A Comparison of Forecast Errors in CAM2 and CAM3 at the ARM Southern Great Plains Site

David L. Williamson National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by David L. Williamson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Jerry G. Olson National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Jerry G. Olson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The authors compare short forecast errors and the balance of terms in the moisture and temperature prediction equations that lead to those errors for the Community Atmosphere Model versions 2 and 3 (CAM2 and CAM3, respectively) at T42 truncation. The comparisons are made for an individual model column from global model forecasts at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) Southern Great Plains site for the April 1997 and June–July 1997 intensive observing periods. The goal is to provide insight into parameterization errors in the CAM, which ultimately should lead to improvements in the way processes are modeled. The atmospheric initial conditions are obtained from the 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40). The land initial conditions are spun up to be consistent with those analyses. The differences between the model formulations that are responsible for the major differences in the forecast errors and/or parameterization behaviors are identified. A sequence of experiments is performed, accumulating the changes from CAM3 back toward CAM2 to demonstrate the effect of the differences in formulations.

In June–July 1997 the CAM3 temperature and moisture forecast errors were larger than those of CAM2. The terms identified as being responsible for the differences are 1) the convective time scale assumed for the Zhang–McFarlane deep convection, 2) the energy associated with the conversion between water and ice of the rain associated with the Zhang–McFarlane convection parameterization, and 3) the dependence of the rainfall evaporation on cloud fraction. In April 1997 the CAM2 and CAM3 temperature and moisture forecast errors are very similar, but different tendencies arising from modifications to one parameterization component are compensated by responding changes in another component to yield the same total moisture tendency. The addition of detrainment of water in CAM3 by the Hack shallow convection to the prognostic cloud water scheme is balanced by a responding difference in the advective tendency. A halving of the time scale assumed for the Hack shallow convection was compensated by a responding change in the prognostic cloud water. Changes to the cloud fraction parameterization affect the radiative heating, which in turn modifies the stability of the atmospheric column and affects the convection. The resulting changes in convection tendency are balanced by responding changes in the prognostic cloud water parameterization tendency.

* The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation

Corresponding author address: David L. Williamson, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000. Email: wmson@ucar.edu

Abstract

The authors compare short forecast errors and the balance of terms in the moisture and temperature prediction equations that lead to those errors for the Community Atmosphere Model versions 2 and 3 (CAM2 and CAM3, respectively) at T42 truncation. The comparisons are made for an individual model column from global model forecasts at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) Southern Great Plains site for the April 1997 and June–July 1997 intensive observing periods. The goal is to provide insight into parameterization errors in the CAM, which ultimately should lead to improvements in the way processes are modeled. The atmospheric initial conditions are obtained from the 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40). The land initial conditions are spun up to be consistent with those analyses. The differences between the model formulations that are responsible for the major differences in the forecast errors and/or parameterization behaviors are identified. A sequence of experiments is performed, accumulating the changes from CAM3 back toward CAM2 to demonstrate the effect of the differences in formulations.

In June–July 1997 the CAM3 temperature and moisture forecast errors were larger than those of CAM2. The terms identified as being responsible for the differences are 1) the convective time scale assumed for the Zhang–McFarlane deep convection, 2) the energy associated with the conversion between water and ice of the rain associated with the Zhang–McFarlane convection parameterization, and 3) the dependence of the rainfall evaporation on cloud fraction. In April 1997 the CAM2 and CAM3 temperature and moisture forecast errors are very similar, but different tendencies arising from modifications to one parameterization component are compensated by responding changes in another component to yield the same total moisture tendency. The addition of detrainment of water in CAM3 by the Hack shallow convection to the prognostic cloud water scheme is balanced by a responding difference in the advective tendency. A halving of the time scale assumed for the Hack shallow convection was compensated by a responding change in the prognostic cloud water. Changes to the cloud fraction parameterization affect the radiative heating, which in turn modifies the stability of the atmospheric column and affects the convection. The resulting changes in convection tendency are balanced by responding changes in the prognostic cloud water parameterization tendency.

* The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation

Corresponding author address: David L. Williamson, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000. Email: wmson@ucar.edu

Save
  • Bonan, G. B., S. Levis, L. Kergoat, and K. W. Oleson, 2002a: Landscapes as patches of plant functional types: An integrating concept for climate and ecosystem models. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16 .1021, doi:10.1029/2000GB001360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bonan, G. B., K. W. Oleson, M. Vertenstein, S. Levis, X. Zeng, Y. Dai, R. E. Dickinson, and Z-L. Yang, 2002b: The land surface climatology of the Community Land Model coupled to the NCAR Community Climate Model. J. Climate, 15 , 31233149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boville, B. A., P. J. Rasch, J. J. Hack, and J. R. McCaa, 2006: Representation of clouds and precipitation processes in the Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3). J. Climate, 19 , 21842198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boyle, J. S., D. Williamson, R. Cederwall, M. Fiorino, J. Hnilo, J. Olson, T. Phillips, G. Potter, and S. Xie, 2005: Diagnosis of Community Atmospheric Model 2 (CAM2) in numerical weather forecast configuration at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) sites. J. Geophys. Res., 110 .D15S15, doi:10.1029/2004JD005042.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collins, W. D., and Coauthors cited. 2003: Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM2). [Available online at http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/cam2.0.].

  • Collins, W. D., and Coauthors, 2004: Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM3.0). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-464+STR, xii+214 pp.

  • Collins, W. D., and Coauthors, 2006a: The Community Climate System Model: CCSM. J. Climate, 19 , 21222143.

  • Collins, W. D., and Coauthors, 2006b: The formulation and atmospheric simulation of the Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3). J. Climate, 19 , 21442161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hack, J. J., 1994: Parameterization of moist convection in the National Center for Atmospheric Research community climate model (CCM2). J. Geophys. Res., 99 , 55515568.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hack, J. J., J. M. Caron, G. Danabasoglu, K. W. Oleson, C. M. Bitz, and J. E. Truesdale, 2006a: CCSM CAM3 climate simulation sensitivity to shanges in horizontal resolution. J. Climate, 19 , 22672289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hack, J. J., J. M. Caron, S. G. Yeager, K. W. Oleson, M. M. Holland, J. E. Truesdale, and P. J. Rasch, 2006b: Simulation of the Global Hydrological Cycle in the CCSM Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3): Mean features. J. Climate, 19 , 21992221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holtslag, A. A. M., and B. A. Boville, 1993: Local versus nonlocal boundary-layer diffusion in a global climate model. J. Climate, 6 , 18251842.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hurrell, J. W., J. J. Hack, A. Phillips, J. Caron, and J. Yin, 2006: The dynamical simulation of the Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3). J. Climate, 19 , 21622183.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kanamitsu, M., W. Ebisuzaki, J. Woollen, S-K. Yang, J. J. Hnilo, M. Fiorino, and G. L. Potter, 2002: NCEP-DOE AMIP-II reanalysis (R-2). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83 , 16311643.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kiehl, J. T., and P. R. Gent, 2004: The Community Climate System Model, version 2. J. Climate, 17 , 36663682.

  • Oleson, K. W., and Coauthors, 2004: Technical description of the Community Land Model (CLM). Tech. Rep. NCAR/TN-461+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 174 pp.

  • Phillips, T. J., and Coauthors, 2004: Evaluating parameterizations in general circulation models: Climate simulation meets weather prediction. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85 , 19031915.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rasch, P. J., and J. E. Kristjansson, 1998: A comparison of the CCM3 model climate using diagnosed and predicted condensate parameterizations. J. Climate, 11 , 15871614.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rasch, P. J., and Coauthors, 2006: A characterization of tropical transient activity in the CAM3 atmospheric hydrologic cycle. J. Climate, 19 , 22222242.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Simmons, A. J., and J. K. Gibson, 2000: The ERA-40 project plan. ERA-40 Project Report Series 1, ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, 62 pp.

  • Sud, Y. C., D. M. Mocko, and S. J. Lin, 2006: Performance of two cloud-radiation parameterization schemes in the finite volume general circulation model for anomalously wet May and June 2003 over the continental United States and Amazonia. J. Geophys. Res., 111 .D06201, doi:10.1029/2005JD006246.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • White, P. W., Ed.,. 2001: FULL-POS postprocessing and interpolation. IFS Documentation, Part VI, Technical and Computational Procedures (CY23R4), ECMWF. [Available online at http://www.ecmwf.int/research/ifsdocs_old/TECHNICAL/index.html.].

  • Williamson, D. L., J. Boyle, R. Cederwall, M. Fiorino, J. Hnilo, J. Olson, T. Phillips, G. Potter, and S. C. Xie, 2005: Moisture and temperature balances at the ARM Southern Great Plains Site in forecasts with the CAM2. J. Geophys. Res., 110 .D15S16, doi:10.1029/2004JD005109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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 , 407446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, M. H., and J. L. Lin, 1997: Constrained variational analysis of sounding data based on column-integrated budgets of mass, heat, moisture, and momentum: Approach and application to ARM measurements. J. Atmos. Sci., 54 , 15031524.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, M. H., J. L. Lin, R. T. Cederwall, J. J. Yio, and S. C. Xie, 2001: Objective analysis of ARM IOP data: Method and sensitivity. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129 , 295311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, M., W. Lin, C. S. Bretherton, J. J. Hack, and P. J. Rasch, 2003: A modified formulation of fractional stratiform condensation rate in the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM2). J. Geophys. Res., 108 .4035, doi:10.1029/2002JD002523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 549 365 26
PDF Downloads 115 36 6