Climatic Change

, Volume 125, Issue 1, pp 67–78 | Cite as

The impact of boundary forcing on RegCM4.2 surface energy budget

  • Ivan GüttlerEmail author
  • Čedo Branković
  • Lidija Srnec
  • Mirta Patarčić


The surface energy budget components from two simulations of the regional climate model RegCM4.2 over the European/North African domain during the period 1989–2005 are analysed. The simulations differ in specified boundary forcings which were obtained from ERA-Interim reanalysis and the HadGEM2-ES Earth system model. Surface radiative and turbulent fluxes are compared against ERA-Interim. Errors in surface radiative fluxes are derived with respect to the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment/Surface Radiation Budget satellite-based products. In both space and time, we find a high degree of realism in the RegCM surface energy budget components, but some substantial errors and differences between the two simulations are also present. The most prominent error is an overestimation of the net surface shortwave radiation flux of more than 50 W/m2 over central and southeastern Europe during summer months. This error strongly correlates with errors in the representation of total cloud cover, and less strongly with errors in surface albedo. During other seasons, the amplitude of the surface energy budget components is more in line with reference datasets. The errors may limit the usefulness of RegCM simulations in applications (e.g. high-quality simulation-driven impact studies). However, by using a simple diagnostic model for error interpretation, we suggest potential sensitivity studies aiming to reduce the underestimation of cloud cover and overestimation of shortwave radiation flux.


Latent Heat Flux Surface Energy Budget Sensible Heat Flux Total Cloud Cover Ground Heat Flux 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



GEWEX/SRB data were obtained from the NASA Langley Research Center Atmospheric Sciences Data Center and ECMWF ERA-Interim data from the ECMWF data server. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme's Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the Met Office Hadley Centre climate modelling group for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. This study was partly supported by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia (project no. 004-1193086-3035). We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism, comments and suggestions that substantially improved the original manuscript.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_995_MOESM1_ESM.doc (484 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 484 kb)
10584_2013_995_MOESM2_ESM.doc (10.2 mb)
ESM 2 (DOC 10465 kb)
10584_2013_995_MOESM3_ESM.doc (666 kb)
ESM 3 (DOC 665 kb)
10584_2013_995_MOESM4_ESM.doc (301 kb)
ESM 4 (DOC 301 kb)


  1. Albergel C, de Rosnay P et al (2012) Soil moisture analyses at ECMWF: evaluation using global ground-based in situ observations. J Hydrometeorol 13:1442–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berbery EH, Mitchell KE et al (1999) Assessment of land-surface energy budgets from regional and global models. J Geophys Res 104(D16):19,329–19,348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betts AK (2009) Land-surface–atmosphere coupling in observations and models. J Adv Model Earth Syst 1(3): Art. #4, 18pp. doi: 10.3894/JAMES.2009.1.4
  4. Betts AK, Viterbo P (2000) Hydrological budgets and surface energy balance of seven subbasins of the Mackenzie river from the ECMWF model. J Hydrometeorol 1:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts AK, Ball JH et al (1996) The land surface- atmosphere interaction: a review based on observational and global modeling perspectives. J Geophys Res 101(D3):7209–7225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Branković Č, Molteni F, Viterbo P (2006) GCM sensitivity experiments with locally modified land surface properties over tropical South America. Clim Dyn 26:729–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen JH, Christensen OB (2007) A summary of the PRUDENCE model projections of changes in European climate by the end of this century. Clim Change 81:7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dee DP, Uppala SM et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diak GR, Mecikalski JR et al (2004) Estimating land surface energy budgets from space: review and current efforts at the University of Wisconsin—Madison and USDA–ARS. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 85:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emanuel KA (1991) A scheme for representing cumulus convection in large-scale models. J Atmos Sci 48:2313–2335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fu Q, Liou KN, Grossman A (1997) Multiple scattering parameterization in thermal infrared radiative transfer. J Atmos Sci 54:2799–2812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geiger R (1973) The climate near the ground. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 611 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Giorgi F, Coppola E et al (2012) RegCM4: model description and preliminary tests over multiple CORDEX domains. Clim Res 52:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta SK, Darnell WL, Wilber AC (1992) A parameterization for longwave surface radiation from satellite data: recent improvements. J Appl Meteorol 31:1361–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta SK, Kratz DP et al (2001) The Langley parameterized shortwave algorithm for surface radiation budget studies (Vers. 1.0). NASA/TP-2001-211272, 31ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta SK, Stackhouse PW Jr et al (2006) Surface radiation budget project completes 22-year data set. GEWEX WCRP News 16:12–13Google Scholar
  17. Gutowski WJ, Gutzler DS, Wang W-C (1991) Surface energy balances of three general circulation models: implications for simulating regional climate change. J Clim 4:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaeger EB, Anders I et al (2008) Analysis of ERA-40 driven CLM simulations for Europe. Meteorol Z 17(4):349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones CD, Hughes JK et al (2011) The HadGEM2-ES implementation of CMIP5 centennial simulations. Geosci Model Dev 4:543–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kothe S, Ahrens B (2010) On the radiation budget in regional climate simulations for West Africa. J Geophys Res 115(D23120). doi: 10.1029/2010JD014331
  21. Kothe S, Dobler A et al (2011) The radiation budget in a regional climate model. Clim Dyn 36:1023–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenderink G, van Ulden A et al (2007) Summertime inter-annual temperature variability in an ensemble of regional climate model simulations: analysis of the surface energy budget. Clim Change 81:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markovic M, Jones CG et al (2009) The surface radiation budget over North America: gridded data assessment and evaluation of regional climate models. Int J Climatol 29:2226–2240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nogherotto R, Coppola E, Giorgi F, Mariotti L (2013) Impact of Congo Basin deforestation on the African monsoon. Atmos Sci Lett 14:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pal JS, Small EE, Eltahir EAB (2000) Simulation of regional-scale water and energy budgets: representation of subgrid cloud and precipitation processes within RegCM. J Geophys Res 105(D24):29,579–29,594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pal JS, Giorgi F et al (2007) Regional climate modeling for the developing world: The ICTP RegCM3 and RegCNET. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1395–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinker RT, Laszlo I (1992) Modeling surface solar irradiance for satellite applications on a global scale. J Appl Meteorol 31:194–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pitman AJ (2003) The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes designed for climate models: a review. Int J Climatol 23:479–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reboita MS, da Rocha RP et al (2010) An assessment of the latent and sensible heat flux on the simulated regional climate over Southwestern South Atlantic Ocean. Clim Dyn 34:873–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shi XL, Chan JCL et al (2008) Effects of upstream surface heat fluxes on the evolution of the South China Sea summer monsoon. Meteorol Atmos Phys 100:303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stackhouse PW Jr, Gupta SK et al (2011) 24.5-year surface radiation budget data set released. GEWEX WCRP News 21:9–11Google Scholar
  32. Sylla MB, Giorgi F, Stordal F (2012) Large-scale origins of rainfall and temperature bias in high resolution simulations over southern Africa. Clim Res 52:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(4):485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsuang B-J (2005) Ground heat flux determination according to land skin temperature observations from in situ stations and satellites. J Hydrometeorol 6:371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vautard R, Gobiet A et al (2013) The simulation of European heat waves from an ensemble of regional climate models within the EURO-CORDEX project. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1714-z
  36. Winter JM, Eltahir EAB (2010) The sensitivity of latent heat flux to changes in the radiative forcing: a framework for comparing models and observations. J Clim 23:2345–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Winter JM, Pal JS, Eltahir EAB (2009) Coupling of integrated biosphere simulator to regional climate model version 3. J Clim 22:2743–2757CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Güttler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Čedo Branković
    • 1
  • Lidija Srnec
    • 1
  • Mirta Patarčić
    • 1
  1. 1.Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological ServiceZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations