4.6 Article

Diagnosing GCM errors over West Africa using relaxation experiments. Part I: summer monsoon climatology and interannual variability

Journal

CLIMATE DYNAMICS
Volume 37, Issue 7-8, Pages 1293-1312

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-010-0911-2

Keywords

West African monsoon; AMMA; Climate modeling; Grid-point nudging

Funding

  1. European Community

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The CNRM atmospheric general circulation model Arpege-Climat is relaxed towards atmospheric reanalyses outside the 10A degrees S-32A degrees N 30A degrees W-50A degrees E domain in order to disentangle the regional versus large-scale sources of climatological biases and interannual variability of the West African monsoon (WAM). On the one hand, the main climatological features of the monsoon, including the spatial distribution of summer precipitation, are only weakly improved by the nudging, thereby suggesting the regional origin of the Arpege-Climat biases. On the other hand, the nudging technique is relatively efficient to control the interannual variability of the WAM dynamics, though the impact on rainfall variability is less clear. Additional sensitivity experiments focusing on the strong 1994 summer monsoon suggest that the weak sensitivity of the model biases is not an artifact of the nudging design, but the evidence that regional physical processes are the main limiting factors for a realistic simulation of monsoon circulation and precipitation in the Arpege-Climat model. Sensitivity experiments to soil moisture boundary conditions are also conducted and highlight the relevance of land-atmosphere coupling for the amplification of precipitation biases. Nevertheless, the land surface hydrology is not the main explanation for the model errors that are rather due to deficiencies in the atmospheric physics. The intraseasonal timescale and the model internal variability are discussed in a companion paper.

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