Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

A Comparison of the Atmospheric Circulations Simulated by the CCM3 and CSM1

Byron A. Boville National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Byron A. Boville 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<1327:ACOTAC>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1327–1341
Restricted access

Abstract

The atmospheric state simulated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate Model, version 3 (CCM3), is compared to that simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model, version 1 (CSM1). CCM3 is an atmospheric general circulation model that uses specified sea surface temperatures (SSTs) for a lower boundary condition. Observed monthly mean SSTs for 1979–93 were used in the present study. CSM1 is a coupled general circulation model in which the SSTs are determined as part of the simulation and CCM3 serves as the atmospheric component. It is found that the differences between CCM3 and CSM1 are quite small in most measures of the atmospheric circulation, consistent with the accurate and drift-free simulation of the SSTs in the coupled model. There are substantial temperature differences near the surface in the Arctic and over the ocean around Antarctica, resulting from different sea-ice distributions. The tropical precipitation also has significant differences, although neither simulation is clearly better and the errors in the two simulations tend to have opposite signs with respect to observations. In response to the change in latent heat release the tropical divergent circulation changes significantly. Middle- and high-latitude circulation changes are modest, occurring mostly in winter in association with the sea-ice changes.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Byron A. Boville, NCAR/CGD, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Email: bovill@ucar.edu

Abstract

The atmospheric state simulated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate Model, version 3 (CCM3), is compared to that simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model, version 1 (CSM1). CCM3 is an atmospheric general circulation model that uses specified sea surface temperatures (SSTs) for a lower boundary condition. Observed monthly mean SSTs for 1979–93 were used in the present study. CSM1 is a coupled general circulation model in which the SSTs are determined as part of the simulation and CCM3 serves as the atmospheric component. It is found that the differences between CCM3 and CSM1 are quite small in most measures of the atmospheric circulation, consistent with the accurate and drift-free simulation of the SSTs in the coupled model. There are substantial temperature differences near the surface in the Arctic and over the ocean around Antarctica, resulting from different sea-ice distributions. The tropical precipitation also has significant differences, although neither simulation is clearly better and the errors in the two simulations tend to have opposite signs with respect to observations. In response to the change in latent heat release the tropical divergent circulation changes significantly. Middle- and high-latitude circulation changes are modest, occurring mostly in winter in association with the sea-ice changes.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Byron A. Boville, NCAR/CGD, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Email: bovill@ucar.edu

Save
Cover Journal of Climate
Journal of Climate

  • Bonan, G., 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.

  • Briegleb, B. P., and D. H. Bromwich, 1998a: Polar radiation budgets of the NCAR CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1246–1269.

  • ——, and ——, 1998b: Polar climate simulation of the NCAR CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1270–1286.

  • Bryan, F. O., 1998: Climate drift in a multicentury integration of the NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate,11, 1457–1473.

  • Flato, G. M., and W. D. Hibler, 1992: Modeling ice pack as a cavitating fluid. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,22, 626–651.

  • Gates, W. L., 1992: AMIP: The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,72, 1962–1970.

  • Gent, P. R., J. Willebrand, T. J. McDougall, and J. C. McWilliams, 1995: Parameterizing eddy-induced tracer transports in ocean circulation models. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,25, 463–474.

  • ——, F. O. Bryan, G. Danabasoglu, S. C. Doney, W. R. Holland, W. G. Large, and J. C. McWilliams, 1998: The NCAR Climate System Model global ocean component. J. Climate,11, 1287–1306.

  • Hack, J. J., 1994: Parameterization of moist convection in the NCARCommunity Climate Model (CCM2). J. Geophys. Res.,99, 5551–5568.

  • ——, J. T. Kiehl, and J. W. Hurrell, 1998: The hydrologic and thermodynamic structure of the NCAR CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1179–1206.

  • Holtslag, A. A. M., and B. A. Boville, 1993: Local versus non-local boundary layer diffusion in a global climate model. J. Climate,6, 1825–1842.

  • Hurrell, J. W., J. J. Hack, B. A. Boville, D. Williamson, and J. T. Kiehl, 1998: The dynamical simulation of the NCAR Community Climate Model version 3 (CCM3). J. Climate,11, 1207–1236.

  • Kiehl, J. T., 1998: Simulation of the tropical Pacific warm pool with the NCAR CSM. J. Climate,11, 1342–1355.

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

  • ——, J. J. Hack, G. Bonan, B. A. Boville, D. Williamson, and P. 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.

  • Large, W. G., J. C. McWilliams, and S. C. Doney, 1994: Oceanic vertical mixing: A review and a model with a nonlocal boundary layer parameterization. Rev. Geophys.,32, 363–403.

  • Mechoso, C. R., and Coauthors, 1995: The seasonal cycle over the tropical Pacific in coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,123, 2825–2838.

  • Meehl, G. A., and J. Arblaster, 1998: The Asian–Australian monsoon and El Niño–Southern Oscillation in the NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate,11, 1356–1385.

  • Raphael, M., 1998: Quasi-stationary waves in the Southern Hemisphere: An examination of their simulation by the NCAR Climate System Model, with and without an interactive ocean. J. Climate,11, 1405–1418.

  • Semtner, A. J., 1976: A model for the thermodynamic growth of sea ice in numerical investigations of climate. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,6, 379–389.

  • Weatherly, J., B. Briegleb, W. G. Large, and T. Bettge, 1998: Sea ice and polar climate in the NCAR CSM. J. Climate,11, 1472–1486.

  • 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 189 50 10
PDF Downloads 41 20 2