|Title||Assessment of the Regional Climate Model Version 3 over the Maritime Continent Using Different Cumulus Parameterization and Land Surface Schemes|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2012|
|Authors||Gianotti, R. L., Zhang, D. & Eltahir, E. A. B.|
|Journal||Journal of Climate|
|Keywords||Atmosphere-land interaction, Diurnal effects, Maritime Continent, Rainfall, Regional models|
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00025.1This paper describes an assessment of the Regional Climate Model, version 3 (RegCM3), coupled to two land surface schemes: the Biosphere–Atmosphere Transfer System, version 1e (BATS1e), and the Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS). The model’s performance in simulating precipitation over the Maritime Continent was evaluated against the 3-hourly Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis 3B42 product. It is found that the model suffers from three major errors in reproducing the observed rainfall histogram: underestimation of the frequency of dry periods, overestimation of the frequency of low-intensity rainfall, and underestimation of the frequency of high-intensity rainfall. Additionally, the model does not accurately reproduce the observed timing of the diurnal rainfall peak, particularly over land. These four errors persisted regardless of the choice of lateral boundary conditions, convective parameterization scheme, or land surface scheme. The magnitude of the wet–dry bias in the simulated volumes of rainfall was, however, strongly dependent on the choice of the convection scheme and lateral boundary conditions. The Grell convection scheme with Fritsch–Chappell closure was the best performing of the convection schemes, having the smallest error magnitudes in both the rainfall histogram and average diurnal cycle, and also having good representation of the land surface energy and evapotranspiration components. The 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40) was found to produce better simulations of observed rainfall when used as lateral boundary conditions than did the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis. Discussion of the nature of the major model errors is provided, along with some suggestions for improvement.
Regional Climate Modeling of the Maritime Continent