Articles | Volume 12, issue 5
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2107–2117, 2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2107-2019
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2107–2117, 2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2107-2019
Methods for assessment of models
29 May 2019
Methods for assessment of models | 29 May 2019

Convective response to large-scale forcing in the tropical western Pacific simulated by spCAM5 and CanAM4.3

Toni Mitovski et al.

Related authors

Stable climate simulations using a realistic general circulation model with neural network parameterizations for atmospheric moist physics and radiation processes
Xin Wang, Yilun Han, Wei Xue, Guangwen Yang, and Guang J. Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3923–3940, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3923-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3923-2022, 2022
Short summary
Evaluation of a quasi-steady-state approximation of the cloud droplet growth equation (QDGE) scheme for aerosol activation in global models using multiple aircraft data over both continental and marine environments
Hengqi Wang, Yiran Peng, Knut von Salzen, Yan Yang, Wei Zhou, and Delong Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2949–2971, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022, 2022
Short summary
Effects of forcing differences and initial conditions on inter-model agreement in the VolMIP volc-pinatubo-full experiment
Davide Zanchettin, Claudia Timmreck, Myriam Khodri, Anja Schmidt, Matthew Toohey, Manabu Abe, Slimane Bekki, Jason Cole, Shih-Wei Fang, Wuhu Feng, Gabriele Hegerl, Ben Johnson, Nicolas Lebas, Allegra N. LeGrande, Graham W. Mann, Lauren Marshall, Landon Rieger, Alan Robock, Sara Rubinetti, Kostas Tsigaridis, and Helen Weierbach
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2265–2292, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, 2022
Short summary
What rainfall rates are most important to wet removal of different aerosol types?
Yong Wang, Wenwen Xia, and Guang J. Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 16797–16816, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16797-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-16797-2021, 2021
Short summary
Cloud Feedbacks from CanESM2 to CanESM5.0 and their influence on climate sensitivity
John G. Virgin, Christopher G. Fletcher, Jason N. S. Cole, Knut von Salzen, and Toni Mitovski
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5355–5372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5355-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5355-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Modeling the high-mercury wet deposition in the southeastern US with WRF-GC-Hg v1.0
Xiaotian Xu, Xu Feng, Haipeng Lin, Peng Zhang, Shaojian Huang, Zhengcheng Song, Yiming Peng, Tzung-May Fu, and Yanxu Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3845–3859, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3845-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3845-2022, 2022
Short summary
Development of a deep neural network for predicting 6 h average PM2.5 concentrations up to 2 subsequent days using various training data
Jeong-Beom Lee, Jae-Bum Lee, Youn-Seo Koo, Hee-Yong Kwon, Min-Hyeok Choi, Hyun-Ju Park, and Dae-Gyun Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3797–3813, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3797-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3797-2022, 2022
Short summary
Chemistry Across Multiple Phases (CAMP) version 1.0: an integrated multiphase chemistry model
Matthew L. Dawson, Christian Guzman, Jeffrey H. Curtis, Mario Acosta, Shupeng Zhu, Donald Dabdub, Andrew Conley, Matthew West, Nicole Riemer, and Oriol Jorba
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3663–3689, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3663-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3663-2022, 2022
Short summary
An aerosol vertical data assimilation system (NAQPMS-PDAF v1.0): development and application
Haibo Wang, Ting Yang, Zifa Wang, Jianjun Li, Wenxuan Chai, Guigang Tang, Lei Kong, and Xueshun Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3555–3585, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3555-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3555-2022, 2022
Short summary
Earth system modeling of mercury using CESM2 – Part 1: Atmospheric model CAM6-Chem/Hg v1.0
Peng Zhang and Yanxu Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3587–3601, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3587-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3587-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Bechtold, P., Bazile, E., Guichard, F., Mascart, P., and Richard, E.: A mass-flux convection scheme for regional and global models, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 127, 869–886, 2001. 
Boyle, J. and Klein, S. A.: Impact of horizontal resolution on climate model forecasts of tropical precipitation and diabatic heating for the TWP-ICE period, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D23113, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014262, 2010. 
Dai, A.: Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models, J. Climate, 19, 4605–4630, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3884.1, 2006 
DeMott, C., Randall, D. A., and Khairoutdinov, M.: Convective precipitation variability as a tool for general circulation model analysis, J. Climate, 20, 91–112, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3991.1, 2007. 
Donner, L. J.: A cumulus parameterization including mass fluxes, vertical momentum dynamics, and mesoscale effects, J. Atmos. Sci., 50, 889–906, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050<0889:ACPIMF>2.0.CO;2, 1993. 
Download
Short summary
Changes in the large-scale environment during convective precipitation events simulated by the Canadian Atmospheric Model (CanAM4.3) are compared against those simulated by the super-parameterized Community Atmosphere Model (spCAM5). Compared to spCAM5, CanAM4.3 underestimates the frequency of extreme convective precipitation and the duration of convective events are 50 % shorter. The dependence of precipitation on changes in the large-scale environment differs between CanAM4.3 and spCAM5.