Comparing climate models to real world shows differences in precipitation intensity

Comparing climate models to real world shows differences in precipitation intensity
Data collected from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility’s Southern Great Plains site (shown here) was used to evaluate and compare climate model simulations of precipitation. Credit: ARM Climate Research Facility (Flickr) via a Creative Commons License

Precipitation is difficult to represent in global climate models. Although most single-column models can reproduce the observed average precipitation reasonably well, there are significant differences in their details, including mean precipitation intensity. Scientists evaluated the performance of seven single-column models, used by global models to complex processes, by comparing simulated surface precipitation with observations.

The different single-column models' performances and associations with large-scale conditions provide insights on how to improve climate models' representation of convection, the movement of heat or air through fluids. Convection is integral to forming storm clouds. The insights gained here will also improve approaches for future testing.

Precipitation is one of the most poorly parameterized physical processes in global climate models. Scientists often use a single grid-box column of a or a single-column to more efficiently study and test the process representations or parameterization schemes in models. The single-column model approach is also a key strategy of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility and Atmospheric System Research activity.

However, most single-column model intercomparison studies organized by ARM have been focused on special cases or week- to month-long periods. To make a statistically meaningful comparison and evaluation of modeled precipitation, researchers conducted 3-year-long single-column model simulations of seven global participating in the Fast-physics System Testbed and Research (FASTER) project at the ARM Southern Great Plains site. Results of the study, conducted by DOE scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory, show that although most single column models can reproduce the observed average precipitation reasonably well, there are significant differences in their details.

These variations (both among models and between models and observations) include differences between daytime and nighttime, warm and cold seasons, frequency and mean precipitation intensity, and convective and stratiform partition. Further analysis reveals distinct meteorological backgrounds for large underestimation and overestimation events. The former occur in strong ascending regimes with negative low-level horizontal heat and moisture influx, while the latter occur in the weak or moderate ascending regimes with positive low-level horizontal heat and moisture influx.


Explore further

Higher resolution alone will not fix climate models' daytime precipitation cycle problems

More information: "Evaluation of precipitation simulated by seven SCMs against the ARM observations at the SGP site." Journal of Climate 26 (15), 5467–5492 (2013). DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00263.1
Journal information: Journal of Climate

Citation: Comparing climate models to real world shows differences in precipitation intensity (2015, April 20) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-04-climate-real-world-differences-precipitation.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
19 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 20, 2015
"Precipitation is difficult to represent in global climate models." So is temperature.

Apr 20, 2015
Comparing climate models to real world shows Dyson is correct, the models are deficient and should not be used for prediction or macro-economic decision making.

Apr 20, 2015
Ironwood, et&al., yeah! Why model when you can measure?
In any event,
Rather wild, cloud cover is ~68% of the Earth, obscures heat and light, reminds us that water vapor is not only everywhere, but thick and absorbs heat and light.

Between 20 and 80x more prevalent than CO2 (deserts go down to 6-14%), at least 7x more powerful as a GHG by the most conservative standards. It has also increased >3x more than CO2. 435ppm vs 135ppm.

Apr 21, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Why model when you can measure?
CO2's radiative forcing has been measured in numerous experiments for >100yrs but Water_Prophet has never sought fundamentals of physics/mathematics, does NOT understand experimental design !

Please avail yourselves of something Water_Prophet FAILS at so you are NOT mislead by stupidity:-
http://88.167.97....rl98.pdf

Water_Prophet claims
Rather wild, cloud cover is ~68% of the Earth, obscures heat and light, reminds us that water vapor is not only everywhere, but thick and absorbs heat and light
Wrong. WV absorbs very little light.

Water_Prophet stated
Between 20 and 80x more prevalent than CO2 (deserts go down to 6-14%), at least 7x more powerful as a GHG by the most conservative standards. It has also increased >3x more than CO2. 435ppm vs 135p
He forgets CO2's bands different !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more