the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical descriptions of the experimental dynamical downscaling simulations over North America by the CAM5.4-MPAS4.0 variable-resolution model
Abstract. Comprehensive assessment of climate datasets is important for communicating to stakeholders model projections and associated uncertainties. Uncertainties can arise not only from assumptions and biases within the model but also from external factors such as computational constraint and data processing. To understand sources of uncertainties in global variable-resolution (VR) dynamical downscaling, we produced a regional climate dataset using the Model for Prediction Across Scales dynamical core coupled to the Community Atmosphere Model version 5.4 (CAM-MPAS). This document provides technical details of the model configuration, simulations, computational requirements, post-processing, and data archive of the experimental CAM-MPAS downscaling data.
The CAM-MPAS model is configured with VR meshes featuring higher resolutions over North America, as well as quasi-uniform resolution meshes across the globe. The dataset includes multiple uniform- (240 and 120 km) and variable-resolution (50–200, 25–100, and 12–46 km) simulations for both the present-day (1990–2010) and future (2080–2100) periods, closely following the protocol of the North American Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment. A deviation from the protocol is the pseudo-warming experiment for the future period, using the ocean boundary conditions produced by adding the sea surface temperature and sea ice changes from the low resolution version of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase five to the present-day ocean state from a reanalysis product.
Some unique aspects of global VR models are evaluated to provide background knowledge to data users and to explore good practices for modelers who use VR models for regional downscaling. In the coarse-resolution domain, strong resolution-sensitivity of the hydrological cycles exists over the tropics but does not appear to affect the mid-latitude circulations in the Northern Hemisphere including the downscaling target of North America. The pseudo-warming experiment leads to similar responses of large-scale circulations to the imposed radiative and boundary forcings in the CAM-MPAS and MPI models, but their climatological states in the historical period differ over various regions including North America. Such differences are carried to the future period, suggesting the importance of the base state climatology. Within the refined domain, precipitation statistics improve with higher resolutions, and such statistical inference is verified to be negligibly influenced by horizontal remapping during post-processing. Limited (≈ 50 % slower) throughput of the current code is found on a recent many-core/wide-vector High Performance Computing system, which limits the lengths of the 12–46 km simulations and indirectly affects the uncertainty from sampling. Our experience shows that global and technical aspects of VR downscaling framework require further investigations to reduce uncertainties for regional refinement.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(53685 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(53685 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1199', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2022-1199/egusphere-2022-1199-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koichi Sakaguchi, 07 Mar 2023
Thank you very much for your time and constuctive suggestions. The suggestions are very helpful, espesically those for Figure 2 where we explain the coupling between CAM and MPAS, organization of the model experiment section, and appendix tables where we found several mistakes.Â
I have made draft changes to incorporate the comments and shared them with my co-authors. We look forward to uploading the revised version and formal reply to you after the discussion period ends.
Best,
KoichiÂ
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1199-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koichi Sakaguchi, 07 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1199', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Mar 2023
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of new global climate model simulation using CAM5.4-MPAS4.0 and variable-resolution grid.
Key features of the paper include:
* Thorough description of the modeling system and variable grid structure.
* Detailed outline of simulation protocol for pseudo global warming experiments.
* Evaluation of computational performance of various variable and fixed grids.
* Overview of the simulated current and future climates from one of the variable-grid experiments.These experiments are innovative and explore several important and emerging issues in climate modeling. As a technical paper describing these methods and results, I find the paper well written and comprehensive. I recommend publication.
Reading with an eye to how one might use these simulations, I feel there are several issues with the experimental protocol that are not adequately addressed. These issues may be better explored in subsequent research, but I feel they need to be raised here. Primarily, there are many elements being varied among the simulations compared so it is difficult to assess which is responsible for the results. A couple examples:
1) The global precipitation increases with model resolution is not intuitive and is made more complex do to tuning of the convective scheme.Â
2) The delta SST is taken from MPI and may not be consistent with the circulation shift seen in the free-running CAM model.
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1199-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koichi Sakaguchi, 17 Mar 2023
Thank you very much for reading through our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback with the two specific points.Â
We agree that resolution-sensitivity of modeled precipitation is quite complex, and will state that drawing denitive conclution about the underlying mechanisms (including the tuning of convection parameterization) requires more systematic experiments.
The second point is a great point that I (lead author) did not think about. If I understand correctly, possible incosistency referred to by reviewer #2 arises from our simulations being an uncoupled atmosphere-only run and using SST & delta T derived from a different climate model & reanalysis, rather than from the fully coupled version of the same CESM (CAM-MPAS) model. My current thinking is that as the atmosphere-only CAM responds to a prescribed SST pattern, the simulated response itself is physically consistent to the extent CAM reproduces the real atmosphere, but again without feeding back to the ocean circulation. This point is probably more relevant to global VR models than to regional climate models. We will mention this second point in the revised manuscript as well, most likely in the section 5.2.2 Future Climate section  (I will give it more thoughts and discuss with co-authors) .
Best regards,
Koichi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1199-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koichi Sakaguchi, 17 Mar 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1199', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2022-1199/egusphere-2022-1199-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koichi Sakaguchi, 07 Mar 2023
Thank you very much for your time and constuctive suggestions. The suggestions are very helpful, espesically those for Figure 2 where we explain the coupling between CAM and MPAS, organization of the model experiment section, and appendix tables where we found several mistakes.Â
I have made draft changes to incorporate the comments and shared them with my co-authors. We look forward to uploading the revised version and formal reply to you after the discussion period ends.
Best,
KoichiÂ
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1199-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koichi Sakaguchi, 07 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1199', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Mar 2023
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of new global climate model simulation using CAM5.4-MPAS4.0 and variable-resolution grid.
Key features of the paper include:
* Thorough description of the modeling system and variable grid structure.
* Detailed outline of simulation protocol for pseudo global warming experiments.
* Evaluation of computational performance of various variable and fixed grids.
* Overview of the simulated current and future climates from one of the variable-grid experiments.These experiments are innovative and explore several important and emerging issues in climate modeling. As a technical paper describing these methods and results, I find the paper well written and comprehensive. I recommend publication.
Reading with an eye to how one might use these simulations, I feel there are several issues with the experimental protocol that are not adequately addressed. These issues may be better explored in subsequent research, but I feel they need to be raised here. Primarily, there are many elements being varied among the simulations compared so it is difficult to assess which is responsible for the results. A couple examples:
1) The global precipitation increases with model resolution is not intuitive and is made more complex do to tuning of the convective scheme.Â
2) The delta SST is taken from MPI and may not be consistent with the circulation shift seen in the free-running CAM model.
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1199-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koichi Sakaguchi, 17 Mar 2023
Thank you very much for reading through our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback with the two specific points.Â
We agree that resolution-sensitivity of modeled precipitation is quite complex, and will state that drawing denitive conclution about the underlying mechanisms (including the tuning of convection parameterization) requires more systematic experiments.
The second point is a great point that I (lead author) did not think about. If I understand correctly, possible incosistency referred to by reviewer #2 arises from our simulations being an uncoupled atmosphere-only run and using SST & delta T derived from a different climate model & reanalysis, rather than from the fully coupled version of the same CESM (CAM-MPAS) model. My current thinking is that as the atmosphere-only CAM responds to a prescribed SST pattern, the simulated response itself is physically consistent to the extent CAM reproduces the real atmosphere, but again without feeding back to the ocean circulation. This point is probably more relevant to global VR models than to regional climate models. We will mention this second point in the revised manuscript as well, most likely in the section 5.2.2 Future Climate section  (I will give it more thoughts and discuss with co-authors) .
Best regards,
Koichi
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1199-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koichi Sakaguchi, 17 Mar 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
326 | 81 | 13 | 420 | 4 | 2 |
- HTML: 326
- PDF: 81
- XML: 13
- Total: 420
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Koichi Sakaguchi
L. Ruby Leung
Colin M. Zarzycki
Jihyeon Jang
Seth McGinnis
Bryce E. Harrop
William C. Skamarock
Andrew Gettelman
Chun Zhao
William J. Gutowski
Stephen Leak
Linda Mearns
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(53685 KB) - Metadata XML