Intercomparison of methods of coupling between convection and large-scale circulation: 1. Comparison over uniform surface conditions

Comparing storm resolving models and climates via unsupervised machine learning

Global storm-resolving models (GSRMs) have gained widespread interest because of the unprecedented detail with which they resolve the global climate. However, it remains difficult to quantify objective differences in how GSRMs resolve complex atmospheric formations. This lack of comprehensive tools for comparing model similarities is a problem in many disparate fields that involve simulation tools for complex data. To address this challenge we develop methods to estimate distributional distances based on both nonlinear dimensionality reduction and vector quantization. Our approach automatically learns physically meaningful notions of similarity from low-dimensional latent data representations that the different models produce. This enables an intercomparison of nine GSRMs based on their high-dimensional simulation data (2D vertical velocity snapshots) and reveals that only six are similar in their representation of atmospheric dynamics. Furthermore, we uncover signatures of the convective response to global warming in a fully unsupervised way. Our study provides a path toward evaluating future high-resolution simulation data more objectively.

Quantifying the circulation induced by convective clouds in kilometer-scale simulations

The complex coupling between the large-scale atmospheric circulation, which is explicitly resolved in modern numerical weather and climate models, and cloud-related diabatic processes, which are parameterized, is an important source of error in weather predictions and climate projections. To quantify the interactions between clouds and the large-scale circulation, a method is employed that attributes a far- and near-field circulation to the cloud system. The method reconstructs the cloud-induced flow based on estimates of vorticity and divergence over a limited domain and does not require the definition of a background flow. It is subsequently applied to 12- and 2-km simulations of convective clouds, which form within the large-scale cloud band ahead of the upper-level jet associated with an extratropical cyclone over the North Atlantic. The cloud-induced circulation is directed against the jet, reaches up to 10 m·s-1, and compares well between both simulations. The flow direction is in agreement with what can be expected from a vorticity dipole that forms in the vicinity of the clouds. Hence, in the presence of embedded convection, the wind speed does not steadily decrease away from the jet, as it does in cloud-free regions, but exhibits a pronounced negative anomaly, which can now be explained by the cloud-induced circulation. Furthermore, the direction of the reconstructed circulation suggests that the cloud induces a flow that counteracts its advection by the jet. Convective clouds therefore propagate more slowly than their surroundings, which may affect the distribution of precipitation. The method could be used to compare cloud-induced flow at different resolutions and between different parameterizations.

Intercomparison of methods of coupling between convection and large-scale circulation: 2. Comparison over nonuniform surface conditions

As part of an international intercomparison project, the weak temperature gradient (WTG) and damped gravity wave (DGW) methods are used to parameterize large-scale dynamics in a set of cloud-resolving models (CRMs) and single column models (SCMs). The WTG or DGW method is implemented using a configuration that couples a model to a reference state defined with profiles obtained from the same model in radiative-convective equilibrium. We investigated the sensitivity of each model to changes in SST, given a fixed reference state. We performed a systematic comparison of the WTG and DGW methods in different models, and a systematic comparison of the behavior of those models using the WTG method and the DGW method. The sensitivity to the SST depends on both the large-scale parameterization method and the choice of the cloud model. In general, SCMs display a wider range of behaviors than CRMs. All CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show an increase of precipitation with SST, while SCMs show sensitivities which are not always monotonic. CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show a similar relationship between mean precipitation rate and column-relative humidity, while SCMs exhibit a much wider range of behaviors. DGW simulations produce large-scale velocity profiles which are smoother and less top-heavy compared to those produced by the WTG simulations. These large-scale parameterization methods provide a useful tool to identify the impact of parameterization differences on model behavior in the presence of two-way feedback between convection and the large-scale circulation.