| Autor: |
Guendelman, Ilai, Merlis, Timothy M., Cheng, Kai‐Yuan, Harris, Lucas M., Bretherton, Christopher S., Bolot, Maximilien, Zhou, Linjiong, Kaltenbaugh, Alex, Clark, Spencer K., Fueglistaler, Stephan |
| Zdroj: |
Geophysical Research Letters; April 2024, Vol. 51 Issue: 7 |
| Abstrakt: |
Global storm‐resolving models (GSRMs) that can explicitly resolve some of deep convection are now being integrated for climate timescales. GSRMs are able to simulate more realistic precipitation distributions relative to traditional Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) models. In this study, we present results from two‐year‐long integrations of a GSRM developed at Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, eXperimental System for High‐resolution prediction on Earth‐to‐Local Domains (X‐SHiELD), for the response of precipitation to sea surface temperature warming and an isolated increase in CO2and compare it to CMIP6 models. At leading order, X‐SHiELD's response is within the range of the CMIP6 models. However, a close examination of the precipitation distribution response reveals that X‐SHiELD has a different response at lower percentiles and the response of the extreme events are at the lower end of the range of CMIP6 models. A regional decomposition reveals that the difference is most pronounced for midlatitude land, where X‐SHiELD shows a lower increase at intermediate percentiles and drying at lower percentiles. The main tool to investigate and make projections of the response of the climate system to warming is global climate models. These models usually have ∼100 km horizontal resolution and as a result need parameterizations in order to account for small‐scale processes. These parameterizations are a large source of uncertainty. Advancements in computational capabilities and technology allow us to run global models with high enough resolutions, called global storm‐resolving models (GSRMs), that some important small‐scale processes are explicitly resolved. In this study, we use two‐year‐long integrations of an atmosphere GSRM in present‐day and warmer climates and compare the precipitation response to more traditional global climate models. We find that the precipitation response of the GSRM lies within the range of the traditional models, except for the low percentiles of precipitation. A closer examination indicates that the main source of differences between the GSRM and traditional models occurs in midlatitude land regions, where the GSRM predicts more extensive drying of low precipitation percentiles compared to the traditional models. The GSRM also has an increase in precipitation extremes with warming that is somewhat weaker than that of traditional global climate models. We compare precipitation changes between Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) models and eXperimental System for High‐resolution prediction on Earth‐to‐Local Domains (X‐SHiELD), a global storm resolving model developed at Geophysical Fluid Dynamics LaboratoryX‐SHiELD response is mostly within the range of CMIP6 models, except for more drying of low precipitation percentilesX‐SHiELD precipitation distribution changes over midlatitude land differs significantly from the CMIP6 models We compare precipitation changes between Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) models and eXperimental System for High‐resolution prediction on Earth‐to‐Local Domains (X‐SHiELD), a global storm resolving model developed at Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory X‐SHiELD response is mostly within the range of CMIP6 models, except for more drying of low precipitation percentiles X‐SHiELD precipitation distribution changes over midlatitude land differs significantly from the CMIP6 models |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text