Articles | Volume 16, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2975-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2975-2023
Model evaluation paper
 | 
31 May 2023
Model evaluation paper |  | 31 May 2023

Intercomparison of the weather and climate physics suites of a unified forecast–climate model system (GRIST-A22.7.28) based on single-column modeling

Xiaohan Li, Yi Zhang, Xindong Peng, Baiquan Zhou, Jian Li, and Yiming Wang

Related authors

Using a single column model (SGRIST1.0) for connecting model physics and dynamics in the Global-to-Regional Integrated forecast SysTem (GRIST-A20.8)
Xiaohan Li, Yi Zhang, Xindong Peng, and Jian Li
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-254,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-254, 2020
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Forecasting contrail climate forcing for flight planning and air traffic management applications: the CocipGrid model in pycontrails 0.51.0
Zebediah Engberg, Roger Teoh, Tristan Abbott, Thomas Dean, Marc E. J. Stettler, and Marc L. Shapiro
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 253–286, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-253-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-253-2025, 2025
Short summary
Simulation of the heat mitigation potential of unsealing measures in cities by parameterizing grass grid pavers for urban microclimate modelling with ENVI-met (V5)
Nils Eingrüber, Alina Domm, Wolfgang Korres, and Karl Schneider
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 141–160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025, 2025
Short summary
AI-NAOS: an AI-based nonspherical aerosol optical scheme for the chemical weather model GRAPES_Meso5.1/CUACE
Xuan Wang, Lei Bi, Hong Wang, Yaqiang Wang, Wei Han, Xueshun Shen, and Xiaoye Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 117–139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Orbital-Radar v1.0.0: a tool to transform suborbital radar observations to synthetic EarthCARE cloud radar data
Lukas Pfitzenmaier, Pavlos Kollias, Nils Risse, Imke Schirmacher, Bernat Puigdomenech Treserras, and Katia Lamer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 101–115, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Modular and Integrated Data Assimilation System at Environment and Climate Change Canada (MIDAS v3.9.1)
Mark Buehner, Jean-Francois Caron, Ervig Lapalme, Alain Caya, Ping Du, Yves Rochon, Sergey Skachko, Maziar Bani Shahabadi, Sylvain Heilliette, Martin Deshaies-Jacques, Weiguang Chang, and Michael Sitwell
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Bechtold, P., Semane, N., Lopez, P., Chaboureau, J. P., Beljaars, A., and Bormann, N.: The role of shallow convection in ECMWF's Integrated Forecasting System, ECMWF Technical Memoranda, 2014. 
Bretherton, C. S. and Park, S.: The University of Washington Shallow Convection and Moist Turbulence Schemes and Their Impact on Climate Simulations with the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Climate, 22, 3449–3469, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jcli2557.1, 2009. 
Bogenschutz, P. A., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Larson, V. E., Schanen, D. P., Meyer, N. R., and Craig, C.: Unified parameterization of the planetary boundary layer and shallow convection with a higher-order turbulence closure in the Community Atmosphere Model: single-column experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1407–1423, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1407-2012, 2012. 
Brown, A., Milton, S., Cullen, M., Golding, B., Mitchell, J., and Shelly, A.: Unified Modeling and Prediction of Weather and Climate: A 25-Year Journey, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1865–1877, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00018.1, 2012. 
Chepfer, H., Bony, S., Winker, D., Cesana, G., Dufresne, J. L., Minnis, P., Stubenrauch, C. J., and Zeng, S.: The GCM-oriented CALIPSO cloud product (CALIPSO-GOCCP), J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00H16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012251, 2010. 
Download
Short summary
The weather and climate physics suites used in GRIST-A22.7.28 are compared using single-column modeling. The source of their discrepancies in terms of modeling cloud and precipitation is explored. Convective parameterization is found to be a key factor responsible for the differences. The two suites also have intrinsic differences in the interaction between microphysics and other processes, resulting in different cloud features and time step sensitivities.