Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

The Hydrologic and Thermodynamic Characteristics of the NCAR CCM3

James J. Hack National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by James J. Hack in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Jeffrey T. Kiehl National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Jeffrey T. Kiehl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
James W. Hurrell National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by James W. Hurrell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jun 1998
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<1179:THATCO>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1179–1206
Restricted access

Abstract

Climatological properties for selected aspects of the thermodynamic structure and hydrologic cycle are presented from a 15-yr numerical simulation conducted with the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model, version 3 (CCM3), using an observed sea surface temperature climatology. In most regards, the simulated thermal structure and hydrologic cycle represent a marked improvement when compared with earlier versions of the CCM. Three major modifications to parameterized physics are primarily responsible for the more notable improvements in the simulation: modifications to the diagnosis of cloud optical properties, modifications to the diagnosis of boundary layer processes, and the incorporation of a penetrative formulation for deep cumulus convection. The various roles of these physical parameterization changes will be discussed in the context of the simulation strengths and weaknesses.

Corresponding author address: Dr. James J. Hack, NCAR/CGD, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Abstract

Climatological properties for selected aspects of the thermodynamic structure and hydrologic cycle are presented from a 15-yr numerical simulation conducted with the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model, version 3 (CCM3), using an observed sea surface temperature climatology. In most regards, the simulated thermal structure and hydrologic cycle represent a marked improvement when compared with earlier versions of the CCM. Three major modifications to parameterized physics are primarily responsible for the more notable improvements in the simulation: modifications to the diagnosis of cloud optical properties, modifications to the diagnosis of boundary layer processes, and the incorporation of a penetrative formulation for deep cumulus convection. The various roles of these physical parameterization changes will be discussed in the context of the simulation strengths and weaknesses.

Corresponding author address: Dr. James J. Hack, NCAR/CGD, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Save
Cover Journal of Climate
Journal of Climate

  • Boer, G. J., and Coauthors, 1992: Some results from an intercomparison of the climates simulated by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res.,97, 12 771–12 786.

  • Bonan, G. B., 1996: A land surface model (LSM version 1.0) for ecological, hydrological, and atmospheric studies: Technical description and user’s guide. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-417+STR, 150 pp. [Available from NCAR, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • ——, 1998: The land surface climatology of the NCAR Land Surface Model (LSM 1.0) coupled to the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM3). J. Climate,11, 1307–1326.

  • Boville, B. A., and P. R. Gent, 1998: The NCAR Climate System Model, version one. J. Climate,11, 1115–1130.

  • Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1990: Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in nineteen atmospheric general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res.,95, 16 601–16 615.

  • Chahine, M. T., 1992: The hydrologic cycle and its influence on climate. Nature,359, 373–380.

  • Doney, S. C., W. G. Large, and F. O. Bryan, 1997: Surface ocean fluxes and water mass transformation rates in the coupled NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate,11, 1420–1441.

  • Greenwald, T. J., G. L. Stephens, S. A. Christopher, and T. H. Vonder Haar, 1995: Observations of the global characteristics and regional radiative effects of marine cloud liquid water. J. Climate,8, 2928–2946.

  • Hack, J. J., 1994: Parameterization of moist convection in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model (CCM2). J. Geophys. Res.,99, 5551–5568.

  • ——, 1998a: Sensitivity of the simulated climate to a diagnostic formulation for cloud liquid water. J. Climate, in press.

  • ——, 1998b: An analysis of the improvement in implied meridional ocean energy transport as simulated by the NCAR CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1237–1244.

  • ——, B. A. Boville, B. P. Briegleb, J. T. Kiehl, P. J. Rasch, and D. L. Williamson, 1993: Description of the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM2). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-382+STR, 108 pp. [NTIS PB93-221802/AS.].

  • ——, ——, J. T. Kiehl, P. J. Rasch, and D. L. Williamson, 1994: Climate statistics from the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM2). J. Geophys. Res.,99, 20 785–20 813.

  • Hurrell, J. W., and G. G. Campbell, 1992: Monthly mean global satellite data sets available in CCM history tape format. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-371+STR, 94 pp. [Available from NCAR, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • ——, J. J. Hack, and D. P. Baumhefner, 1993: Comparison of NCAR Community Model climates. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-395+STR, 335 pp. [Available from NCAR, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • ——, ——, B. A. Boville, D. L. Williamson, and J. T. Kiehl, 1998:The dynamical simulation of the NCAR Community Climate Model: CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1207–1236.

  • Kalnay, E., and Coauthors, 1996: The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,77, 437–471.

  • Kiehl, J. T., 1994a: Sensitivity of a GCM climate simulation to differences in continental versus maritime cloud drop size. J. Geophys. Res.,99, 23 107–23 115.

  • ——, 1994b: Clouds and their effect on the climate system. Phys. Today,47, 36–42.

  • ——, 1998: Simulation of the tropical Pacific warm pool with the NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate,11, 1342–1355.

  • ——, and K. E. Trenberth, 1997: Earth’s annual global mean energy budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,78, 197–208.

  • ——, J. J. Hack, and B. P. Briegleb, 1994: The simulated earth radiation budget of the NCAR CCM2 and comparisons with the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). J. Geophys. Res.,99, 20 815–20 827.

  • ——, ——, G. B. Bonan, B. A. Boville, B. P. Briegleb, D. L. Williamson, and P. J. Rasch, 1996: Description of the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM3). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN420+STR, 152 pp. [Available from NCAR, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • ——, ——, ——, ——, D. L. Williamson, and P. J. Rasch, 1998a: The National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model: CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1131–1149.

  • ——, ——, and J. W. Hurrell, 1998b: The energy budget of the NCAR Community Climate Model: CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1151–1178.

  • Lau, W. K.-M., Y. C. Sud, and J. H. Kim, 1995: Intercomparison of hydrologic processes in global climate models. NASA Tech. Memo. 104617, Goddard Space Flight Center, 161 pp. [Available from NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771.].

  • Oberhuber, J. M., 1988: An atlas based on the “COADS” dataset: The budgets of heat, bouyancy and turbulent kinetic energy at the surface of the global ocean. Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology Rep. 15, 199 pp. [Available from Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Bundesstr. 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany.].

  • Randel, D. L., T. H. Vonder Haar, M. A. Ringerud, G. L. Stephens, T. J. Greenwald, and C. L. Combs, 1996: A new global water vapor dataset. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,77, 1233–1246.

  • Riehl, H., 1965: Introduction to the Atmosphere. McGraw Hill, 410 pp.

  • Rossow, W. B., and Y.-C. Zhang, 1995: Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP data sets. Part II: Validation and first results. J. Geophys. Res.,100, 1167–1197.

  • Stephens, G. L., and P. J. Webster, 1981: Clouds and climate: Sensitivity of simple systems. J. Atmos. Sci.,38, 235–247.

  • Sundqvist, H., 1988: Parameterization of condensation and associated clouds in models for weather prediction and general circulation simulation. Physically-Based Modelling and Simulation of Climate and Climatic Change, M. E. Schlesinger, Ed., Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic, 433–461.

  • Trenberth, K. E., and C. J. Guillemot, 1995: Evaluation of the global atmospheric moisture budget as seen from analyses. J. Climate,8, 2255–2272.

  • Warren, S. G., C. J. Hahn, J. London, R. M. Chervin, and R. L. Jenne, 1988: Global distribution of total cloud cover and cloud type amounts over the ocean. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-317+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. [Available from National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.].

  • Weng, F., and N. C. Grody, 1996: Retrieval of cloud liquid water using the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I). J. Geophys. Res.,99, 25 535–25 551.

  • Wielicki, B. A., R. D. Cess, M. D. King, D. A. Randall, and E. F. Harrison, 1995: Mission to planet earth: Role of clouds and radiation in climate. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,76, 2125–2153.

  • Williamson, D. L., and J. G. Olson, 1998: A comparison of semi-Lagrangian and Eulerian polar climate simulations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 991–1000.

  • Xie, P., and P. A. Arkin, 1996: Analyses of global monthly precipitation using gauge observations, satellite estimates, and numerical model predictions. J. Climate,9, 840–858.

  • Zhang, G. J., and N. A. McFarlane, 1995: Sensitivity of climate simulations to the parameterization of cumulus convection in the Canadian Climate Centre general circulation model. Atmos.–Ocean,33, 407–446.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 297 88 4
PDF Downloads 132 36 2