Hui Wan

Short-term time step convergence in a climate model

Abstract This paper evaluates the numerical convergence of very short (1 h) simulations carried out with a spectral‐element (SE) configuration of the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5). While the horizontal grid spacing is fixed at approximately 110 km, the process‐coupling time step is varied between 1800 and 1 s to reveal the convergence rate with respect to the temporal resolution. Special attention is paid to the behavior of the parameterized subgrid‐scale physics. First, a dynamical core test with reduced dynamics time steps is presented. The results demonstrate that the experimental setup is able to correctly assess the convergence rate of the discrete solutions to the adiabatic equations of atmospheric motion. Second, results from full‐physics CAM5 simulations with reduced physics and dynamics time steps are discussed. It is shown that the convergence rate is 0.4—considerably slower than the expected rate of 1.0. Sensitivity experiments indicate that, among the various subgrid‐scale physical parameterizations, the stratiform cloud schemes are associated with the largest time‐stepping errors, and are the primary cause of slow time step convergence. While the details of our findings are model specific, the general test procedure is applicable to any atmospheric general circulation model. The need for more accurate numerical treatments of physical parameterizations, especially the representation of stratiform clouds, is likely common in many models. The suggested test technique can help quantify the time‐stepping errors and identify the related model sensitivities.

Resolution‐dependent behavior of subgrid‐scale vertical transport in the Zhang‐McFarlane convection parameterization

With this study, to better understand the behavior of quasi-equilibrium-based convection parameterizations at higher resolution, we use a diagnostic framework to examine the resolution-dependence of subgrid-scale vertical transport of moist static energy as parameterized by the Zhang-McFarlane convection parameterization (ZM). Grid-scale input to ZM is supplied by coarsening output from cloud-resolving model (CRM) simulations onto subdomains ranging in size from 8 × 8 to 256 × 256 km2s.

Can nudging be used to quantify model sensitivities in precipitation and cloud forcing

Efficient simulation strategies are crucial for the development and evaluation of high-resolution climate models. This paper evaluates simulations with constrained meteorology for the quantification of parametric sensitivities in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5). Two parameters are perturbed as illustrating examples: the convection relaxation time scale (TAU), and the threshold relative humidity for the formation of low-level stratiform clouds (rhminl). Results suggest that the fidelity of the constrained simulations depends on the detailed implementation of nudging and the mechanism through which the perturbed parameter affects precipitation and cloud. The relative computational costs of nudged and free-running simulations are determined by the magnitude of internal variability in the physical quantities of interest, as well as the magnitude of the parameter perturbation. In the case of a strong perturbation in convection, temperature and/or wind nudging with a 6-hour relaxation time scale leads to non-negligible side effects due to the distorted interactions between resolved dynamics and parameterized convection, while 1-year free running simulations can satisfactorily capture the annual mean precipitation and cloud forcing sensitivities. In the case of a relatively weak perturbation in the large-scale condensation scheme, results from 1-year free-running simulations are strongly affected by natural noise, while nudging winds effectively reduces the noise, and reasonably reproduces the sensitivities. These results indicate that caution is needed when using nudged simulations to assess precipitation and cloud forcing sensitivities to parameter changes in general circulation models. We also demonstrate that ensembles of short simulations are useful for understanding the evolution of model sensitivities. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Impact of numerical choices on water conservation in the E3SM Atmosphere Model Version 1 (EAM V1)

The conservation of total water is an important numerical feature for global Earth system models. Even small conservation problems in the water budget can lead to systematic errors in century-long simulations. This study quantifies and reduces various sources of water conservation error in the atmosphere component of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model. Several sources of water conservation error have been identified during the development of the version 1 (V1) model. The largest errors result from the numerical coupling between the resolved dynamics and the parameterized subgrid physics. A hybrid coupling using different methods for fluid dynamics and tracer transport provides a reduction of water conservation error by a factor of 50 at 1 horizontal resolution as well as consistent improvements at other resolutions. The second largest error source is the use of an overly simplified relationship between the surface moisture flux and latent heat flux at the interface between the host model and the turbulence parameterization. This error can be prevented by applying the same (correct) relationship throughout the entire model. Two additional types of conservation error that result from correcting the surface moisture flux and clipping negative water concentrations can be avoided by using massconserving fixers. With all four error sources addressed, the water conservation error in the V1 model becomes negligible and insensitive to the horizontal resolution. The associated changes in the long-term statistics of the main atmospheric features are small. A sensitivity analysis is carried out to show that the magnitudes of the conservation errors in early V1 versions decrease strongly with temporal resolution but increase with horizontal resolution. The increased vertical resolution in V1 results in a very thin model layer at the Earth’s surface, which amplifies the conservation error associated with the surface moisture flux correction. We note that for some of the identified error sources, the proposed fixers are remedies rather than solutions to the problems at their roots. Future improvements in time integration would be beneficial for V1.

Recent progress and review of issues related to Physics Dynamics Coupling in geophysical models

AbstractNumerical weather, climate, or Earth system models involve the coupling of components. At a broad level, these components can be classified as the resolved fluid dynamics, unresolved fluid ...Geophysical models of the atmosphere and ocean invariably involve parameterizations. These represent two distinct areas: a) Subgrid processes which the model cannot (yet) resolve, due to its discrete resolution, and b) sources in the equation, due to radiation for example. Hence coupling between these physics parameterizations and the resolved fluid dynamics and also between the dynamics of the different fluids in the system (air and water) is necessary. This coupling is an important aspect of geophysical models. However, often model development is strictly segregated into either physics or dynamics. Hence, this area has many more unanswered questions than in-depth understanding. Furthermore, recent developments in the design of dynamical cores (e.g. significant increase of resolution, move to non-hydrostatic equation sets etc), extended process physics (e.g. prognostic micro physics, 3D turbulence, non-vertical radiation etc) and predicted future changes of the computational infrastructure (e.g. Exascale with its need for task parallelism, data locality and asynchronous time stepping for example) is adding even more complexity and new questions. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art of the physics-dynamics coupling in geophysical models, surveys the analysis techniques, and points out the open questions in this research field.