Articles | Volume 14, issue 2
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 719–734, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-719-2021
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 719–734, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-719-2021

Methods for assessment of models 03 Feb 2021

Methods for assessment of models | 03 Feb 2021

Using radar observations to evaluate 3-D radar echo structure simulated by the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) version 1

Jingyu Wang et al.

Related authors

Effects of coupling a stochastic convective parameterization with the Zhang–McFarlane scheme on precipitation simulation in the DOE E3SMv1.0 atmosphere model
Yong Wang, Guang J. Zhang, Shaocheng Xie, Wuyin Lin, George C. Craig, Qi Tang, and Hsi-Yen Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1575–1593, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021, 2021
Short summary
Impacts of cloud microphysics parameterizations on simulated aerosol–cloud interactions for deep convective clouds over Houston
Yuwei Zhang, Jiwen Fan, Zhanqing Li, and Daniel Rosenfeld
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2363–2381, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2363-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2363-2021, 2021
Short summary
Simulation of radon-222 with the GEOS-Chem global model: emissions, seasonality, and convective transport
Bo Zhang, Hongyu Liu, James H. Crawford, Gao Chen, T. Duncan Fairlie, Scott Chambers, Chang-Hee Kang, Alastair G. Williams, Kai Zhang, David B. Considine, Melissa P. Sulprizio, and Robert M. Yantosca
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1861–1887, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1861-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1861-2021, 2021
Short summary
Physically Regularized Machine Learning Emulators of Aerosol Activation
Sam J. Silva, Po-Lun Ma, Joseph C. Hardin, and Daniel Rothenberg
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-393,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-393, 2020
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
On the estimation of boundary layer heights: A machine learning approach
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob K. Newsom, Larry K. Berg, Heng Xiao, Po-Lun Ma, and David D. Turner
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-439,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-439, 2020
Revised manuscript under review for AMT
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Novel estimation of aerosol processes with particle size distribution measurements: a case study with the TOMAS algorithm v1.0.0
Dana L. McGuffin, Yuanlong Huang, Richard C. Flagan, Tuukka Petäjä, B. Erik Ydstie, and Peter J. Adams
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1821–1839, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1821-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1821-2021, 2021
Short summary
Evaluation of ECMWF IFS-AER (CAMS) operational forecasts during cycle 41r1–46r1 with calibrated ceilometer profiles over Germany
Harald Flentje, Ina Mattis, Zak Kipling, Samuel Rémy, and Werner Thomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1721–1751, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1721-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1721-2021, 2021
Short summary
Influence of biomass burning vapor wall loss correction on modeling organic aerosols in Europe by CAMx v6.50
Jianhui Jiang, Imad El Haddad, Sebnem Aksoyoglu, Giulia Stefenelli, Amelie Bertrand, Nicolas Marchand, Francesco Canonaco, Jean-Eudes Petit, Olivier Favez, Stefania Gilardoni, Urs Baltensperger, and André S. H. Prévôt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1681–1697, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1681-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1681-2021, 2021
Short summary
Seasonal and diurnal performance of daily forecasts with WRF V3.8.1 over the United Arab Emirates
Oliver Branch, Thomas Schwitalla, Marouane Temimi, Ricardo Fonseca, Narendra Nelli, Michael Weston, Josipa Milovac, and Volker Wulfmeyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1615–1637, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1615-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1615-2021, 2021
Short summary
MLAir (v1.0) – a tool to enable fast and flexible machine learning on air data time series
Lukas Hubert Leufen, Felix Kleinert, and Martin G. Schultz
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1553–1574, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1553-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1553-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J.-L., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J., Pincus, R., and John, V. O.: COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1, 2011. 
Bowman, K. P. and Homeyer, C. R.: GridRad – Three-Dimensional Gridded NEXRAD WSR-88D Radar Data. Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6NK3CR7, 2017. 
Dennis, J., Edwards, K., Evans, J., Guba, O., Lauritzen, P. H., Mirin, A. A., St-Cyr, A., Taylor, M. A., and Worley, P. H.: CAM-SE: A scalable spectral element dynamical core for the Community Atmosphere Model, International J. High Perform. C., 26, 74–89, 2012. 
Fan, J., Han, B., Varble, A., Morrison, H., North, K., Kollias, P., Chen, B., Dong, X., Giangrande, S. E., Khain, A., Lin, Y., Mansell, E., Milbrandt, J. A., Stenz, R., Thompson, G., and Wang, Y.: Cloud-resolving model intercomparison of an MC3E squall line case: Part I – Convective updrafts, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 9351–9378, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026622, 2017. 
Feng, Z., Dong, X., Xi, B., McFarlane, S. A., Kennedy, A., Lin, B., and Minnis, P.: Life cycle of midlatitude deep convective systems in a Lagrangian framework, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D23201, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018362, 2012. 
Download
Short summary
This paper presents an evaluation of the E3SM model against NEXRAD radar observations for the warm seasons during 2014–2016. The COSP forward simulator package is implemented in the model to generate radar reflectivity, and the NEXRAD observations are coarsened to the model resolution for comparison. The model severely underestimates the reflectivity above 4 km. Sensitivity tests on the parameters from cumulus parameterization and cloud microphysics do not improve this model bias.