Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1445
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1445
04 May 2026
 | 04 May 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

Spin-up in humidity and temperature and its consequences for convective diagnostics: a Model Uncertainty Model Intercomparison Project experiment

Edward Groot, Hannah Christensen, Xia Sun, Kathryn Newman, Wahiba Lfarh, Romain Roehrig, Lisa Bengtsson, Julia Simonson, Keith Williams, and Hugo Lambert

Abstract. We analyse the evolution of convective diagnostics such as mixed-layer convective available potential energy (CAPE), level of neutral buoyancy and precipitation rate as a function of lead time in the model uncertainty model-intercomparison project. Four model physics packages are exposed to common dynamics to form a large single-column model dataset. We analyse tendencies in an equatorial band over the Indian Ocean out to 6 hr lead time over one month. We prescribe dynamics and initial conditions from an ICON-DYAMOND simulation after coarse-graining to 0.2 degrees. The physics suites represent state-of-the-art global numerical weather and climate prediction models.

Correlation analysis shows that the spatial mean change of CAPE is not associated with precipitation rate, but it correlates very well with mean mixed-layer drying across our suites. This systematic drying occurs below 700 hPa in some suites, especially in the first hour. The sub-grid physics adjusts the initialised ICON state towards the native climate of each physics suite, in particular at low levels.

We apply a column-by-column empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis to a two-layer representation of physics and dynamics tendencies, CAPE tendency and precipitation rate. The first EOF is associated with free-tropospheric tendencies and nearly all precipitation variability, with neat compensation between physics and dynamics tendencies. The second and third EOFs of each suite indicate that a imbalance between these terms in the mixed-layer correlates with the CAPE change at least one of them, which are explained by temperature and humidity adjustments, but with little imprint on precipitation.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Edward Groot, Hannah Christensen, Xia Sun, Kathryn Newman, Wahiba Lfarh, Romain Roehrig, Lisa Bengtsson, Julia Simonson, Keith Williams, and Hugo Lambert

Status: open (until 29 Jun 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Edward Groot, Hannah Christensen, Xia Sun, Kathryn Newman, Wahiba Lfarh, Romain Roehrig, Lisa Bengtsson, Julia Simonson, Keith Williams, and Hugo Lambert

Data sets

Spin-up in the Model Uncertainty Model Intercomparison Project: humidity and temperature adjustment and its consequences for convective diagnostics Edward Groot, Hannah Christensen, Xia Sun, Kathryn Newman, Wahiba Lfarh, and Romain Roehrig https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18174141

Edward Groot, Hannah Christensen, Xia Sun, Kathryn Newman, Wahiba Lfarh, Romain Roehrig, Lisa Bengtsson, Julia Simonson, Keith Williams, and Hugo Lambert
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 04 May 2026
Download
Short summary
We analyse diagnostic variables associated with thunderstorm clouds potential (height) and precipitation in model uncertainty model intercomparison project, where multiple numerical submodels are pre-conditioned with each other. We quantify the adjustment rules that occur in vertical columns the climate simulations. The result is that low-level drying is important for the thunderstorm potential diagnostics, which strongly varies among the models, despite not relating to actual storm occurrence.
Share