High resolution LGM climate over Europe and the Alpine region using the regional climate model WRF

Russo, Emmanuele; Buzan, Jonathan; Lienert, Sebastian; Jouvet, Guillaume; Velasquez Alvarez, Patricio; Davis, Basil; Ludwig, Patrick; Joos, Fortunat; Raible, Christoph

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197

Preprints

27 Jun 2023

| 27 Jun 2023

High resolution LGM climate over Europe and the Alpine region using the regional climate model WRF

Emmanuele Russo, Jonathan Buzan, Sebastian Lienert, Guillaume Jouvet, Patricio Velasquez Alvarez, Basil Davis, Patrick Ludwig, Fortunat Joos, and Christoph Raible

Abstract. In this study we present a series of sensitivity experiments conducted for the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~21000 years ago) over Europe using the regional climate Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF). Using a 4 step 2-way nesting approach, we are able to reach a convection-permitting horizontal resolution over the inner part of the study area, covering Central Europe and the Alpine region. The main objective of the paper is to evaluate a model version including a series of new developments better suitable for the simulation of paleo-glacial time slices with respect to the ones employed in former studies. The evaluation of the model is conducted against newly available pollen-based reconstructions of the LGM European climate and takes into account the effect of two main sources of model uncertainty: a different height of continental glaciers at higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere and different land cover. Model results are in good agreement with evidence from the proxies, in particular for temperatures. Importantly, the consideration of different ensemble members for characterizing model uncertainty allows to increase the agreement of the model against the proxy reconstructions that would be obtained when considering a single model realization. The spread of the produced ensemble is relatively small for temperature, beside areas surrounding glaciers in summer. On the other hand, differences between the different ensemble members are very pronounced for precipitation, in particular in winter over areas highly affected by moisture advection from the Atlantic. This highlights the importance of the considered sources of uncertainty for the study of European LGM climate and allows to determine where the results of an RCM are more likely to be uncertain for the considered case study. Finally, the results are also used to demonstrate the added value of convection-permitting resolutions, at both local and regional scales, under glacial conditions.

Received: 02 Jun 2023 – Discussion started: 27 Jun 2023

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 20683 KB)

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 (20683 KB)

Supplement (1130 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Mar 2024

High-resolution LGM climate of Europe and the Alpine region using the regional climate model WRF

Emmanuele Russo, Jonathan Buzan, Sebastian Lienert, Guillaume Jouvet, Patricio Velasquez Alvarez, Basil Davis, Patrick Ludwig, Fortunat Joos, and Christoph C. Raible

Clim. Past, 20, 449–465, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-449-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-449-2024, 2024

Short summary

Emmanuele Russo, Jonathan Buzan, Sebastian Lienert, Guillaume Jouvet, Patricio Velasquez Alvarez, Basil Davis, Patrick Ludwig, Fortunat Joos, and Christoph Raible

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1197', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jul 2023

The manuscript presents the results of a series of high-resolution regional climate simulations with the model WRF covering Western Europe and focusing on Switzerland for the Last Glacial Maximum. The model set- up improves some of the perceived limitations of previous simulations. In particular, this set of simulations includes some that are convection-permitting and a new estimation of land cover. The simulations are compared with a new pollen-based reconstruction of the Last Glacial Maximum.
The main conclusion is that convection and land cover do alter the distribution of mean temperature and precipitation in this region.

Recommendation: The manuscript is, in my opinion, well and clearly written, but the motivation of the study does not come across as clearly. I have some recommendations that the authors may want to consider in a revised version
Main points

1) The research question and motivations of the study are somewhat unclear. The study presents a new set of simulations, but why are they necessary? What were the deficiencies of previous simulations? Why is a convection-permitting resolution in principle necessary to better simulate the climate of the LGM ? One of the main conclusions is that the resolving convection does have a clear effect on the simulated precipitation, but it remains unclear - unless I missed it in the manuscript - whether the convection scheme improves the simulation of precipitation (and maybe temperature) compared to the reconstructions.

2) The model set-up also includes a small ensemble with different initial conditions (?). The study finds that the ensemble spread can be large for precipitation, but not so much for temperature. However, the length of the simulations is short, just 11 years. Is it possible that the ensemble spread is just due to the short length of the simulations? Could this spread be compared to the decadal variability of precipitation in the present climate?

Particular points

3) ‘However, these increases in model complexity have not generally led to improved model performance when compared against proxy ...’
Could the authors be more specific here? What are the deficiencies of previous simulations that remain unexplained?
4) ‘ Model results are evaluated against a newly developed pollen-based reconstruction database for the European LGM climate.
A reference to the new reconstructions would be helpful here.
5) The starting point of the presented simulations is the results of earlier studies using the same model version (Velasquez et al., 2020, 2021, 2022).’
Same model version? The sentence a bit later in the paragraph says 'previous version'. Could the specific model version used by Velasquez et al. be mentioned here?

6) ‘ D01 and D02, down to a spatial resolution of 18 km and with the convection parameterization switched on, is performed. This experiment is indicated as DEF_noconv in Table 3’
switched off, I guess.

7) These differences are in some cases of the same order of the differences between the different ..’
...order of magnitude as the differences between.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Emmanuele Russo, 31 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1197/egusphere-2023-1197-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-AC1
RC2:
'Review of "High resolution LGM climate over Europe and the Alpine region using the regional climate model WRF" by E. Russo and coauthors', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Sep 2023

SUMMARY
Russo and coauthors apply a regional model nesting approach to dynamically simulate Last Glacial Maximum temperature and precipitation patterns over Europe. They apply the regional Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF) with two-way nesting down to 2km resolution, based on a 28-year high-resolution atmosphere-only Community Earth System Model simulation driven by surface fields out of an equilibrium simulation with the fully coupled atmosphere/ocean version of CESM at lower resolution. They proceed to compare the fields of the simulated climate with, and without, convective parameterizations to that of a pollen-based climate reconstruction (Davis et al., 2022).
The paper is clearly structured, and fairly well written, albeit somewhat dry, dispassionate and with little curiosity for meteorological phenomena underlying the high-resolution weather simulated, and restricting itself to the bare minimum in the climatological analysis in this version of the paper. At 4s/2km resolution, investigating for example storms, or regional effects, could be quite interesting. Some further points are detailed below. All in all a paper that can be improved.

Key Points

- Goals: The authors aim to evaluate an apparently bug-fixed version of WRF against data, and contrast model uncertainties from ice height, land cover and convective parameterizations. These are great points to study. However, the study design does not really allow to understand how the different uncertainties play out against one another (nonfactorial), and looking at the figures in the results and discussion section, as well as the supplement, does not elucidate this further.
- CO2: One potential reason why the model simulations appear biased dry is not discussed: Namely that the used pollen data suggests dryer conditions than warrented. The water-use efficiency under low CO2 conditions is lower, implying that plants are more stressed under similar climatic conditions [1] -- so perhaps the model is less biased than it appears.
- Discussion: Here you could bring in more depth. You could elaborate whether you expect that the results found here dependent on the version of WRF, and on CESM as a host model? The fact that the 28-year global simulation providing input does lead to significant spread in the regional model results is surprising: Where does this divergence come from? Are these nonstationary effects that suggest that the simulation period is too short? This would also imply that averaging over such a short time period may be inappropriate, weakening the justification of one of the assumptions set out (p5 last paragraph).

- Vegetation cover discussion: Given the substantial differences between the land surface conditions fed into the high-resolution simulations -- don't you expect to see effects arising simply from the strongly different land cover, for example in North Africa?

Detailed Points
p2l30 "a series of LGM studies have shown..." this sentence needs references.

p2l35/p3l1-3 Here a differentiation to statistical/statistical-dynamical downscaling should be added.

p3l25 "The starting point .... are the results of earlier studies using hte same model version"... so what? What are the results of the earlier studies that imply one should do the same things? It feels like something is missing here.

p3l29 delete space after 2.3

p4l13 add space after precession

p4l4 these sentences on the glacier scheme are confusing. Does ice become supercritical in NOAH-MP? Or is what is meant that there are melt/refreeze processes in the version used in Velasquez et al. (2021) that produce unphysical temperatures?

p7 sec 2.4 -- A key weakness of Davis et al. (2022) is that it does not address the CO2-caused precipitation bias in the reconstructions, which would be expected to cause a dry bias under the low CO2 conditions.

p8 l13-15 The narrow distribution of precipitation estimates out of the pollen-based reconstructions is perhaps indicative of the dry bias (s. above)

p9 l27 remove "¨"

p9 l32-35 Indeed, the large differences between the ensemble members are remarkable. But going back to the ensemble description, can this be simply due to internal variability in the non-overlapping subsections of the 28-year simulations? (The description of the ensemble design is confusing).

p11 Code and data availability: Fix broken reference.

References:

[1] Prentice et al., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2022.103790

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Emmanuele Russo, 31 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1197/egusphere-2023-1197-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-1197', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jul 2023

The manuscript presents the results of a series of high-resolution regional climate simulations with the model WRF covering Western Europe and focusing on Switzerland for the Last Glacial Maximum. The model set- up improves some of the perceived limitations of previous simulations. In particular, this set of simulations includes some that are convection-permitting and a new estimation of land cover. The simulations are compared with a new pollen-based reconstruction of the Last Glacial Maximum.
The main conclusion is that convection and land cover do alter the distribution of mean temperature and precipitation in this region.

Recommendation: The manuscript is, in my opinion, well and clearly written, but the motivation of the study does not come across as clearly. I have some recommendations that the authors may want to consider in a revised version
Main points

1) The research question and motivations of the study are somewhat unclear. The study presents a new set of simulations, but why are they necessary? What were the deficiencies of previous simulations? Why is a convection-permitting resolution in principle necessary to better simulate the climate of the LGM ? One of the main conclusions is that the resolving convection does have a clear effect on the simulated precipitation, but it remains unclear - unless I missed it in the manuscript - whether the convection scheme improves the simulation of precipitation (and maybe temperature) compared to the reconstructions.

2) The model set-up also includes a small ensemble with different initial conditions (?). The study finds that the ensemble spread can be large for precipitation, but not so much for temperature. However, the length of the simulations is short, just 11 years. Is it possible that the ensemble spread is just due to the short length of the simulations? Could this spread be compared to the decadal variability of precipitation in the present climate?

Particular points

3) ‘However, these increases in model complexity have not generally led to improved model performance when compared against proxy ...’
Could the authors be more specific here? What are the deficiencies of previous simulations that remain unexplained?
4) ‘ Model results are evaluated against a newly developed pollen-based reconstruction database for the European LGM climate.
A reference to the new reconstructions would be helpful here.
5) The starting point of the presented simulations is the results of earlier studies using the same model version (Velasquez et al., 2020, 2021, 2022).’
Same model version? The sentence a bit later in the paragraph says 'previous version'. Could the specific model version used by Velasquez et al. be mentioned here?

6) ‘ D01 and D02, down to a spatial resolution of 18 km and with the convection parameterization switched on, is performed. This experiment is indicated as DEF_noconv in Table 3’
switched off, I guess.

7) These differences are in some cases of the same order of the differences between the different ..’
...order of magnitude as the differences between.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Emmanuele Russo, 31 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1197/egusphere-2023-1197-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-AC1
RC2:
'Review of "High resolution LGM climate over Europe and the Alpine region using the regional climate model WRF" by E. Russo and coauthors', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Sep 2023

SUMMARY
Russo and coauthors apply a regional model nesting approach to dynamically simulate Last Glacial Maximum temperature and precipitation patterns over Europe. They apply the regional Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF) with two-way nesting down to 2km resolution, based on a 28-year high-resolution atmosphere-only Community Earth System Model simulation driven by surface fields out of an equilibrium simulation with the fully coupled atmosphere/ocean version of CESM at lower resolution. They proceed to compare the fields of the simulated climate with, and without, convective parameterizations to that of a pollen-based climate reconstruction (Davis et al., 2022).
The paper is clearly structured, and fairly well written, albeit somewhat dry, dispassionate and with little curiosity for meteorological phenomena underlying the high-resolution weather simulated, and restricting itself to the bare minimum in the climatological analysis in this version of the paper. At 4s/2km resolution, investigating for example storms, or regional effects, could be quite interesting. Some further points are detailed below. All in all a paper that can be improved.

Key Points

- Goals: The authors aim to evaluate an apparently bug-fixed version of WRF against data, and contrast model uncertainties from ice height, land cover and convective parameterizations. These are great points to study. However, the study design does not really allow to understand how the different uncertainties play out against one another (nonfactorial), and looking at the figures in the results and discussion section, as well as the supplement, does not elucidate this further.
- CO2: One potential reason why the model simulations appear biased dry is not discussed: Namely that the used pollen data suggests dryer conditions than warrented. The water-use efficiency under low CO2 conditions is lower, implying that plants are more stressed under similar climatic conditions [1] -- so perhaps the model is less biased than it appears.
- Discussion: Here you could bring in more depth. You could elaborate whether you expect that the results found here dependent on the version of WRF, and on CESM as a host model? The fact that the 28-year global simulation providing input does lead to significant spread in the regional model results is surprising: Where does this divergence come from? Are these nonstationary effects that suggest that the simulation period is too short? This would also imply that averaging over such a short time period may be inappropriate, weakening the justification of one of the assumptions set out (p5 last paragraph).

- Vegetation cover discussion: Given the substantial differences between the land surface conditions fed into the high-resolution simulations -- don't you expect to see effects arising simply from the strongly different land cover, for example in North Africa?

Detailed Points
p2l30 "a series of LGM studies have shown..." this sentence needs references.

p2l35/p3l1-3 Here a differentiation to statistical/statistical-dynamical downscaling should be added.

p3l25 "The starting point .... are the results of earlier studies using hte same model version"... so what? What are the results of the earlier studies that imply one should do the same things? It feels like something is missing here.

p3l29 delete space after 2.3

p4l13 add space after precession

p4l4 these sentences on the glacier scheme are confusing. Does ice become supercritical in NOAH-MP? Or is what is meant that there are melt/refreeze processes in the version used in Velasquez et al. (2021) that produce unphysical temperatures?

p7 sec 2.4 -- A key weakness of Davis et al. (2022) is that it does not address the CO2-caused precipitation bias in the reconstructions, which would be expected to cause a dry bias under the low CO2 conditions.

p8 l13-15 The narrow distribution of precipitation estimates out of the pollen-based reconstructions is perhaps indicative of the dry bias (s. above)

p9 l27 remove "¨"

p9 l32-35 Indeed, the large differences between the ensemble members are remarkable. But going back to the ensemble description, can this be simply due to internal variability in the non-overlapping subsections of the 28-year simulations? (The description of the ensemble design is confusing).

p11 Code and data availability: Fix broken reference.

References:

[1] Prentice et al., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2022.103790

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Emmanuele Russo, 31 Oct 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1197/egusphere-2023-1197-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (04 Nov 2023) by Laurie Menviel

AR by Emmanuele Russo on behalf of the Authors (15 Dec 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (01 Jan 2024) by Laurie Menviel

Dear Emmanuele Russo,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. While some clarification have been provided, additional clarifications are needed before publication. I detail my comments at the end of the email. I look forward receiving your revised manuscript and send you my best wishes for the new year.

Laurie Menviel

1) It is not very clear from the text that the DEF, xICE and BIOME experiments are part of the 5-member ensemble. Given the significant impact of the ice-sheet height on the European climate (as shown in Fig. S1-S4), does it make sense to include all these experiments in an ensemble?
If you still want to proceed this way, I think that i) you should clearly explain your rationale in putting together experiments with different ice-sheet/vegetation forcing and ii) should also show and discuss the results of the different experiments alongside the “ensemble” in the main manuscript. It is indeed a pity to have performed all these experiments with different ice-sheet height and not discuss the broad impact it has on European climate.

2) Is there a similar WRF experiment for pre-industrial or present-day conditions that could be used to compare your LGM results with? Comparing simulated LGM anomalies with anomalies estimated by proxy records would provide more information on the LGM climatic change and the processes leading to them.

3) Please show the ice-sheet forcing for the DEF and xICE experiments either in the main ms or SI.

4) Please move Fig. 2 to the supplementary as it does not seem to be central to the manuscript, and you do not compare your results to the ones obtained with experiments performed with present-day orbital parameters.

5) In the methods you discuss the experiment “BIOME” whereas in figure 3 you present BIOME1 and BIOME2. Please adjust the methods, so that BIOME1 and BIOME2 are accurately introduced.

6) Conclusions, L. 23 (tracked changes): I think you are referring here to “uncertainties related to the LGM ice-sheet height and extent as well as LGM biome distribution” and not “model uncertainties”. Please make sure this is also clear in other parts of the manuscript.

7) Figure 7: I think here you are showing “anomalies” and not “bias”.

8) Figures S1-S4: I think here you are showing “anomalies” and not “bias”, also please make sure you are comparing each experiment to DEF and not to the ensemble mean.

Hide

AR by Emmanuele Russo on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (31 Jan 2024) by Laurie Menviel

AR by Emmanuele Russo on behalf of the Authors (31 Jan 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Mar 2024

High-resolution LGM climate of Europe and the Alpine region using the regional climate model WRF

Emmanuele Russo, Jonathan Buzan, Sebastian Lienert, Guillaume Jouvet, Patricio Velasquez Alvarez, Basil Davis, Patrick Ludwig, Fortunat Joos, and Christoph C. Raible

Clim. Past, 20, 449–465, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-449-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-449-2024, 2024

Short summary

Emmanuele Russo, Jonathan Buzan, Sebastian Lienert, Guillaume Jouvet, Patricio Velasquez Alvarez, Basil Davis, Patrick Ludwig, Fortunat Joos, and Christoph Raible

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1197-supplement

Emmanuele Russo, Jonathan Buzan, Sebastian Lienert, Guillaume Jouvet, Patricio Velasquez Alvarez, Basil Davis, Patrick Ludwig, Fortunat Joos, and Christoph Raible

Viewed

Total article views: 571 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
372	167	32	571	55	25	19

HTML: 372
PDF: 167
XML: 32
Total: 571
Supplement: 55
BibTeX: 25
EndNote: 19

Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	73	27	4	104
Jul 2023	91	26	4	121
Aug 2023	58	23	2	83
Sep 2023	42	19	4	65
Oct 2023	34	12	3	49
Nov 2023	27	11	7	45
Dec 2023	11	8	4	23
Jan 2024	15	14	3	32
Feb 2024	10	20	0	30
Mar 2024	11	7	1	19

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	73	27	4	104
Jul 2023	91	26	4	121
Aug 2023	58	23	2	83
Sep 2023	42	19	4	65
Oct 2023	34	12	3	49
Nov 2023	27	11	7	45
Dec 2023	11	8	4	23
Jan 2024	15	14	3	32
Feb 2024	10	20	0	30
Mar 2024	11	7	1	19

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 561 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 561 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 12 Mar 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (20683 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We present a series of experiments conducted for the Last Glacial Maximum (~21000 years ago) over Europe using the regional climate Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF) at convection-permitting resolutions. The model, with new developments better suitable for paleo studies, agrees well with pollen-based climate reconstructions. This agreement is improved when considering different sources of uncertainty. The added value of convection-permitting resolutions is also demonstrated.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0