Comparison of Global Mesoscale Convective System Simulations in a Global Storm-Resolving Model and a High-Resolution General Circulation Model

Dong, Wenhao; Zhao, Ming; Guo, Huan; Harris, Lucas; Cheng, Kai-yuan; Zhou, Linjiong; Ramaswamy, V.

doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-24-0303.1

i

Comparison of Global Mesoscale Convective System Simulations in a Global Storm-Resolving Model and a High-Resolution General Circulation Model

2025
By Dong, Wenhao ; Zhao, Ming ; Guo, Huan ; ...

Select the Download button to view the document

Please click the download button to view the document.

Details

Journal Title:

Journal of Climate
Personal Author:

Dong, Wenhao ; Zhao, Ming ; Guo, Huan ; Harris, Lucas ; Cheng, Kai-yuan ; Zhou, Linjiong ; Ramaswamy, V.
NOAA Program & Office:

NWS (National Weather Service) ; OAR (Oceanic and Atmospheric Research) ; GFDL (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory)
Description:

This study compares the characteristics of global mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) simulated in a global storm-resolving model (GSRM) and a high-resolution (∼25-km) general circulation model (GCM), both developed at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. By comparing with two satellite datasets, we examine the spatial distribution, seasonal/diurnal cycles, and event-based features such as duration, size, intensity, and propagation of MCSs across six global hotspots. MCS-related precipitation features and their contribution to the total precipitation are also analyzed. Our results show that both models effectively capture the observed spatial patterns and seasonal cycles of MCSs, although notable differences exist in absolute values, particularly in the GCM. Both models not only simulate event-based statistics but also show large geographical variations with an overall tendency to produce longer-lasting and larger MCSs. The GSRM performs better in simulating MCS diurnal cycle and MCS intensity. While both models replicate spatial patterns of MCS-related precipitation, they struggle with accurately capturing intensity, and their contributions to total precipitation vary. This comparison highlights strengths and limitations of these two types of models, calling for further process-level investigation of model deficiencies and a detailed evaluation of observations due to dataset discrepancies.
Source:

Journal of Climate, 38(10), 2339-2356
DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-24-0303.1
ISSN:

0894-8755 ; 1520-0442
Format:

PDF
Publisher:

American Meteorological Society
Document Type:

Journal Article
Funding:

Grant no. NA16NWS4620043 ; Grant no. NA18NWS4620043B ; Grant no. NA18OAR4320123 ; Grant no. NA19OAR0220146 ; Grant no. NA19OAR0220147
Rights Information:

Other
Compliance:

Submitted
Main Document Checksum:

urn:sha-512:d2f62b22589d6b5d5b6df579c52b2ff4bb946dad990b1128d3ea99fb2b0294414931f3108f0d1bb0e47a9f7407d9f5c525bc4a9bd342be69290460d8278fd731
Download URL:

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/71090/noaa_71090_DS1.pdf
File Type:

[PDF - 31.41 MB ]

ON THIS PAGE

Details

The NOAA IR serves as an archival repository of NOAA-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other information authored or co-authored by NOAA or funded partners. As a repository, the NOAA IR retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.