Intercomparison of radiative forcing calculations of stratospheric water vapour and contrails

Seven groups have participated in an intercomparison study of calculations of radiative forcing (RF) due to stratospheric water vapour (SWV) and contrails. A combination of detailed radiative transfer schemes and codes for global-scale calculations have been used, as well as a combination of idealized simulations and more realistic global-scale changes in stratospheric water vapour and contrails. Detailed line-by-line codes agree within about 15 % for longwave (LW) and shortwave (SW) RF, except in one case where the difference is 30 %. Since the LW and SW RF due to contrails and SWV changes are of opposite sign, the differences between the models seen in the individual LW and SW components can be either compensated or strengthened in the net RF, and thus in relative terms uncertainties are much larger for the net RF. Some of the models used for global-scale simulations of changes in SWV and contrails differ substantially in RF from the more detailed radiative transfer schemes. For the global-scale calculations we use a method of weighting the results to calculate a best estimate based on their performance compared to the more detailed radiative transfer schemes in the idealized simulations.

The ASSET intercomparison of ozone analyses: method and first results

This paper aims to summarise the current performance of ozone data assimilation (DA) systems, to show where they can be improved, and to quantify their errors. It examines 11 sets of ozone analyses from 7 different DA systems. Two are numerical weather prediction (NWP) systems based on general circulation models (GCMs); the other five use chemistry transport models (CTMs). The systems examined contain either linearised or detailed ozone chemistry, or no chemistry at all. In most analyses, MIPAS (Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding) ozone data are assimilated; two assimilate SCIAMACHY (Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography) observations instead. Analyses are compared to independent ozone observations covering the troposphere, stratosphere and lower mesosphere during the period July to November 2003. Biases and standard deviations are largest, and show the largest divergence between systems, in the troposphere, in the upper-troposphere/lower-stratosphere, in the upper-stratosphere and mesosphere, and the Antarctic ozone hole region. However, in any particular area, apart from the troposphere, at least one system can be found that agrees well with independent data. In general, none of the differences can be linked to the assimilation technique (Kalman filter, three or four dimensional variational methods, direct inversion) or the system (CTM or NWP system). Where results diverge, a main explanation is the way ozone is modelled. It is important to correctly model transport at the tropical tropopause, to avoid positive biases and excessive structure in the ozone field. In the southern hemisphere ozone hole, only the analyses which correctly model heterogeneous ozone depletion are able to reproduce the near-complete ozone destruction over the pole. In the upper-stratosphere and mesosphere (above 5 hPa), some ozone photochemistry schemes caused large but easily remedied biases. The diurnal cycle of ozone in the mesosphere is not captured, except by the one system that includes a detailed treatment of mesospheric chemistry. These results indicate that when good observations are available for assimilation, the first priority for improving ozone DA systems is to improve the models. The analyses benefit strongly from the good quality of the MIPAS ozone observations. Using the analyses as a transfer standard, it is seen that MIPAS is similar to 5% higher than HALOE (Halogen Occultation Experiment) in the mid and upper stratosphere and mesosphere (above 30 hPa), and of order 10% higher than ozonesonde and HALOE in the lower stratosphere (100 hPa to 30 hPa). Analyses based on SCIAMACHY total column are almost as good as the MIPAS analyses; analyses based on SCIAMACHY limb profiles are worse in some areas, due to problems in the SCIAMACHY retrievals.

Intercomparison of aircraft instruments on board the C-130 and Falcon-20 over southern Germany during EXPORT2000

In the summer 2000 EXPORT aircraft campaign (European eXport of Precursors and Ozone by long-Range Transport), two comprehensively instrumented research aircraft measuring a variety of chemical species flew wing tip to wing tip for a period of one and a quarter hours. During this interval a comparison was undertaken of the measurements of nitrogen oxide (NO), odd nitrogen species (NOy), carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (O3). The comparison was performed at two different flight levels, which provided a 10-fold variation in the concentrations of both NO (10 to 1000 parts per trillion by volume (pptv)) and NOy (200 to over 2500 pptv). Large peaks of NO and NOy observed from the Falcon 20, which were at first thought to be from the exhaust of the C-130, were also detected on the 4 channel NOxy instrument aboard the C-130. These peaks were a good indication that both aircraft were in the same air mass and that the Falcon 20 was not in the exhaust plume of the C-130. Correlations and statistical analysis are presented between the instruments used on the two separate aircraft platforms. These were found to be in good agreement giving a high degree of correlation for the ambient air studied. Any deviations from the correlations are accounted for in the estimated inaccuracies of the instruments. These results help to establish that the instruments aboard the separate aircraft are reliably able to measure the corresponding chemical species in the range of conditions sampled and that data collected by both aircraft can be co-ordinated for purposes of interpretation.

Peroxy radical partitioning during the AMMA radical intercomparison exercise

Peroxy radicals were measured onboard two scientific aircrafts during the AMMA (African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis) campaign in summer 2006. This paper reports results from the flight on 16 August 2006 during which measurements of HO2 by laser induced fluorescence spectroscopy at low pressure (LIF-FAGE) and total peroxy radicals (RO2* = HO2+ΣRO2, R = organic chain) by two similar instruments based on the peroxy radical chemical amplification (PeRCA) technique were subject of a blind intercomparison. The German DLR-Falcon and the British FAAM-BAe-146 flew wing tip to wing tip for about 30 min making concurrent measurements on 2 horizontal level runs at 697 and 485 hPa over the same geographical area in Burkina Faso. A full set of supporting measurements comprising photolysis frequencies, and relevant trace gases like CO, NO, NO2, NOy, O3 and a wider range of VOCs were collected simultaneously. Results are discussed on the basis of the characteristics and limitations of the different instruments used. Generally, no data bias are identified and the RO2* data available agree quite reasonably within the instrumental errors. The [RO2*]/[HO2] ratios, which vary between 1:1 and 3:1, as well as the peroxy radical variability, concur with variations in photolysis rates and in other potential radical precursors. Model results provide additional information about dominant radical formation and loss processes.

The precipitation climate of Central Asia: intercomparison of observational and numerical data sources in a remote semiarid region

In this study, we systematically compare a wide range of observational and numerical precipitation datasets for Central Asia. Data considered include two re-analyses, three datasets based on direct observations, and the output of a regional climate model simulation driven by a global re-analysis. These are validated and intercompared with respect to their ability to represent the Central Asian precipitation climate. In each of the datasets, we consider the mean spatial distribution and the seasonal cycle of precipitation, the amplitude of interannual variability, the representation of individual yearly anomalies, the precipitation sensitivity (i.e. the response to wet and dry conditions), and the temporal homogeneity of precipitation. Additionally, we carried out part of these analyses for datasets available in real time. The mutual agreement between the observations is used as an indication of how far these data can be used for validating precipitation data from other sources. In particular, we show that the observations usually agree qualitatively on anomalies in individual years while it is not always possible to use them for the quantitative validation of the amplitude of interannual variability. The regional climate model is capable of improving the spatial distribution of precipitation. At the same time, it strongly underestimates summer precipitation and its variability, while interannual variations are well represented during the other seasons, in particular in the Central Asian mountains during winter and spring

Implementation of a new urban energy budget scheme into MetUM. Part II: Validation against observations and model intercomparison

In the first part of this article, we introduced a new urban surface scheme, the Met Office – Reading Urban Surface Exchange Scheme (MORUSES), into the Met Office Unified Model (MetUM) and compared its impact on the surface fluxes with respect to the current urban scheme. In this second part, we aim to analyze further the reasons behind the differences. This analysis is conducted by a comparison of the performance of the two schemes against observations and against a third model, the Single Column Reading Urban model (SCRUM). The key differences between the three models lie in how each model incorporates the heat stored in the urban fabric and how the surface-energy balance is coupled to the underlying substrate. The comparison of the models with observations from Mexico City reveals that the performance of MORUSES is improved if roof insulation is included by minimizing the roof thickness. A comparison of MORUSES and SCRUM reveals that, once insulation is included within MORUSES, these two models perform equally well against the observations overall, but that there are differences in the details of the simulations at the roof and canyon level. These differences are attributed to the different representations of the heat-storage term, specifically differences in the dominant frequencies captured by the urban canopy and substrate, between the models. These results strongly suggest a need for an urban model intercomparison exercise. Copyright © 2010 Royal Meteorological Society and Crown Copyright

RAMI4PILPS: An intercomparison of formulations for the partitioning of solar radiation in land surface models

[1] Remotely sensed, multiannual data sets of shortwave radiative surface fluxes are now available for assimilation into land surface schemes (LSSs) of climate and/or numerical weather prediction models. The RAMI4PILPS suite of virtual experiments assesses the accuracy and consistency of the radiative transfer formulations that provide the magnitudes of absorbed, reflected, and transmitted shortwave radiative fluxes in LSSs. RAMI4PILPS evaluates models under perfectly controlled experimental conditions in order to eliminate uncertainties arising from an incomplete or erroneous knowledge of the structural, spectral and illumination related canopy characteristics typical for model comparison with in situ observations. More specifically, the shortwave radiation is separated into a visible and near-infrared spectral region, and the quality of the simulated radiative fluxes is evaluated by direct comparison with a 3-D Monte Carlo reference model identified during the third phase of the Radiation transfer Model Intercomparison (RAMI) exercise. The RAMI4PILPS setup thus allows to focus in particular on the numerical accuracy of shortwave radiative transfer formulations and to pinpoint to areas where future model improvements should concentrate. The impact of increasing degrees of structural and spectral subgrid variability on the simulated fluxes is documented and the relevance of any thus emerging biases with respect to gross primary production estimates and shortwave radiative forcings due to snow and fire events are investigated.

Future change of precipitation extremes in Europe: intercomparison of scenarios from regional climate mode

An analysis of the climate of precipitation extremes as simulated by six European regional climate models (RCMs) is undertaken in order to describe/quantify future changes and to examine/interpret differences between models. Each model has adopted boundary conditions from the same ensemble of global climate model integrations for present (1961–1990) and future (2071–2100) climate under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change A2 emission scenario. The main diagnostics are multiyear return values of daily precipitation totals estimated from extreme value analysis. An evaluation of the RCMs against observations in the Alpine region shows that model biases for extremes are comparable to or even smaller than those for wet day intensity and mean precipitation. In winter, precipitation extremes tend to increase north of about 45°N, while there is an insignificant change or a decrease to the south. In northern Europe the 20-year return value of future climate corresponds to the 40- to 100-year return value of present climate. There is a good agreement between the RCMs, and the simulated change is similar to a scaling of present-day extremes by the change in average events. In contrast, there are large model differences in summer when RCM formulation contributes significantly to scenario uncertainty. The model differences are well explained by differences in the precipitation frequency and intensity process, but in all models, extremes increase more or decrease less than would be expected from the scaling of present-day extremes. There is evidence for a component of the change that affects extremes specifically and is consistent between models despite the large variation in the total response.

Daily precipitation statistics in regional climate models: evaluation and intercomparison for the European Alps

An evaluation is undertaken of the statistics of daily precipitation as simulated by five regional climate models using comprehensive observations in the region of the European Alps. Four limited area models and one variable-resolution global model are considered, all with a grid spacing of 50 km. The 15-year integrations were forced from reanalyses and observed sea surface temperature and sea ice (global model from sea surface only). The observational reference is based on 6400 rain gauge records (10–50 stations per grid box). Evaluation statistics encompass mean precipitation, wet-day frequency, precipitation intensity, and quantiles of the frequency distribution. For mean precipitation, the models reproduce the characteristics of the annual cycle and the spatial distribution. The domain mean bias varies between −23% and +3% in winter and between −27% and −5% in summer. Larger errors are found for other statistics. In summer, all models underestimate precipitation intensity (by 16–42%) and there is a too low frequency of heavy events. This bias reflects too dry summer mean conditions in three of the models, while it is partly compensated by too many low-intensity events in the other two models. Similar intermodel differences are found for other European subregions. Interestingly, the model errors are very similar between the two models with the same dynamical core (but different parameterizations) and they differ considerably between the two models with similar parameterizations (but different dynamics). Despite considerable biases, the models reproduce prominent mesoscale features of heavy precipitation, which is a promising result for their use in climate change downscaling over complex topography.

The Asian summer monsoon: an intercomparison of CMIP5 vs. CMIP3 simulations of the late 20th century

The boreal summer Asian monsoon has been evaluated in 25 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-5 (CMIP5) and 22 CMIP3 GCM simulations of the late 20th Century. Diagnostics and skill metrics have been calculated to assess the time-mean, climatological annual cycle, interannual variability, and intraseasonal variability. Progress has been made in modeling these aspects of the monsoon, though there is no single model that best represents all of these aspects of the monsoon. The CMIP5 multi-model mean (MMM) is more skillful than the CMIP3 MMM for all diagnostics in terms of the skill of simulating pattern correlations with respect to observations. Additionally, for rainfall/convection the MMM outperforms the individual models for the time mean, the interannual variability of the East Asian monsoon, and intraseasonal variability. The pattern correlation of the time (pentad) of monsoon peak and withdrawal is better simulated than that of monsoon onset. The onset of the monsoon over India is typically too late in the models. The extension of the monsoon over eastern China, Korea, and Japan is underestimated, while it is overestimated over the subtropical western/central Pacific Ocean. The anti-correlation between anomalies of all-India rainfall and Niño-3.4 sea surface temperature is overly strong in CMIP3 and typically too weak in CMIP5. For both the ENSO-monsoon teleconnection and the East Asian zonal wind-rainfall teleconnection, the MMM interannual rainfall anomalies are weak compared to observations. Though simulation of intraseasonal variability remains problematic, several models show improved skill at representing the northward propagation of convection and the development of the tilted band of convection that extends from India to the equatorial west Pacific. The MMM also well represents the space-time evolution of intraseasonal outgoing longwave radiation anomalies. Caution is necessary when using GPCP and CMAP rainfall to validate (1) the time-mean rainfall, as there are systematic differences over ocean and land between these two data sets, and (2) the timing of monsoon withdrawal over India, where the smooth southward progression seen in India Meteorological Department data is better realized in CMAP data compared to GPCP data.