Mid-Latitude incoming solar, ET & Clouds #27
Replies: 6 comments 5 replies
-
|
These experiments are more of a sensitivity test, to see the extent to which land parameters can influence, but informed by plots here from @aswann, @slevis-lmwg and I chose the following land model parameter changes in increase ET and decrease FSDS, especially in summer:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'll also note here that we have some indication that model and parameter changes that came in with CTSM5.3 in B-112, #15, may also be responsible for lower ET and clouds that increase FSDS, here for JJA?
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We are able to decrease summer incoming solar radiation in the NH. Changing photosynthetic parameter alone is the largest lever from the list above, and doing all three changes at once has (slightly) larger combined effects. It's helpful to flip between plots showing results from all three parameters (also belowa) vs. just jmaxb0. Seems like differences from combined land parameter changes are ~12 W/m2, whereas @adamrher's bias plots above are > 30 W/m2 Thanks to @slevis-lmwg for doing these runs and diagnostics. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Some encouraging results in LMWG_dev#86. Full diagnostics are coming but this run by @slevis-lmwg that clones #25 with a new parameter set from @linniahawkins seems to decrease incoming solar (FSDS) and lower temperatures (TSA), shown below for annual means (averaged over years 11-20). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There's been lots of email and discussion on this, but I wanted to put this figure from @adamrher up here, as he's trying to tune clouds in CAM7 to reduce incoming SW biases we're seeing in CESM3 (top right) vs. CESM2 (top left). Several tuning iterations are here from, with some variant of atune2 (middle right) seemingly prefered.
Interestingly, @rosiealice noted that the NorESM team is seeing similar issues, both here and in the tropics #26, and are interested in tracking progress made here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks @wwieder I think maybe our current FSDS biases are worse. e.g. from the current NorESM tag (beta04) FSDS vs CERES bias: We are doing a coupled model PPE right now and including 1) medlyn slope 2) d_max & dsl_init, 3) hydraulic failure mortality threshold and 4) z0mr as the land parameters, as well as peturbations from all other components. Hopefully this will give us some pointers to find a cloudier configuration! More coupled diagnostics here https://ns9560k.web.sigma2.no/datalake/diagnostics/noresm/tomast/n1850.ne30_tn14.noresm3_0_beta04-run1_yr001.20251103/XESMF_CLM-FATES/yr001-015/n1850.ne30_tn14.noresm3_0_beta04-run1_yr001.20251103/OBS_comparison/ANN/ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.







Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
In an attempt to improve RESTOM @adamrher found high biases in incoming shortwave over mid-latitudes of NH land in summer.
We do have some suggestions from a coupled model PPE by @czarakas and friends suggests that land model parameters can influence incoming shortwave and clouds and are kicking off a slew of F-cases to investigate these in LWMG_dev.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions