4.6 Article

The CGILS experimental design to investigate low cloud feedbacks in general circulation models by using single-column and large-eddy simulation models

Journal

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2012MS000182

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Biological and Environmental Research Division in the Office of Sciences of the US Department of Energy (DOE) through its FASTER project
  2. NASA Modeling and Analysis Program (MAP)
  3. NSF Center for Multiscale Modeling and Prediction
  4. FP7-ENV-1 European Project EUCLIPSE [244067]
  5. Directorate For Geosciences
  6. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [0837904] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A surrogate climate change is designed to investigate low cloud feedbacks in the northeastern Pacific by using Single Column Models (SCMs), Cloud Resolving Models (CRMs), and Large Eddy Simulation models (LES), as part of the CGILS study (CFMIP-GASS Intercomparison of LES and SCM models). The constructed large-scale forcing fields, including subsidence and advective tendencies, and their perturbations in the warmer climate are shown to compare well with conditions in General Circulation Models (GCMs), but they are free from the impact of any GCM parameterizations. The forcing fields in the control climate are also shown to resemble the mean conditions in the ECMWF-Interim Reanalysis. Applications of the forcing fields in SCMs are presented. It is shown that the idealized design can offer considerable insight into the mechanisms of cloud feedbacks in the models. Caveats and advantages of the design are also discussed. Citation: Zhang, M., C. S. Bretherton, P. N. Blossey, S. Bony, F. Brient, and J.-C. Golaz (2012), The CGILS experimental design to investigate low cloud feedbacks in general circulation models by using single-column and large-eddy simulation models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 4, M12001, doi:10.1029/2012MS000182.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available