Articles | Volume 17, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model experiment description paper
| 
08 May 2024
Model experiment description paper |
| 08 May 2024
| 08 May 2024
Leveraging regional mesh refinement to simulate future climate projections for California using the Simplified Convection-Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model Version 0
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Peter Bogenschutz
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Philip Cameron-smith
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Chengzhu Zhang
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA
Related authors
Jishi Zhang, Jean–Christophe Golaz, Matthew Vincent Signorotti, Hsiang–He Lee, Peter Bogenschutz, Minda Monteagudo, Paul Aaron Ullrich, Robert S. Arthur, Stephen Po–Chedley, Philip Cameron–smith, and Jean–Paul Watson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3947, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3947, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We ran a convection-permitting model with regional mesh refinement (3.25 km and 800 m) to simulate present-day wind and solar capacity factors over California, coupling it to an energy generation model. The high-resolution models captured realistic seasonal and diurnal cycles, with wind markedly better than a 25 km model and solar outperforming a 3 km operational forecast. We highlight the critical role of resolution, modeling assumptions, and data reliability in renewable energy assessment.
Jishi Zhang, Peter Bogenschutz, Mark Taylor, and Philip Cameron-Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2223, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2223, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We pushed a global cloud-resolving model to a novel 100 m resolution setup over the San Francisco Bay Area using a regionally refined mesh. The model captured fine-scale air motions over complex terrain and coastal regions at large-eddy scales with fully comprehensive global modeling configuration, enabled by scale-aware turbulence parameterization. Performance tests demonstrated that GPU acceleration can make such high-resolution simulations feasible within practical timeframes.
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Jishi Zhang, Qi Tang, and Philip Cameron-Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7029–7050, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7029-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7029-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Using high-resolution and state-of-the-art modeling techniques we simulate five atmospheric river events for California to test the capability to represent precipitation for these events. We find that our model is able to capture the distribution of precipitation very well but suffers from overestimating the precipitation amounts over high elevation. Increasing the resolution further has no impact on reducing this bias, while increasing the domain size does have modest impacts.
Jishi Zhang, Jean–Christophe Golaz, Matthew Vincent Signorotti, Hsiang–He Lee, Peter Bogenschutz, Minda Monteagudo, Paul Aaron Ullrich, Robert S. Arthur, Stephen Po–Chedley, Philip Cameron–smith, and Jean–Paul Watson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3947, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3947, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We ran a convection-permitting model with regional mesh refinement (3.25 km and 800 m) to simulate present-day wind and solar capacity factors over California, coupling it to an energy generation model. The high-resolution models captured realistic seasonal and diurnal cycles, with wind markedly better than a 25 km model and solar outperforming a 3 km operational forecast. We highlight the critical role of resolution, modeling assumptions, and data reliability in renewable energy assessment.
Jinbo Xie, Qi Tang, Michael Prather, Jadwiga Richter, and Shixuan Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 9315–9333, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9315-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-9315-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Analysis of the interaction between the climate and ozone in the stratosphere is complicated by the inability of climate models to simulate the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) – an important climate mode in the stratosphere. We use a set of model simulations that realistically simulate QBO and a novel ozone diagnostic tool to separate temperature- and circulation-driven QBO impacts. These are important for diagnosing model–model differences in QBO–ozone responses for climate projections.
Ziming Ke, Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Xiaohong Liu, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4137–4153, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses volcanic aerosol representation in E3SM (Energy Exascale Earth System Model), showing that an emission-based approach moderately improves temperature variability and cloud responses compared to a prescribed forcing approach, yet significant bias persists.
Clara Orbe, Alison Ming, Gabriel Chiodo, Michael Prather, Mohamadou Diallo, Qi Tang, Andreas Chrysanthou, Hiroaki Naoe, Xin Zhou, Irina Thaler, Dillon Elsbury, Ewa Bednarz, Jonathon S. Wright, Aaron Match, Shingo Watanabe, James Anstey, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Stefan Versick, Marion Marchand, Feng Li, and James Keeble
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is the main source of wind fluctuations in the tropical stratosphere, which can couple to surface climate. However, models do a poor job of simulating the QBO in the lower stratosphere, for reasons that remain unclear. One possibility is that models do not completely represent how ozone influences the QBO-associated wind variations. Here we propose a multi-model framework for assessing how ozone influences the QBO in recent past and future climates.
Jishi Zhang, Peter Bogenschutz, Mark Taylor, and Philip Cameron-Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2223, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2223, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We pushed a global cloud-resolving model to a novel 100 m resolution setup over the San Francisco Bay Area using a regionally refined mesh. The model captured fine-scale air motions over complex terrain and coastal regions at large-eddy scales with fully comprehensive global modeling configuration, enabled by scale-aware turbulence parameterization. Performance tests demonstrated that GPU acceleration can make such high-resolution simulations feasible within practical timeframes.
Naser Mahfouz, Hassan Beydoun, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Noel Keen, Adam C. Varble, Luca Bertagna, Peter Bogenschutz, Andrew Bradley, Matthew W. Christensen, T. Conrad Clevenger, Aaron Donahue, Jerome Fast, James Foucar, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Oksana Guba, Walter Hannah, Benjamin Hillman, Robert Jacob, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Yun Qian, Balwinder Singh, Christopher Terai, Hailong Wang, Mingxuan Wu, Kai Zhang, Andrew Gettelman, Mark Taylor, L. Ruby Leung, Peter Caldwell, and Susannah Burrows
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1868, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1868, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study assesses the aerosol effective radiative forcing in a global cloud-resolving atmosphere model at ultra-high resolution. We demonstrate that global ERFaer signal can be robustly reproduced across resolutions when aerosol activation processes are carefully parameterized. Further, we argue that simplified prescribed aerosol schemes will open the door for further process/mechanism studies under controlled conditions.
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Jishi Zhang, Qi Tang, and Philip Cameron-Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7029–7050, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7029-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7029-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Using high-resolution and state-of-the-art modeling techniques we simulate five atmospheric river events for California to test the capability to represent precipitation for these events. We find that our model is able to capture the distribution of precipitation very well but suffers from overestimating the precipitation amounts over high elevation. Increasing the resolution further has no impact on reducing this bias, while increasing the domain size does have modest impacts.
Jiwoo Lee, Peter J. Gleckler, Min-Seop Ahn, Ana Ordonez, Paul A. Ullrich, Kenneth R. Sperber, Karl E. Taylor, Yann Y. Planton, Eric Guilyardi, Paul Durack, Celine Bonfils, Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Bo Dong, Charles Doutriaux, Chengzhu Zhang, Tom Vo, Jason Boutte, Michael F. Wehner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Daehyun Kim, Zeyu Xue, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and John Krasting
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
John T. Fasullo, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Julie M. Caron, Nan Rosenbloom, Gerald A. Meehl, Warren Strand, Sasha Glanville, Samantha Stevenson, Maria Molina, Christine A. Shields, Chengzhu Zhang, James Benedict, Hailong Wang, and Tony Bartoletti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 367–386, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-367-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-367-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model large ensembles provide a unique and invaluable means for estimating the climate response to external forcing agents and quantify contrasts in model structure. Here, an overview of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) version 2 large ensemble is given along with comparisons to large ensembles from E3SM version 1 and versions 1 and 2 of the Community Earth System Model. The paper provides broad and important context for users of these ensembles.
Hsiang-He Lee, Qi Tang, and Michael Prather
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-203, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-203, 2024
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
The E3SM Chemistry diagnostics package (ChemDyg) is a software tool, which is designed for the global climate model (E3SM) chemistry development. ChemDyg generates several diagnostic plots and tables for model-to-model and model-to-observation comparison, including 2-dimentional contour mapping plots, diurnal and annual cycle, time-series plots, and comprehensive processing tables. This paper is to introduce the details of each diagnostics set and its required input data formats in ChemDyg.
Yuying Zhang, Shaocheng Xie, Yi Qin, Wuyin Lin, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Xue Zheng, Po-Lun Ma, Yun Qian, Qi Tang, Christopher R. Terai, and Meng Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 169–189, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-169-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-169-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We performed systematic evaluation of clouds simulated in the Energy
Exascale Earth System Model (E3SMv2) to document model performance and understand what updates in E3SMv2 have caused changes in clouds from E3SMv1 to E3SMv2. We find that stratocumulus clouds along the subtropical west coast of continents are dramatically improved, primarily due to the retuning done in CLUBB. This study offers additional insights into clouds simulated in E3SMv2 and will benefit future E3SM developments.
Exascale Earth System Model (E3SMv2) to document model performance and understand what updates in E3SMv2 have caused changes in clouds from E3SMv1 to E3SMv2. We find that stratocumulus clouds along the subtropical west coast of continents are dramatically improved, primarily due to the retuning done in CLUBB. This study offers additional insights into clouds simulated in E3SMv2 and will benefit future E3SM developments.
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution simulations are superior to low-resolution ones in capturing regional climate changes and climate extremes. However, uniformly reducing the grid size of a global Earth system model is too computationally expensive. We provide an overview of the fully coupled regionally refined model (RRM) of E3SMv2 and document a first-of-its-kind set of climate production simulations using RRM at an economic cost. The key to this success is our innovative hybrid time step method.
Dana L. McGuffin, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Matthew A. Horsley, Brian J. Bauman, Wim De Vries, Denis Healy, Alex Pertica, Chris Shaffer, and Lance M. Simms
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2129–2144, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2129-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2129-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This work demonstrates the viability of a remote sensing technique using nanosatellites to measure stratospheric temperature. This measurement technique can probe the stratosphere and mesosphere at a fine vertical scale around the globe unlike other high-altitude measurement techniques, which would provide an opportunity to observe atmospheric gravity waves and turbulence. We analyze observations from two satellite platforms to provide a proof of concept and characterize measurement uncertainty.
Maria J. Chinita, Mikael Witte, Marcin J. Kurowski, Joao Teixeira, Kay Suselj, Georgios Matheou, and Peter Bogenschutz
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1909–1924, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1909-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1909-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Low clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate prediction. In this paper, we introduce the first version of the unified turbulence and shallow convection parameterization named SHOC+MF developed to improve the representation of shallow cumulus clouds in the Simple Cloud-Resolving E3SM Atmosphere Model (SCREAM). Here, we also show promising preliminary results in a single-column model framework for two benchmark cases of shallow cumulus convection.
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Hsiang-He Lee, Qi Tang, and Takanobu Yamaguchi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 335–352, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-335-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-335-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Models that are used to simulate and predict climate often have trouble representing specific cloud types, such as stratocumulus, that are particularly thin in the vertical direction. It has been found that increasing the model resolution can help improve this problem. In this paper, we develop a novel framework that increases the horizontal and vertical resolutions only for areas of the globe that contain stratocumulus, hence reducing the model runtime while providing better results.
Chengzhu Zhang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Ryan Forsyth, Tom Vo, Shaocheng Xie, Zeshawn Shaheen, Gerald L. Potter, Xylar S. Asay-Davis, Charles S. Zender, Wuyin Lin, Chih-Chieh Chen, Chris R. Terai, Salil Mahajan, Tian Zhou, Karthik Balaguru, Qi Tang, Cheng Tao, Yuying Zhang, Todd Emmenegger, Susannah Burrows, and Paul A. Ullrich
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9031–9056, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system model (ESM) developers run automated analysis tools on data from candidate models to inform model development. This paper introduces a new Python package, E3SM Diags, that has been developed to support ESM development and use routinely in the development of DOE's Energy Exascale Earth System Model. This tool covers a set of essential diagnostics to evaluate the mean physical climate from simulations, as well as several process-oriented and phenomenon-based evaluation diagnostics.
Kai Zhang, Wentao Zhang, Hui Wan, Philip J. Rasch, Steven J. Ghan, Richard C. Easter, Xiangjun Shi, Yong Wang, Hailong Wang, Po-Lun Ma, Shixuan Zhang, Jian Sun, Susannah M. Burrows, Manish Shrivastava, Balwinder Singh, Yun Qian, Xiaohong Liu, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Qi Tang, Xue Zheng, Shaocheng Xie, Wuyin Lin, Yan Feng, Minghuai Wang, Jin-Ho Yoon, and L. Ruby Leung
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 9129–9160, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9129-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9129-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Here we analyze the effective aerosol forcing simulated by E3SM version 1 using both century-long free-running and short nudged simulations. The aerosol forcing in E3SMv1 is relatively large compared to other models, mainly due to the large indirect aerosol effect. Aerosol-induced changes in liquid and ice cloud properties in E3SMv1 have a strong correlation. The aerosol forcing estimates in E3SMv1 are sensitive to the parameterization changes in both liquid and ice cloud processes.
Xue Zheng, Qing Li, Tian Zhou, Qi Tang, Luke P. Van Roekel, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Hailong Wang, and Philip Cameron-Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3941–3967, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3941-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3941-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We document the model experiments for the future climate projection by E3SMv1.0. At the highest future emission scenario, E3SMv1.0 projects a strong surface warming with rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and land runoff. Specifically, we detect a significant polar amplification and accelerated warming linked to the unmasking of the aerosol effects. The impact of greenhouse gas forcing is examined in different climate components.
Po-Lun Ma, Bryce E. Harrop, Vincent E. Larson, Richard B. Neale, Andrew Gettelman, Hugh Morrison, Hailong Wang, Kai Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Mark D. Zelinka, Yuying Zhang, Yun Qian, Jin-Ho Yoon, Christopher R. Jones, Meng Huang, Sheng-Lun Tai, Balwinder Singh, Peter A. Bogenschutz, Xue Zheng, Wuyin Lin, Johannes Quaas, Hélène Chepfer, Michael A. Brunke, Xubin Zeng, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Samson Hagos, Zhibo Zhang, Hua Song, Xiaohong Liu, Michael S. Pritchard, Hui Wan, Jingyu Wang, Qi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Jiwen Fan, Larry K. Berg, Jerome D. Fast, Mark A. Taylor, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Shaocheng Xie, Philip J. Rasch, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2881–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An alternative set of parameters for E3SM Atmospheric Model version 1 has been developed based on a tuning strategy that focuses on clouds. When clouds in every regime are improved, other aspects of the model are also improved, even though they are not the direct targets for calibration. The recalibrated model shows a lower sensitivity to anthropogenic aerosols and surface warming, suggesting potential improvements to the simulated climate in the past and future.
Yongkang Xue, Tandong Yao, Aaron A. Boone, Ismaila Diallo, Ye Liu, Xubin Zeng, William K. M. Lau, Shiori Sugimoto, Qi Tang, Xiaoduo Pan, Peter J. van Oevelen, Daniel Klocke, Myung-Seo Koo, Tomonori Sato, Zhaohui Lin, Yuhei Takaya, Constantin Ardilouze, Stefano Materia, Subodh K. Saha, Retish Senan, Tetsu Nakamura, Hailan Wang, Jing Yang, Hongliang Zhang, Mei Zhao, Xin-Zhong Liang, J. David Neelin, Frederic Vitart, Xin Li, Ping Zhao, Chunxiang Shi, Weidong Guo, Jianping Tang, Miao Yu, Yun Qian, Samuel S. P. Shen, Yang Zhang, Kun Yang, Ruby Leung, Yuan Qiu, Daniele Peano, Xin Qi, Yanling Zhan, Michael A. Brunke, Sin Chan Chou, Michael Ek, Tianyi Fan, Hong Guan, Hai Lin, Shunlin Liang, Helin Wei, Shaocheng Xie, Haoran Xu, Weiping Li, Xueli Shi, Paulo Nobre, Yan Pan, Yi Qin, Jeff Dozier, Craig R. Ferguson, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Qing Bao, Jinming Feng, Jinkyu Hong, Songyou Hong, Huilin Huang, Duoying Ji, Zhenming Ji, Shichang Kang, Yanluan Lin, Weiguang Liu, Ryan Muncaster, Patricia de Rosnay, Hiroshi G. Takahashi, Guiling Wang, Shuyu Wang, Weicai Wang, Xu Zhou, and Yuejian Zhu
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4465–4494, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4465-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4465-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The subseasonal prediction of extreme hydroclimate events such as droughts/floods has remained stubbornly low for years. This paper presents a new international initiative which, for the first time, introduces spring land surface temperature anomalies over high mountains to improve precipitation prediction through remote effects of land–atmosphere interactions. More than 40 institutions worldwide are participating in this effort. The experimental protocol and preliminary results are presented.
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
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
Short summary
A stochastic deep convection parameterization is implemented into the US Department of Energy Energy Exascale Earth System Model Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1). Compared to the default model, the well-known problem of
too much light rain and too little heavy rainis largely alleviated over the tropics with the stochastic scheme. Results from this study provide important insights into the model performance of EAMv1 when stochasticity is included in the deep convective parameterization.
Qi Tang, Michael J. Prather, Juno Hsu, Daniel J. Ruiz, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Shaocheng Xie, and Jean-Christophe Golaz
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1219–1236, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1219-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1219-2021, 2021
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Landon A. Rieger, Jason N. S. Cole, John C. Fyfe, Stephen Po-Chedley, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Paul J. Durack, Nathan P. Gillett, and Qi Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4831–4843, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Recently, the stratospheric aerosol forcing dataset used as an input to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 was updated. This work explores the impact of those changes on the modelled historical climates in the CanESM5 and EAMv1 models. Temperature differences in the stratosphere shortly after the Pinatubo eruption are found to be significant, but surface temperatures and precipitation do not show a significant change.
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Shuaiqi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Shaocheng Xie, Wuyin Lin, and Yao-Sheng Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4443–4458, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4443-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4443-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents a tool that has been developed that can be used to accelerate the development and understanding of climate models. This version of the model, known as a the single-column model, is much faster to run than the full climate model, and we demonstrate that this tool can be used to quickly exploit model biases that arise due to physical processes. We show examples of how this single-column model can directly benefit the field.
Cited articles
Abiodun, B. J., Prusa, J. M., and Gutowski, W. J.: Implementation of a non-hydrostatic, adaptive-grid dynamics core in CAM3. Part I: comparison of dynamics cores in aqua-planet simulations, Clim. Dynam., 31, 795–810, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0381-y, 2008. a
Adams, D. K. and Comrie, A. C.: The North American Monsoon, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 78, 2197–2213, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<2197:Tnam>2.0.Co;2, 1997. a, b
Arellano-Gonzalez, J., AghaKouchak, A., Levy, M. C., Qin, Y., Burney, J., Davis, S. J., and Moore, F. C.: The adaptive benefits of agricultural water markets in California, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 044036, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abde5b, 2021. a
Bales, R. C., Battles, J. J., Chen, Y., Conklin, M. H., Holst, E., O’Hara, K. L., Saksa, P., and Stewart, W.: Forests and water in the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada watershed ecosystem enhancement project, Sierra Nevada Research Institute report, Vol. 11, https://forests.berkeley.edu/sites/forests.berkeley.edu/files/146199.pdf (last access: 29 April 2024), 2011. a, b
Bales, R. C., Rice, R., and Roy, S. B.: Estimated loss of snowpack storage in the Eastern Sierra Nevada with climate warming, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 141, 04014055, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000453, 2015. a
Ban, N., Schmidli, J., and Schär, C.: Evaluation of the convection-resolving regional climate modeling approach in decade-long simulations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 7889–7907, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jd021478, 2014. a
Barthelmie, R. and Pryor, S. C.: Potential contribution of wind energy to climate change mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 684–688, 2014. a
Bartos, M. D. and Chester, M. V.: Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the Western United States, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 748–752, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2648, 2015. a, b
Belmecheri, S., Babst, F., Wahl, E. R., Stahle, D. W., and Trouet, V.: Multi-century evaluation of Sierra Nevada snowpack, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 2–3, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2809, 2015. a
Berg, N., Walton, D. B., Schwartz, M., Hall, A., and Sun, F.: Twenty-First-Century Snowfall and Snowpack Changes over the Southern California Mountains, J. Climate, 29, 91–110, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-15-0199.1, 2016. a, b, c
Bogenschutz, P., Zhang, J., Tang, Q., and Cameron-Smith, P.: Atmospheric River Induced Precipitation in California as Simulated by the Regionally Refined Simple Convection Resolving E3SM Atmosphere Model (SCREAM) Version 0, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-839, 2024. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Bogenschutz, P. A. and Krueger, S. K.: A simplified PDF parameterization of subgrid‐scale clouds and turbulence for cloud‐resolving models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 195–211, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20018, 2013. a
Bogenschutz, P. A., Yamaguchi, T., and Lee, H. H.: The Energy Exascale Earth System Model Simulations With High Vertical Resolution in the Lower Troposphere, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002239, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002239, 2021. a
Bogenschutz, P. A., Lee, H.-H., Tang, Q., and Yamaguchi, T.: Combining regional mesh refinement with vertically enhanced physics to target marine stratocumulus biases as demonstrated in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 335–352, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-335-2023, 2023a. a, b, c, d
Bogenschutz, P. A., Eldred, C., and Caldwell, P. M.: Horizontal Resolution Sensitivity of the Simple Convection‐Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model in a Doubly‐Periodic Configuration, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003466, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ms003466, 2023b. a
Bogenschutz, P., Zhang, J., Tang, Q., and Cameron-Smith, P.: Atmospheric River Induced Precipitation in California as Simulated by the Regionally Refined Simple Convection Resolving E3SM Atmosphere Model (SCREAM) Version 0, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-839, 2024.
Broxton, P., Zeng, X., and Dawson., N.: Daily 4 km Gridded SWE and Snow Depth from Assimilated In-Situ and Modeled Data over the Conterminous US, National Snow and Ice Data Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/0GGPB220EX6A, 2019. a
Bryan, G. H., Wyngaard, J. C., and Fritsch, J. M.: Resolution requirements for the simulation of deep moist convection, Mon. Weather Rev., 131, 2394–2416, 2003. a
Caldwell, P., Chin, H. N. S., Bader, D. C., and Bala, G.: Evaluation of a WRF dynamical downscaling simulation over California, Climatic Change, 95, 499–521, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9583-5, 2009. a
Caldwell, P. M., Mametjanov, A., Tang, Q., Van Roekel, L. P., Golaz, J. C., Lin, W. Y., Bader, D. C., Keen, N. D., Feng, Y., Jacob, R., Maltrud, M. E., Roberts, A. F., Taylor, M. A., Veneziani, M., Wang, H. L., Wolfe, J. D., Balaguru, K., Cameron-Smith, P., Dong, L., Klein, S. A., Leung, L. R., Li, H. Y., Li, Q., Liu, X. H., Neale, R. B., Pinheiro, M., Qian, Y., Ullrich, P. A., Xie, S. C., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y. Y., Zhang, K., and Zhou, T.: The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Description and Results at High Resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4095–4146, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001870, 2019. a
Caldwell, P. M., Terai, C. R., Hillman, B., Keen, N. D., Bogenschutz, P., Lin, W., Beydoun, H., Taylor, M., Bertagna, L., Bradley, A. M., Clevenger, T. C., Donahue, A. S., Eldred, C., Foucar, J., Golaz, J. C., Guba, O., Jacob, R., Johnson, J., Krishna, J., Liu, W., Pressel, K., Salinger, A. G., Singh, B., Steyer, A., Ullrich, P., Wu, D., Yuan, X., Shpund, J., Ma, H. Y., and Zender, C. S.: Convection‐Permitting Simulations With the E3SM Global Atmosphere Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2021MS002544, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002544, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k
California Department of Food and Agriculture: California agricultural statistics review 2016–2017, https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2016-17AgReport.pdf (last access: 29 April 2024), 2016. a
Cayan, D. R.: Interannual Climate Variability and Snowpack in the Western United States, J. Climate, 9, 928–948, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<0928:Icvasi>2.0.Co;2, 1996. a
Chan, S. C., Kendon, E. J., Fowler, H. J., Blenkinsop, S., Ferro, C. A. T., and Stephenson, D. B.: Does increasing the spatial resolution of a regional climate model improve the simulated daily precipitation?, Clim. Dynam., 41, 1475–1495, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1568-9, 2012. a
Chen, X., Leung, L. R., Gao, Y., Liu, Y., Wigmosta, M., and Richmond, M.: Predictability of extreme precipitation in western US watersheds based on atmospheric river occurrence, intensity, and duration, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11693–11701, 2018. a
Chikira, M. and Sugiyama, M.: A Cumulus Parameterization with State-Dependent Entrainment Rate. Part I: Description and Sensitivity to Temperature and Humidity Profiles, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 2171–2193, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010jas3316.1, 2010. a
Crook, J. A., Jones, L. A., Forster, P. M., and Crook, R.: Climate change impacts on future photovoltaic and concentrated solar power energy output, Energy Environmental Science, 4, 3101–3109, https://doi.org/10.1039/c1ee01495a, 2011. a
Davini, P. and D’Andrea, F.: From CMIP3 to CMIP6: Northern Hemisphere Atmospheric Blocking Simulation in Present and Future Climate, J. Climate, 33, 10021–10038, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-19-0862.1, 2020. a
Dettinger, M.: Historical and future relations between large storms and droughts in California, San Francisco estuary and watershed science, San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, Vol. 14, https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2016v14iss2art1, 2016. a
Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Diaz, H. F., and Meko, D. M.: North–south precipitation patterns in western North America on interannual-to-decadal timescales, J. Climate, 11, 3095–3111, 1998. a
Dettinger, M. D., Ralph, F. M., Das, T., Neiman, P. J., and Cayan, D. R.: Atmospheric Rivers, Floods and the Water Resources of California, Water, 3, 445–478, https://doi.org/10.3390/w3020445, 2011. a, b, c
Dong, L., Leung, L. R., Lu, J., and Gao, Y.: Contributions of Extreme and Non‐Extreme Precipitation to California Precipitation Seasonality Changes Under Warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 13470–13478, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl084225, 2019. a
Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlömer, S., and von Stechow, C.: Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 1139505599, 2011. a
Engstrom, W. N.: The California storm of January 1862, Quaternary Res., 46, 141–148, 1996. a
Fang, Y., Liu, Y., and Margulis, S.: Western United States UCLA Daily Snow Reanalysis, Version 1. [WUS-SR], Boulder, Colorado USA, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/PP7T2GBI52I2, 2022a. a
Fang, Y., Liu, Y., and Margulis, S. A.: A western United States snow reanalysis dataset over the Landsat era from water years 1985 to 2021, Sci. Data, 9, 677, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01768-7, 2022b. a
Fox-Rabinovitz, M., Cote, J., Dugas, B., Deque, M., and McGregor, J. L.: Variable resolution general circulation models: Stretched-grid model intercomparison project (SGMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D16104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005jd006520, 2006. a
Gao, Z., Zhao, C., Yan, X., Guo, Y., Liu, S., Luo, N., Song, S., and Zhao, Z.: Effects of cumulus and radiation parameterization on summer surface air temperature over eastern China, Clim. Dynam., 61, 559–577, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06601-w, 2022. a
Gao, Z., Yan, X., Dong, S., Luo, N., and Song, S.: Object-based evaluation of rainfall forecasts over eastern China by eight cumulus parameterization schemes in the WRF model, Atmos. Res., 284, 106618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2023.106618, 2023. a
Gershunov, A., Cayan, D. R., and Iacobellis, S. F.: The great 2006 heat wave over California and Nevada: Signal of an increasing trend, J. Climate, 22, 6181–6203, 2009. a
Gleick, P. H. and Chalecki, E. L.: The impacts of climatic changes for water resources of the Colorado and Sacramento‐San Joaquin river basins, J. Am. Water Resour. As., 35, 1429–1441, 1999. a
Golaz, J. C., Caldwell, P. M., Van Roekel, L. P., Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q., Wolfe, J. D., Abeshu, G., Anantharaj, V., Asay-Davis, X. S., Bader, D. C., Baldwin, S. A., Bisht, G., Bogenschutz, P. A., Branstetter, M., Brunke, M. A., Brus, S. R., Burrows, S. M., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Donahue, A. S., Deakin, M., Easter, R. C., Evans, K. J., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Fyke, J. G., Griffin, B. M., Hannay, C., Harrop, B. E., Hoffman, M. J., Hunke, E. C., Jacob, R. L., Jacobsen, D. W., Jeffery, N., Jones, P. W., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Larson, V. E., Leung, L. R., Li, H. Y., Lin, W. Y., Lipscomb, W. H., Ma, P. L., Mahajan, S., Maltrud, M. E., Mametjanov, A., McClean, J. L., McCoy, R. B., Neale, R. B., Price, S. F., Qian, Y., Rasch, P. J., Eyre, J. E. J. R., Riley, W. J., Ringler, T. D., Roberts, A. F., Roesler, E. L., Salinger, A. G., Shaheen, Z., Shi, X. Y., Singh, B., Tang, J. Y., Taylor, M. A., Thornton, P. E., Turner, A. K., Veneziani, M., Wan, H., Wang, H. L., Wang, S. L., Williams, D. N., Wolfram, P. J., Worley, P. H., Xie, S. C., Yang, Y., Yoon, J. H., Zelinka, M. D., Zender, C. S., Zeng, X. B., Zhang, C. Z., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Zhou, T., and Zhu, Q.: The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Overview and Evaluation at Standard Resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2089–2129, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001603, 2019. a, b, c, d, e
Goss, M., Swain, D. L., Abatzoglou, J. T., Sarhadi, A., Kolden, C. A., Williams, A. P., and Diffenbaugh, N. S.: Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 094016, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7, 2020. a
Griffiths, P. G., Magirl, C. S., Webb, R. H., Pytlak, E., Troch, P. A., and Lyon, S. W.: Spatial distribution and frequency of precipitation during an extreme event: July 2006 mesoscale convective complexes and floods in southeastern Arizona, Water Resour. Res., 45, W07419, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007380, 2009. a
Guba, O., Taylor, M. A., Ullrich, P. A., Overfelt, J. R., and Levy, M. N.: The spectral element method (SEM) on variable-resolution grids: evaluating grid sensitivity and resolution-aware numerical viscosity, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2803–2816, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2803-2014, 2014. a
Guo, D., Yu, E., and Wang, H.: Will the Tibetan Plateau warming depend on elevation in the future?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 3969–3978, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024871, 2016. a
Gutowski, W. J., Ullrich, P. A., Hall, A., Leung, L. R., O'Brien, T. A., Patricola, C. M., Arritt, R. W., Bukovsky, M. S., Calvin, K. V., Feng, Z., Jones, A. D., Kooperman, G. J., Monier, E., Pritchard, M. S., Pryor, S. C., Qian, Y., Rhoades, A. M., Roberts, A. F., Sakaguchi, K., Urban, N., and Zarzycki, C.: The Ongoing Need for High-Resolution Regional Climate Models: Process Understanding and Stakeholder Information, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 101, E664–E683, https://doi.org/10.1175/Bams-D-19-0113.1, 2020. a, b
Hall, A., Schwartz, M., Sun, F., Walton, D., and Berg, N.: Significant and Inevitable End-of-Twenty-First-Century Advances in Surface Runoff Timing in California’s Sierra Nevada, J. Hydrometeorol., 18, 3181–3197, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-16-0257.1, 2017. a
Hanak, E. and Lund, J. R.: Adapting California’s water management to climate change, Climatic Change, 111, 17–44, 2012. a
Hanak, E., Chappelle, C., Escriva-Bou, A., Gray, B., Jezdimirovic, J., McCann, H., and Mount, J.: Priorities for California’s water, Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Water Policy Center, 1–19, https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-water/ (last access: 29 April 2024), 2017. a
Hannah, W. M., Bradley, A. M., Guba, O., Tang, Q., Golaz, J. C., and Wolfe, J.: Separating Physics and Dynamics Grids for Improved Computational Efficiency in Spectral Element Earth System Models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, e2020MS002419, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002419, 2021. a
Harris, L. M. and Lin, S.-J.: A Two-Way Nested Global-Regional Dynamical Core on the Cubed-Sphere Grid, Mon. Weather Rev., 141, 283–306, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00201.1, 2013. a
Harris, L. M., Lin, S.-J., and Tu, C.: High-Resolution Climate Simulations Using GFDL HiRAM with a Stretched Global Grid, J. Climate, 29, 4293–4314, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0389.1, 2016. a
Harrison, D. E. and Larkin, N. K.: Seasonal U.S. temperature and precipitation anomalies associated with El Niño: Historical results and comparison with 1997–98, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 3959–3962, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998GL900061, 1998. a
Hayhoe, K., Cayan, D., Field, C. B., Frumhoff, P. C., Maurer, E. P., Miller, N. L., Moser, S. C., Schneider, S. H., Cahill, K. N., Cleland, E. E., Dale, L., Drapek, R., Hanemann, R. M., Kalkstein, L. S., Lenihan, J., Lunch, C. K., Neilson, R. P., Sheridan, S. C., and Verville, J. H.: Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 12422–12427, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404500101, 2004. a, b, c
Higgins, R. W., Chen, Y., and Douglas, A. V.: Interannual Variability of the North American Warm Season Precipitation Regime, J. Climate, 12, 653–680, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<0653:Ivotna>2.0.Co;2, 1999. a, b
Hill, D. F., Burakowski, E. A., Crumley, R. L., Keon, J., Hu, J. M., Arendt, A. A., Wikstrom Jones, K., and Wolken, G. J.: Converting snow depth to snow water equivalent using climatological variables, The Cryosphere, 13, 1767–1784, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-1767-2019, 2019. a
Hoell, A., Hoerling, M., Eischeid, J., Wolter, K., Dole, R., Perlwitz, J., Xu, T., and Cheng, L.: Does El Niño intensity matter for California precipitation?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 819–825, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gl067102, 2016. a
Hohenegger, C., Brockhaus, P., and Schar, C.: Towards climate simulations at cloud-resolving scales, Meteorol. Z., 17, 383–394, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2008/0303, 2008. a
Hohenegger, C., Korn, P., Linardakis, L., Redler, R., Schnur, R., Adamidis, P., Bao, J., Bastin, S., Behravesh, M., Bergemann, M., Biercamp, J., Bockelmann, H., Brokopf, R., Brüggemann, N., Casaroli, L., Chegini, F., Datseris, G., Esch, M., George, G., Giorgetta, M., Gutjahr, O., Haak, H., Hanke, M., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T., Jungclaus, J., Kern, M., Klocke, D., Kluft, L., Kölling, T., Kornblueh, L., Kosukhin, S., Kroll, C., Lee, J., Mauritsen, T., Mehlmann, C., Mieslinger, T., Naumann, A. K., Paccini, L., Peinado, A., Praturi, D. S., Putrasahan, D., Rast, S., Riddick, T., Roeber, N., Schmidt, H., Schulzweida, U., Schütte, F., Segura, H., Shevchenko, R., Singh, V., Specht, M., Stephan, C. C., von Storch, J.-S., Vogel, R., Wengel, C., Winkler, M., Ziemen, F., Marotzke, J., and Stevens, B.: ICON-Sapphire: simulating the components of the Earth system and their interactions at kilometer and subkilometer scales, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 779–811, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-779-2023, 2023. a
Holden, Z. A., Swanson, A., Luce, C. H., Jolly, W. M., Maneta, M., Oyler, J. W., Warren, D. A., Parsons, R., and Affleck, D.: Decreasing fire season precipitation increased recent western US forest wildfire activity, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 115, E8349–E8357, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802316115, 2018. a, b
Huang, X. and Swain, D. L.: Climate change is increasing the risk of a California megaflood, Sci. Adv., 8, eabq0995, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abq0995, 2022. a, b, c, d
Huang, X. and Ullrich, P. A.: The Changing Character of Twenty-First-Century Precipitation over the Western United States in the Variable-Resolution CESM, J. Climate, 30, 7555–7575, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0673.1, 2017. a
Huang, X., Swain, D. L., Walton, D. B., Stevenson, S., and Hall, A. D.: Simulating and Evaluating Atmospheric River‐Induced Precipitation Extremes Along the U.S. Pacific Coast: Case Studies From 1980–2017, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031554, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031554, 2020. a, b, c, d, e
Hunke, E., Lipscomb, W., Turner, A., Jeffery, N., and Elliott, S.: CICE: The Los Alamos sea ice model, documentation and software, Report, version 4.0, Tech. Rep. LA-CC-06-012, Los Alamos National Laboratory, https://svn-ccsm-models.cgd.ucar.edu/cesm1/alphas/branches/cesm1_5_alpha04c_timers/components/cice/src/doc/cicedoc.pdf, (last access: 29 April 2024), 2008. a, b
Jana, S., Rajagopalan, B., Alexander, M. A., and Ray, A. J.: Understanding the Dominant Sources and Tracks of Moisture for Summer Rainfall in the Southwest United States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 4850–4870, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017jd027652, 2018. a
Jin, L., Li, Z., He, Q., Miao, Q., Zhang, H., and Yang, X.: Observation and simulation of near-surface wind and its variation with topography in Urumqi, West China, J. Meteorol. Res.-PRC, 30, 961–982, 2016. a
Johnson, B. O. and Delworth, T. L.: The Role of the Gulf of California in the North American Monsoon, J. Climate, 36, 1541–1559, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-22-0365.1, 2023. a
Johnstone, J. A. and Dawson, T. E.: Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 4533–4538, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0915062107, 2010. a
Junquas, C., Takahashi, K., Condom, T., Espinoza, J.-C., Chávez, S., Sicart, J.-E., and Lebel, T.: Understanding the influence of orography on the precipitation diurnal cycle and the associated atmospheric processes in the central Andes, Clim. Dynam., 50, 3995–4017, 2018. a
Karnauskas, K. B. and Ummenhofer, C. C.: On the dynamics of the Hadley circulation and subtropical drying, Clim. Dynam., 42, 2259–2269, 2014. a
Keeley, J. E., Safford, H., Fotheringham, C., Franklin, J., and Moritz, M.: The 2007 southern California wildfires: lessons in complexity, J. Forest., 107, 287–296, 2009. a
Kendon, E. J., Roberts, N. M., Senior, C. A., and Roberts, M. J.: Realism of Rainfall in a Very High-Resolution Regional Climate Model, J. Climate, 25, 5791–5806, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli-D-11-00562.1, 2012. a
Kendon, E. J., Ban, N., Roberts, N. M., Fowler, H. J., Roberts, M. J., Chan, S. C., Evans, J. P., Fosser, G., and Wilkinson, J. M.: Do Convection-Permitting Regional Climate Models Improve Projections of Future Precipitation Change?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 79–93, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-15-0004.1, 2017. a
Koračin, D., Lewis, J., Thompson, W. T., Dorman, C. E., and Businger, J. A.: Transition of Stratus into Fog along the California Coast: Observations and Modeling, J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 1714–1731, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<1714:TOSIFA>2.0.CO;2, 2001. a
Kriegler, E., Bauer, N., Popp, A., Humpenöder, F., Leimbach, M., Strefler, J., Baumstark, L., Bodirsky, B. L., Hilaire, J., Klein, D., Mouratiadou, I., Weindl, I., Bertram, C., Dietrich, J.-P., Luderer, G., Pehl, M., Pietzcker, R., Piontek, F., Lotze-Campen, H., Biewald, A., Bonsch, M., Giannousakis, A., Kreidenweis, U., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., Schultes, A., Schwanitz, J., Stevanovic, M., Calvin, K., Emmerling, J., Fujimori, S., and Edenhofer, O.: Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century, Global Environ. Chang., 42, 297–315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.015, 2017. a
Langhans, W., Schmidli, J., and Schär, C.: Mesoscale Impacts of Explicit Numerical Diffusion in a Convection-Permitting Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, 226–244, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011mwr3650.1, 2012. a
Laprise, R., Varma, M. R., Denis, B., Caya, D., and Zawadzki, I.: Predictability of a nested limited-area model, Mon. Weather Rev., 128, 4149–4154, 2000. a
Lauritzen, P. H., Bacmeister, J. T., Callaghan, P. F., and Taylor, M. A.: NCAR_Topo (v1.0): NCAR global model topography generation software for unstructured grids, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3975–3986, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3975-2015, 2015. a
Lee, H., Bogenschutz, P., and Yamaguchi, T.: Resolving Away Stratocumulus Biases in Modern Global Climate Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL099422, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022gl099422, 2022. a, b
Leung, L. R. and Qian, Y.: Atmospheric rivers induced heavy precipitation and flooding in the western US simulated by the WRF regional climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L03820, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036445, 2009. a
Leung, L. R., Qian, Y., Bian, X., Washington, W. M., Han, J., and Roads, J. O.: Mid-century ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the western United States, Climatic Change, 62, 75–113, 2004. a
Lewis, J.: Sea fog off the California coast: Viewed in the context of transient weather systems, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4457, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002833, 2003. a
Li, H., Wigmosta, M. S., Wu, H., Huang, M., Ke, Y., Coleman, A. M., and Leung, L. R.: A Physically Based Runoff Routing Model for Land Surface and Earth System Models, J. Hydrometeorol., 14, 808–828, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-015.1, 2013. a
Liu, W., Ullrich, P. A., Guba, O., Caldwell, P. M., and Keen, N. D.: An Assessment of Nonhydrostatic and Hydrostatic Dynamical Cores at Seasonal Time Scales in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002805, 2022. a
Liu, W., Ullrich, P. A., Li, J., Zarzycki, C., Caldwell, P. M., Leung, L. R., and Qian, Y.: The June 2012 North American Derecho: A Testbed for Evaluating Regional and Global Climate Modeling Systems at Cloud‐Resolving Scales, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003358, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022ms003358, 2023. a
Lucas-Picher, P., Argüeso, D., Brisson, E., Tramblay, Y., Berg, P., Lemonsu, A., Kotlarski, S., and Caillaud, C.: Convection-permitting modeling with regional climate models: Latest developments and next steps, WIREs Climate Change, 12, e731, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.731, 2021.
Luković, J., Chiang, J. C. H., Blagojević, D., and Sekulić, A.: A Later Onset of the Rainy Season in California, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090350, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl090350, 2021.
Lundquist, J., Hughes, M., Gutmann, E., and Kapnick, S.: Our Skill in Modeling Mountain Rain and Snow is Bypassing the Skill of Our Observational Networks, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 2473–2490, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0001.1, 2019. a, b
Ma, H. Y., Chuang, C. C., Klein, S. A., Lo, M. H., Zhang, Y., Xie, S., Zheng, X., Ma, P. L., Zhang, Y., and Phillips, T. J.: An improved hindcast approach for evaluation and diagnosis of physical processes in global climate models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 7, 1810–1827, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015ms000490, 2015. a
Mahajan, S., Tang, Q., Keen, N. D., Golaz, J.-C., and van Roekel, L. P.: Simulation of ENSO Teleconnections to Precipitation Extremes over the United States in the High-Resolution Version of E3SM, J. Climate, 35, 3371–3393, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-20-1011.1, 2022. a
Mahoney, K., Scott, J. D., Alexander, M., McCrary, R., Hughes, M., Swales, D., and Bukovsky, M.: Cool season precipitation projections for California and the Western United States in NA-CORDEX models, Clim. Dynam., 56, 3081–3102, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05632-z, 2021. a
Maraun, D., Wetterhall, F., Ireson, A. M., Chandler, R. E., Kendon, E. J., Widmann, M., Brienen, S., Rust, H. W., Sauter, T., Themessl, M., Venema, V. K. C., Chun, K. P., Goodess, C. M., Jones, R. G., Onof, C., Vrac, M., and Thiele-Eich, I.: Precipitation Downscaling under Climate Change: Recent Developments to Bridge the Gap between Dynamical Models and the End User, Rev. Geophys., 48, Rg3003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009rg000314, 2010. a
Marshall, A. M., Abatzoglou, J. T., Link, T. E., and Tennant, C. J.: Projected Changes in Interannual Variability of Peak Snowpack Amount and Timing in the Western United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 8882–8892, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083770, 2019. a
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., and Gomis, M.: Climate change 2021: the physical science basis, Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021. a
Menne, M. J., Durre, I., Korzeniewski, B., McNeal, S., Thomas, K., Yin, X., Anthony, S., Ray, R., Vose, R. S., and Gleason, B. E.: Global historical climatology network-daily (GHCN-Daily), Version 3, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, 10, V5D21VHZ, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/metadata/geoportal/rest/metadata/item/gov.noaa.ncdc:C00861/html (last access: 29 April 2024), 2012a. a
Menne, M. J., Durre, I., Vose, R. S., Gleason, B. E., and Houston, T. G.: An overview of the global historical climatology network-daily database, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 29, 897–910, 2012b. a
Meyer, J. D. D. and Jin, J.: The response of future projections of the North American monsoon when combining dynamical downscaling and bias correction of CCSM4 output, Clim. Dynam., 49, 433–447, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3352-8, 2016. a
Minder, J. R., Letcher, T. W., and Liu, C.: The Character and Causes of Elevation-Dependent Warming in High-Resolution Simulations of Rocky Mountain Climate Change, J. Climate, 31, 2093–2113, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0321.1, 2018. a
Morrison, H. and Milbrandt, J. A.: Parameterization of Cloud Microphysics Based on the Prediction of Bulk Ice Particle Properties. Part I: Scheme Description and Idealized Tests, J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 287–311, https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-d-14-0065.1, 2015. a
Musselman, K. N., Clark, M. P., Liu, C., Ikeda, K., and Rasmussen, R.: Slower snowmelt in a warmer world, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 214–219, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3225, 2017. a
Musselman, K. N., Lehner, F., Ikeda, K., Clark, M. P., Prein, A. F., Liu, C., Barlage, M., and Rasmussen, R.: Projected increases and shifts in rain-on-snow flood risk over western North America, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 808–812, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0236-4, 2018. a
Nauslar, N. J., Hatchett, B. J., Brown, T. J., Kaplan, M. L., and Mejia, J. F.: Impact of the North American monsoon on wildfire activity in the southwest United States, Int. J. Climatol., 39, 1539–1554, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5899, 2018. a
Neumann, P., Duben, P., Adamidis, P., Bauer, P., Bruck, M., Kornblueh, L., Klocke, D., Stevens, B., Wedi, N., and Biercamp, J.: Assessing the scales in numerical weather and climate predictions: will exascale be the rescue?, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 377, 20180148, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0148, 2019. a, b, c, d
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016. a
O’Brien, J. P. and Deser, C.: Quantifying and Understanding Forced Changes to Unforced Modes of Atmospheric Circulation Variability over the North Pacific in a Coupled Model Large Ensemble, J. Climate, 36, 19–37, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-22-0101.1, 2023. a
O’Brien, T. A., Sloan, L. C., Chuang, P. Y., Faloona, I. C., and Johnstone, J. A.: Multidecadal simulation of coastal fog with a regional climate model, Clim. Dynam., 40, 2801–2812, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1486-x, 2012. a
Pagès, M., Pepin, N., and Miró, J.: Measurement and modelling of temperature cold pools in the C erdanya valley (Pyrenees), Spain, Meteorological Applications, 24, 290–302, 2017. a
Palmer, P. L.: The SCS snow survey water supply forecasting program: Current operations and future directions, Western Snow Conf., 43–51, https://westernsnowconference.org/sites/westernsnowconference.org/PDFs/1988Palmer.pdf, (last access: 29 April 2024), 1988. a
Pathak, T., Maskey, M., Dahlberg, J., Kearns, F., Bali, K., and Zaccaria, D.: Climate Change Trends and Impacts on California Agriculture: A Detailed Review, Agronomy, 8, 25, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8030025, 2018. a
Patricola, C. M., O’Brien, J. P., Risser, M. D., Rhoades, A. M., O’Brien, T. A., Ullrich, P. A., Stone, D. A., and Collins, W. D.: Maximizing ENSO as a source of western US hydroclimate predictability, Clim. Dynam., 54, 351–372, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05004-8, 2020. a
Petch, J.: Sensitivity studies of developing convection in a cloud‐resolving model, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132, 345–358, 2006. a
Pierce, D. W., Su, L., Cayan, D. R., Risser, M. D., Livneh, B., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: An extreme-preserving long-term gridded daily precipitation data set for the conterminous United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 22, 1883–1895, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-20-0212.1, 2021. a
Pilié, R., Mack, E., Rogers, C., Katz, U., and Kocmond, W.: The formation of marine fog and the development of fog-stratus systems along the California coast, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 18, 1275–1286, 1979. a
Pincus, R., Mlawer, E. J., and Delamere, J. S.: Balancing Accuracy, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Radiation Calculations for Dynamical Models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 3074–3089, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001621, 2019. a
Porter, K., Wein, A., Alpers, C. N., Baez, A., Barnard, P. L., Carter, J., Corsi, A., Costner, J., Cox, D., and Das, T.: Overview of the ARkStorm scenario, Report 2331-1258, US Geological Survey, https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20101312, 2011. a, b
Prein, A. F., Langhans, W., Fosser, G., Ferrone, A., Ban, N., Goergen, K., Keller, M., Tolle, M., Gutjahr, O., Feser, F., Brisson, E., Kollet, S., Schmidli, J., van Lipzig, N. P., and Leung, R.: A review on regional convection-permitting climate modeling: Demonstrations, prospects, and challenges, Rev. Geophys., 53, 323–361, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000475, 2015. a, b
Prein, A. F., Towler, E., Ge, M., Llewellyn, D., Baker, S., Tighi, S., and Barrett, L.: Sub‐Seasonal Predictability of North American Monsoon Precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL095602, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095602, 2022. a, b
Ralph, F. M., Neiman, P. J., Wick, G. A., Gutman, S. I., Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., and White, A. B.: Flooding on California's Russian River: Role of atmospheric rivers, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L13801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026689, 2006. a, b
Ralph, F. M., Rutz, J. J., Cordeira, J. M., Dettinger, M., Anderson, M., Reynolds, D., Schick, L. I., and Smallcomb, C.: A Scale to Characterize the Strength and Impacts of Atmospheric Rivers, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 269–290, https://doi.org/10.1175/Bams-D-18-0023.1, 2019. a
Rauscher, S. A. and Ringler, T. D.: Impact of Variable-Resolution Meshes on Midlatitude Baroclinic Eddies Using CAM-MPAS-A, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 4256–4268, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00366.1, 2014. a, b
Rauscher, S. A., Ringler, T. D., Skamarock, W. C., and Mirin, A. A.: Exploring a Global Multiresolution Modeling Approach Using Aquaplanet Simulations, J. Climate, 26, 2432–2452, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00154.1, 2013. a
Rhoades, A. M., Huang, X. Y., Ullrich, P. A., and Zarzycki, C. M.: Characterizing Sierra Nevada Snowpack Using Variable-Resolution CESM, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 55, 173–196, https://doi.org/10.1175/Jamc-D-15-0156.1, 2016. a, b
Rhoades, A. M., Jones, A. D., and Ullrich, P. A.: The Changing Character of the California Sierra Nevada as a Natural Reservoir, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 13008–13019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gl080308, 2018a. a, b, c
Rhoades, A. M., Ullrich, P. A., Zarzycki, C. M., Johansen, H., Margulis, S. A., Morrison, H., Xu, Z., and Collins, W. D.: Sensitivity of Mountain Hydroclimate Simulations in Variable‐Resolution CESM to Microphysics and Horizontal Resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 1357–1380, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001326, 2018b. a
Rhoades, A. M., Jones, A. D., O'Brien, T. A., O'Brien, J. P., Ullrich, P. A., and Zarzycki, C. M.: Influences of North Pacific Ocean Domain Extent on the Western U.S. Winter Hydroclimatology in Variable‐Resolution CESM, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031977, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031977, 2020a. a, b
Rhoades, A. M., Jones, A. D., Srivastava, A., Huang, H., O'Brien, T. A., Patricola, C. M., Ullrich, P. A., Wehner, M., and Zhou, Y.: The Shifting Scales of Western U.S. Landfalling Atmospheric Rivers Under Climate Change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089096, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089096, 2020b. a
Rhoades, A. M., Risser, M. D., Stone, D. A., Wehner, M. F., and Jones, A. D.: Implications of warming on western United States landfalling atmospheric rivers and their flood damages, Weather and Climate Extremes, 32, 100326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2021.100326, 2021. a, b
Rhoades, A. M., Zarzycki, C. M., Inda‐Diaz, H. A., Ombadi, M., Pasquier, U., Srivastava, A., Hatchett, B. J., Dennis, E., Heggli, A., McCrary, R., McGinnis, S., Rahimi‐Esfarjani, S., Slinskey, E., Ullrich, P. A., Wehner, M., and Jones, A. D.: Recreating the California New Year's Flood Event of 1997 in a Regionally Refined Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2023MS003793, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023ms003793, 2023. a, b, c, d, e, f
Risser, M. D., Paciorek, C. J., Wehner, M. F., O’Brien, T. A., and Collins, W. D.: A probabilistic gridded product for daily precipitation extremes over the United States, Clim. Dynam., 53, 2517–2538, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04636-0, 2019. a, b
Sakaguchi, K., Lu, J., Leung, L. R., Zhao, C., Li, Y., and Hagos, S.: Sources and pathways of the upscale effects on the Southern Hemisphere jet in MPAS-CAM4 variable-resolution simulations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 8, 1786–1805, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000743, 2016. a
Samelson, R., De Szoeke, S., Skyllingstad, E., Barbour, P., and Durski, S.: Fog and Low-Level Stratus in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Simulations of the Northern California Current System Upwelling Season, Mon. Weather Rev., 149, 1593–1617, 2021. a
Satoh, M., Stevens, B., Judt, F., Khairoutdinov, M., Lin, S.-J., Putman, W. M., and Düben, P.: Global Cloud-Resolving Models, Current Climate Change Reports, 5, 172–184, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-019-00131-0, 2019. a
Schiemann, R., Athanasiadis, P., Barriopedro, D., Doblas-Reyes, F., Lohmann, K., Roberts, M. J., Sein, D. V., Roberts, C. D., Terray, L., and Vidale, P. L.: Northern Hemisphere blocking simulation in current climate models: evaluating progress from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 to 6 and sensitivity to resolution, Weather Clim. Dynam., 1, 277–292, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-277-2020, 2020. a
Siirila-Woodburn, E. R., Rhoades, A. M., Hatchett, B. J., Huning, L. S., Szinai, J., Tague, C., Nico, P. S., Feldman, D. R., Jones, A. D., and Collins, W. D.: A low-to-no snow future and its impacts on water resources in the western United States, Nature Reviews Earth Environment, 2, 800–819, 2021. a, b, c
Skamarock, W. C., Duda, M. G., Ha, S., and Park, S.-H.: Limited-area atmospheric modeling using an unstructured mesh, Mon. Weather Rev., 146, 3445–3460, 2018. a
Solaun, K. and Cerdá, E.: Climate change impacts on renewable energy generation. A review of quantitative projections, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 116, 109415, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109415, 2019. a
Stevens, B., Satoh, M., Auger, L., Biercamp, J., Bretherton, C. S., Chen, X., Düben, P., Judt, F., Khairoutdinov, M., Klocke, D., Kodama, C., Kornblueh, L., Lin, S.-J., Neumann, P., Putman, W. M., Röber, N., Shibuya, R., Vanniere, B., Vidale, P. L., Wedi, N., and Zhou, L.: DYAMOND: the DYnamics of the Atmospheric general circulation Modeled On Non-hydrostatic Domains, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 6, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-019-0304-z, 2019. a, b
Stewart, W. C.: Economic assessment of the ecosystem, University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-43/VOL_III/VIII_C23.PDF (last access: 29 April 2024), 1996. a
Sun, F., Berg, N., Hall, A., Schwartz, M., and Walton, D.: Understanding End‐of‐Century Snowpack Changes Over California's Sierra Nevada, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 933–943, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gl080362, 2019. a, b, c
Swain, D. L.: A Shorter, Sharper Rainy Season Amplifies California Wildfire Risk, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092843, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl092843, 2021. a
Tanaka, S. K., Zhu, T., Lund, J. R., Howitt, R. E., Jenkins, M. W., Pulido, M. A., Tauber, M., Ritzema, R. S., and Ferreira, I. C.: Climate warming and water management adaptation for California, Climatic Change, 76, 361–387, 2006. a
Tang, Q., Klein, S. A., Xie, S., Lin, W., Golaz, J.-C., Roesler, E. L., Taylor, M. A., Rasch, P. J., Bader, D. C., Berg, L. K., Caldwell, P., Giangrande, S. E., Neale, R. B., Qian, Y., Riihimaki, L. D., Zender, C. S., Zhang, Y., and Zheng, X.: Regionally refined test bed in E3SM atmosphere model version 1 (EAMv1) and applications for high-resolution modeling, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2679–2706, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2679-2019, 2019. a, b, c, d
Tang, Q., Golaz, J.-C., Van Roekel, L. P., Taylor, M. A., Lin, W., Hillman, B. R., Ullrich, P. A., Bradley, A. M., Guba, O., Wolfe, J. D., Zhou, T., Zhang, K., Zheng, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Wu, M., Wang, H., Tao, C., Singh, B., Rhoades, A. M., Qin, Y., Li, H.-Y., Feng, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, C., Zender, C. S., Xie, S., Roesler, E. L., Roberts, A. F., Mametjanov, A., Maltrud, M. E., Keen, N. D., Jacob, R. L., Jablonowski, C., Hughes, O. K., Forsyth, R. M., Di Vittorio, A. V., Caldwell, P. M., Bisht, G., McCoy, R. B., Leung, L. R., and Bader, D. C.: The fully coupled regionally refined model of E3SM version 2: overview of the atmosphere, land, and river results, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023. a, b, c, d, e, f
Taylor, M. A., Guba, O., Steyer, A., Ullrich, P. A., Hall, D. M., and Eldrid, C.: An Energy Consistent Discretization of the Nonhydrostatic Equations in Primitive Variables, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001783, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001783, 2020. a
Tebaldi, C., Debeire, K., Eyring, V., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Friedlingstein, P., Knutti, R., Lowe, J., O'Neill, B., Sanderson, B., van Vuuren, D., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Tokarska, K. B., Hurtt, G., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Meehl, G., Moss, R., Bauer, S. E., Boucher, O., Brovkin, V., Byun, Y.-H., Dix, M., Gualdi, S., Guo, H., John, J. G., Kharin, S., Kim, Y., Koshiro, T., Ma, L., Olivié, D., Panickal, S., Qiao, F., Rong, X., Rosenbloom, N., Schupfner, M., Séférian, R., Sellar, A., Semmler, T., Shi, X., Song, Z., Steger, C., Stouffer, R., Swart, N., Tachiiri, K., Tang, Q., Tatebe, H., Voldoire, A., Volodin, E., Wyser, K., Xin, X., Yang, S., Yu, Y., and Ziehn, T.: Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021. a
Tomita, H.: A stretched icosahedral grid by a new grid transformation, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 86, 107–119, 2008. a
Trenberth, K. E., Berry, J. C., and Buja, L. E.: Vertical interpolation and truncation of model-coordinate data, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6HX19NH, 1993. a
Ullrich, P. A. and Taylor, M. A.: Arbitrary-order conservative and consistent remapping and a theory of linear maps: Part I, Mon. Weather Rev., 143, 2419–2440, 2015. a
Ullrich, P. A. and Zarzycki, C. M.: TempestExtremes: a framework for scale-insensitive pointwise feature tracking on unstructured grids, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1069–1090, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1069-2017, 2017. a, b
Ullrich, P. A., Devendran, D., and Johansen, H.: Arbitrary-order conservative and consistent remapping and a theory of linear maps: Part II, Mon. Weather Rev., 144, 1529–1549, 2016. a
Ullrich, P. A., Zarzycki, C. M., McClenny, E. E., Pinheiro, M. C., Stansfield, A. M., and Reed, K. A.: TempestExtremes v2.1: a community framework for feature detection, tracking, and analysis in large datasets, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5023–5048, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5023-2021, 2021. a, b
Vanos, J., Guzman-Echavarria, G., Baldwin, J. W., Bongers, C., Ebi, K. L., and Jay, O.: A physiological approach for assessing human survivability and liveability to heat in a changing climate, Nat. Commun., 14, 7653, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43121-5, 2023. a
Walton, D. B., Hall, A., Berg, N., Schwartz, M., and Sun, F.: Incorporating Snow Albedo Feedback into Downscaled Temperature and Snow Cover Projections for California’s Sierra Nevada, J. Climate, 30, 1417–1438, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0168.1, 2017. a, b
Wang, H., Easter, R. C., Zhang, R., Ma, P.-L., Singh, B., Zhang, K., Ganguly, D., Rasch, P. J., Burrows, S. M., Ghan, S. J., Lou, S., Qian, Y., Yang, Y., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Leung, L. R., Liu, X., Shrivastava, M., Sun, J., Tang, Q., Xie, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: Aerosols in the E3SM Version 1: New Developments and Their Impacts on Radiative Forcing, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001851, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001851, 2020. a
Wang, M. N., Ullrich, P., and Millstein, D.: The future of wind energy in California: Future projections with the Variable-Resolution CESM, Renew. Energ., 127, 242–257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.031, 2018. a
Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., and Swetnam, T. W.: Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity, Science, 313, 940–943, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128834, 2006. a, b
Williams, A. P., Abatzoglou, J. T., Gershunov, A., Guzman‐Morales, J., Bishop, D. A., Balch, J. K., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Observed Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire in California, Earth's Future, 7, 892–910, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ef001210, 2019. a
Wing, I. S., Rose, A. Z., and Wein, A. M.: Economic Consequence Analysis of the ARkStorm Scenario, Nat. Hazards Rev., 17, A4015002, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000173, 2016. a
Winter, K. J. P. M., Kotlarski, S., Scherrer, S. C., and Schär, C.: The Alpine snow-albedo feedback in regional climate models, Clim. Dynam., 48, 1109–1124, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3130-7, 2017. a
Wise, E. K.: Hydroclimatology of the US intermountain west, Prog. Phys. Geog., 36, 458–479, 2012. a
Wu, C., Liu, X., Lin, Z., Rhoades, A. M., Ullrich, P. A., Zarzycki, C. M., Lu, Z., and Rahimi-Esfarjani, S. R.: Exploring a Variable-Resolution Approach for Simulating Regional Climate in the Rocky Mountain Region Using the VR-CESM, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 10939–10965, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027008, 2017. a
Yano, J. I., Ziemianski, M. Z., Cullen, M., Termonia, P., Onvlee, J., Bengtsson, L., Carrassi, A., Davy, R., Deluca, A., Gray, S. L., Homar, V., Kohler, M., Krichak, S., Michaelides, S., Phillips, V. T. J., Soares, P. M. M., and Wyszogrodzki, A. A.: Scientific Challenges of Convective-Scale Numerical Weather Prediction, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 699–710, https://doi.org/10.1175/Bams-D-17-0125.1, 2018. a
Zängl, G.: Dynamical aspects of wintertime cold-air pools in an Alpine valley system, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 2721–2740, 2005. a
Zarzycki, C. M. and Jablonowski, C.: A multidecadal simulation of Atlantic tropical cyclones using a variable-resolution global atmospheric general circulation model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 805–828, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014MS000352, 2014. a
Zender, C. S.: Analysis of self-describing gridded geoscience data with netCDF Operators (NCO), Environ. Modell. Softw., 23, 1338–1342, 2008. a
Zeng, X., Broxton, P., and Dawson, N.: Snowpack change from 1982 to 2016 over conterminous United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12940–12947, 2018. a
Zhang, J. and Bogenschutz, P.: Code, Data, and Technical Note for SCREAM California Convection-Permitting Regionally Refined Model 0.0 version (0.1), Zenodo [data set and code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11088673, 2024.
Zhang, K., Liu, X., Yoon, J.-H., Wang, M., Comstock, J. M., Barahona, D., and Kooperman, G.: Assessing aerosol indirect effect through ice clouds in CAM5, AIP Conf. Proc., 1527, 751, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4803379, 2013. a
Zhang, K., Zhang, W., Wan, H., Rasch, P. J., Ghan, S. J., Easter, R. C., Shi, X., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Ma, P.-L., Zhang, S., Sun, J., Burrows, S. M., Shrivastava, M., Singh, B., Qian, Y., Liu, X., Golaz, J.-C., Tang, Q., Zheng, X., Xie, S., Lin, W., Feng, Y., Wang, M., Yoon, J.-H., and Leung, L. R.: Effective radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols in E3SM version 1: historical changes, causality, decomposition, and parameterization sensitivities, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 9129–9160, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9129-2022, 2022. a
Zheng, X., Li, Q., Zhou, T., Tang, Q., Van Roekel, L. P., Golaz, J.-C., Wang, H., and Cameron-Smith, P.: Description of historical and future projection simulations by the global coupled E3SMv1.0 model as used in CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3941–3967, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3941-2022, 2022. a, b
Short summary
We developed a regionally refined climate model that allows resolved convection and performed a 20-year projection to the end of the century. The model has a resolution of 3.25 km in California, which allows us to predict climate with unprecedented accuracy, and a resolution of 100 km for the rest of the globe to achieve efficient, self-consistent simulations. The model produces superior results in reproducing climate patterns over California that typical modern climate models cannot resolve.
We developed a regionally refined climate model that allows resolved convection and performed a...
