240 likes | 347 Views
BIASES IN NSIPP SIMULATIONS. COMPARE AMIP AND COUPLED RUNS WITH SAME ATMOSPHERIC MODEL CLIMATOLOGY– TROPICAL BIASES INTERANNUAL VARIABILITY SENSITIVITY Credits: Sonya Miller, Phil Pegion, Augustin Vintzelios. MODELS. NSIPP 1 AGCM (2 x 2.5 x 34L resolution)
E N D
BIASES IN NSIPP SIMULATIONS • COMPARE AMIP AND COUPLED RUNS WITH SAME ATMOSPHERIC MODEL • CLIMATOLOGY– TROPICAL BIASES • INTERANNUAL VARIABILITY • SENSITIVITY Credits: Sonya Miller, Phil Pegion, Augustin Vintzelios
MODELS • NSIPP 1 AGCM (2 x 2.5 x 34L resolution) • RAS Convection (w/ autoconv. And reevap) • Louis turbulence • M-D Chou Radiation • Poseidon OGCM (1/3 x 5/8 resolution) • Schopf’s quasi-isopycnal dynamics • Reduced gravity • Global (no Arctic or Med) • Mosaic LSM • Direct coupling – no flux correction
DIFFERENCE 1 DEG ATMOS 2 DEG ATMO
CONTROL CU FRIC
SUMMARY • Model has many of the same biases as other coupled models. • Clear indications of many of these are already apparent in AMIP mode. • Though some like, the bias in the SPCZ (double ITCZ), are much worse in coupled mode. • Upper air features (stationary waves, zonal mean biases) not very affected by coupling. • Both AMIP and coupled models have reasonable stratus, but generic coupled problems in the East Equatorial Pacific still present