TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of single column model simulations of summertime midlatitude continental convection
AU - Ghan, Steven
AU - Randall, David
AU - Xu, Kuan Man
AU - Cederwall, Richard
AU - Gripe, Douglas
AU - Hack, James
AU - Iacobellis, Sam
AU - Klein, Stephen
AU - Krueger, Steven
AU - Lohmann, Ulrike
AU - Pedretti, John
AU - Robock, Alan
AU - Rotstayn, Leon
AU - Somerville, Richard
AU - Stenchikov, Georgiy
AU - Sud, Yogesh
AU - Walker, Gregory
AU - Xie, Shaocheng
AU - Yio, John
AU - Zhang, Minghua
PY - 2000
Y1 - 2000
N2 - Eleven different single-column models (SCMs) and one cloud ensemble model (GEM) are driven by boundary conditions observed at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program southern Great Plains site for a 17 day period during the summer of 1995. Comparison of the model simulations reveals common signatures identifiable as products of errors in the boundary conditions. Intermodel differences in the simulated temperature, humidity, cloud, precipitation, and radiative fluxes reflect differences in model resolution or physical parameterizations, although sensitive dependence on initial conditions can also contribute to intermodel differences. All models perform well at times but poorly at others. Although none of the SCM simulations stands out as superior to the others, the simulation by the GEM is in several respects in better agreement with the observations than the simulations by the SCMs. Nudging of the simulated temperature and humidity toward observations generally improves the simulated cloud and radiation fields as well as the simulated temperature and humidity but degrades the precipitation simulation for models with large temperature and humidity biases without nudging. Although some of the intermodel differences have not been explained, others have been identified as model problems that can be or have been corrected as a result of the comparison.
AB - Eleven different single-column models (SCMs) and one cloud ensemble model (GEM) are driven by boundary conditions observed at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program southern Great Plains site for a 17 day period during the summer of 1995. Comparison of the model simulations reveals common signatures identifiable as products of errors in the boundary conditions. Intermodel differences in the simulated temperature, humidity, cloud, precipitation, and radiative fluxes reflect differences in model resolution or physical parameterizations, although sensitive dependence on initial conditions can also contribute to intermodel differences. All models perform well at times but poorly at others. Although none of the SCM simulations stands out as superior to the others, the simulation by the GEM is in several respects in better agreement with the observations than the simulations by the SCMs. Nudging of the simulated temperature and humidity toward observations generally improves the simulated cloud and radiation fields as well as the simulated temperature and humidity but degrades the precipitation simulation for models with large temperature and humidity biases without nudging. Although some of the intermodel differences have not been explained, others have been identified as model problems that can be or have been corrected as a result of the comparison.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033759773&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1029/1999JD900971
DO - 10.1029/1999JD900971
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0033759773
SN - 0148-0227
VL - 105
SP - 2091
EP - 2124
JO - Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
JF - Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
IS - D2
M1 - 1999JD900971
ER -