter Bogenschutz6Hsi‐Yen Ma7Aaron S. Donahue8Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USAAbstract This study assesses a 40‐day 3.25‐km global simulation of the Simple Cloud‐Resolving E3SM Model (SCREAMv0) using high‐resolution ground‐based observations from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Green Ocean Amazon (GoAmazon) field campaign. SCREAMv0 reasonably captures the diurnal timing of boundary layer clouds yet underestimates the boundary layer cloud fraction and mid‐level congestus. SCREAMv0 well replicates the precipitation diurnal cycle, however it exhibits biases in the precipitation cluster size distribution compared to scanning radar observations. Specifically, SCREAMv0 overproduces clusters smaller than 128 km, and does not form enough large clusters. Such biases suggest an inhibition of convective upscale growth, preventing isolated deep convective clusters from evolving into larger mesoscale systems. This model bias is partially attributed to the misrepresentation of land‐atmosphere coupling. This study highlights the potential use of high‐resolution ground‐based observations to diagnose convective processes in global storm resolving model simulations, identify key model deficiencies, and guide future process‐oriented model sensitivity tests and detailed analyses.https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL108113cloud and precipitationconvective processglobal storm resolving modelatmospheric radiation measurement observationsremote sensingmodel evaluation
spellingShingle Jingjing Tian
Yunyan Zhang
Stephen A. Klein
Christopher R. Terai
Peter M. Caldwell
Hassan Beydoun
Peter Bogenschutz
Hsi‐Yen Ma
Aaron S. Donahue
How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?
Geophysical Research Letters
cloud and precipitation
convective process
global storm resolving model
atmospheric radiation measurement observations
remote sensing
model evaluation
title How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?
title_full How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?
title_fullStr How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?
title_full_unstemmed How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?
title_short How Well Does the DOE Global Storm Resolving Model Simulate Clouds and Precipitation Over the Amazon?
title_sort how well does the doe global storm resolving model simulate clouds and precipitation over the amazon
topic cloud and precipitation
convective process
global storm resolving model
atmospheric radiation measurement observations
remote sensing
model evaluation
url https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL108113
work_keys_str_mv AT jingjingtian howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT yunyanzhang howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT stephenaklein howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT christopherrterai howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT petermcaldwell howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT hassanbeydoun howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT peterbogenschutz howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT hsiyenma howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon
AT aaronsdonahue howwelldoesthedoeglobalstormresolvingmodelsimulatecloudsandprecipitationovertheamazon