Abstract - PIRCS Precipitation
Anderson, C.J., R. W. Arritt, E. S. Takle, Z. Pan, W. J. Gutowski,
R. da Silva, and PIRCS modelers, 2003: Hydrologic processes in regional
climate model simulations of the central United States flood of June-July
1993. J. Hydrometeor. (in press).
Regional climate model (RCM) simulations of hydroclimate for the central
U. S. are sensitive to RCM design, yet comparison of RCM results under
common experimental conditions is rare. Thus the degree of and sources
for inter-model variability are not well known. We have compared 60-d
simulations of 1993 June-July from thirteen RCM simulations to each
other and observations. Boundary data and initial conditions were supplied
by the Project to Intercompare Regional Climate Simulations (PIRCS)
experiment 1b. We have examined water vapor conservation and precipitation
characteristics in each RCM for a 10Ox10O sub-region of the Upper Mississippi
River Basin (UMRB), containing the region of maximum 60-d accumulated
precipitation in all RCMs and station reports.
Results showed that gross features of hydroclimate were well simulated
in all RCMs. Specifically, all RCMs produced positive precipitation
minus evaporation (PE> 0), and RCM recycling ratios were within the
range estimated from observations. The range of P-E in RCMs enveloped
the range of estimates of observed P-E, but most RCMs produced P-E below
the estimated observed range. We found sensitivity of RCM E to radiation
parameterization, including clouds, but inter-model variability of E
was spread evenly about estimates of observed E suggesting little, if
any, common errors of E among the simulations. In contrast, most RCMs
produced P that was below the range of P from observations; thus a common
dry bias of the simulations accounted for the low values of simulated
P-E compared to observations.
Daily cycles of terms in the water vapor conservation equation revealed
that P in most RCMs is driven by the dynamics of atmospheric circulation.
In most simulations nocturnal maxima of P and C (convergence) occurred
simultaneously, consistent with observations of P and climatological
studies of water vapor conservation. Three of the four driest RCMs had
maximum P in the afternoon, while the time of maximum C was variable,
suggesting that in these RCMs afternoon destabilization by insolation
strongly influenced the precipitation process. When 60-d accumulated
precipitation was decomposed as the sum of 3-h precipitation totals,
a larger fraction of 60-d accumulated precipitation in all RCMs compared
to station reports was from low 3-h totals. This tendency was exaggerated
in the driest simulations. In station reports, accumulation from high
3-h totals had a nocturnal maximum, whereas accumulation from low 3-h
totals had an early morning maximum. Satellite imagery suggests that
this time lag between maximum accumulation from high and low 3-h totals
occurred, in part, because many mesoscale convective systems had reached
peak intensity overnight and had declined in intensity by early morning,
while having significant overlap with the UMRB box. None of the RCMs
contained this time lag between maximum accumulation from 3-h totals.
We therefore recommend additional tests of the ability of RCMs to simulate
the effects of mesoscale convective systems.