the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Leveraging Regional Mesh Refinement to Simulate Future Climate Projections for California Using the Simplified Convection Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model Version 0
Peter Bogenschutz
Philip Cameron-smith
Chengzhu Zhang
Abstract. The spatial heterogeneity related to complex topography in California demands high-resolution (<5 km) modeling, but global convection-permitting climate models are computationally too expensive to run multi-decadal simulations. We developed a 3.25 km California regionally refined model (CARRM) using the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) global Simple Cloud Resolution E3SM Atmospheric Model (SCREAM) version 0. Four 5-wateryear time periods (2015–2020, 2029–2034, 2044–2049, 2094–2099) were simulated by nudging CARRM outside California to 1° coupled simulation of E3SMv1 under the SSP5-8.5 future scenario. The 3.25 km grid spacing adds considerable value to the prediction of the California climate changes, including more realistic high temperatures in the Central Valley, much improved spatial distributions of precipitation and snow in the Sierra Nevada and coastal stratocumulus. Under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, CARRM simulation predicts widespread warming of 6–10 °C over most of California, a 38 % increase in statewide average 30-day winter-spring precipitation, a near complete loss of the alpine snowpack, and a sharp reduction in shortwave cloud radiative forcing associated with marine stratocumulus by the end of the 21st century. We note a climatological wet precipitation bias for the CARRM and discuss possible reasons. We conclude that SCREAM-RRM is a technically feasible and scientifically valid tool for climate simulations in regions of interest, providing an excellent bridge to global convection-permitting simulations.
- Preprint
(36136 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Jishi Zhang et al.
Status: open (until 21 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1989', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Nov 2023
reply
The paper of Zhang et al. simulates future climate projections over California using the Simplified Convection Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model Version 0. Overall, the paper is well organized, and it can help in understanding future climate change in the California region, providing more detail due to the higher model resolution. However, some issues still need to be improved. Main concerns about this manuscript are listed below.
1. Why does the author analyze the SSP585 scenario? The author mentions in section 2.1.5 that SSP585 is a worst-case scenario with a high probability that it will not occur. However, many studies show that the warming of the SSP370 scenario cannot be ignored either (IPCC AR6). Of course, it is not necessary for the author to simulate the SSP370 scenario again, but it is necessary to explain it again in the article. I think just referring to the study of Tebaldi et al. is not convincing enough.Reference:
Masson-Delmotte V P, Zhai P, Pirani S L, et al. Ipcc, 2021: Summary for policymakers. in: Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. contribution of working group i to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change[J]. 2021.2. Sometimes the resolution of the model described by the author is 3.25 km (Line 3), and sometimes it is 3 km (Line 47), which needs to be unified.
3. Line 3: the author says that they have “developed” a CARRM model, but after reading the research, I think the author only applies the relevant model to the climate simulation field, so I suggest modifying the relevant expression. In my opinion, designing the new RRM grids and generating the model configurations cannot be considered as “developing” the new model.
4. Figures 1-19: For each subfigure, it is recommended to add legends such as (a) (b).
5. Line 82: The author should briefly introduce the difference between “Modern regionally refined model (RRM)” and convective-permitting model (CPM) in their research. In fact, CPM has been widely used in climate simulations in various regions.Reference:
Prein A F, Langhans W, Fosser G, et al. A review on regional convection‐permitting climate modeling: Demonstrations, prospects, and challenges[J]. Reviews of geophysics, 2015, 53(2): 323-361.Kendon E J, Ban N, Roberts N M, et al. Do convection-permitting regional climate models improve projections of future precipitation change?[J]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2017, 98(1): 79-93.
6. Section 2.1.5: In the historical period, is there any quantitative standard to describe the model's ability to simulate ENSO? This part is very important, because once the model cannot accurately simulate ENSO, the following years are not actually representative. In addition, the author should also emphasize how the simulation results related to future projections are related to ENSO.
7. Line 329: 2-m temperature -> T2m
8. Lines 342-345: Here, the author briefly analyzes the reasons for the biases of model precipitation simulation. In fact, regional climate models generally overestimate the meridional moisture flux. For example, the study of Gao et al. found that the WRF model overestimates southerly wind transport over eastern China. I suggest the authors cite this work to strengthen the reliability of the resultsReference:
Gao Z, Yan X, Dong S, et al. Object-based evaluation of rainfall forecasts over eastern China by eight cumulus parameterization schemes in the WRF model[J]. Atmospheric Research, 2023, 284: 106618.9. Section 3.2.2: In fact, for precipitation, the most obvious added value of the convective-permitting model is the simulation of diurnal variations and MCS. Can the authors show some figures related to diurnal variations in the supplementary material?
Reference:
Guo Z, Fang J, Shao M, et al. Improved summer daily and sub-daily precipitation over Eastern China in convection-permitting simulations[J]. Atmospheric Research, 2022, 265: 105929.Yun Y, Liu C, Luo Y, et al. Warm-season mesoscale convective systems over eastern China: Convection-permitting climate model simulation and observation[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2021, 57: 3599-3617.
10. Section 3.2.4: The author points out that the lack of marine stratocumulus clouds is a common issue in low-resolution model. In fact, for models with higher resolution but not enough to explicitly resolve the cumulus convection process, the simulation of cumulus clouds also has significant shortcomings. Cumulus clouds will release latent heat through condensation, affecting stratus clouds and ground temperature. Authors are advised to cite relevant work:
Reference:
Chikira M, Sugiyama M. A cumulus parameterization with state-dependent entrainment rate. Part I: Description and sensitivity to temperature and humidity profiles[J]. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 2010, 67(7): 2171-2193.Gao Z, Zhao C, Yan X, et al. Effects of cumulus and radiation parameterization on summer surface air temperature over eastern China[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2023, 61(1-2): 559-577.
11. Line 498: Although this is a commonly used variable, give the formula for calculating the short-wave radiative forcing.
12. The author calculated multiple variables in the California region in the research. I would like to know whether these variables have an impact on each other? Or, how are they related? Can the author give a schematic diagram like the following article?Reference:
Wang X, Chen D, Pang G, et al. Effects of cumulus parameterization and land-surface hydrology schemes on Tibetan Plateau climate simulation during the wet season: insights from the RegCM4 model[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2021, 57(7-8): 1853-1879.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1989-RC1
Jishi Zhang et al.
Jishi Zhang et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
166 | 67 | 6 | 239 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 166
- PDF: 67
- XML: 6
- Total: 239
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1