A Gray Zone GCM with Full Representation of Cloud Microphysics

  • In-Sik KangEmail author
  • Min-Seop Ahn
Part of the Springer Atmospheric Sciences book series (SPRINGERATMO)


This chapter describes the development procedure of general circulation model (GCM) with full representation of cloud microphysics at a medium-range horizontal resolution of 50 km and discusses the simulation results of their precipitation climatology and Madden and Julian Oscillation (MJO). One issue of developing such a GCM is to modify the cloud microphysics suitable to the horizontal resolution. In the present study, the modification is made based on sensitivity experiments for the parameters of the important processes sensitive to the model resolution, particularly the condensation process and the terminal velocity. It is demonstrated that shallow convection and scale-dependent deep convection are still needed in the present model of 50 km resolution with cloud microphysics. The present GCM is shown to simulate the precipitation statistic such as the light and heavy precipitation frequencies and the MJO reasonably well, although the MJO intensity is rather strong. Both cloud microphysics and scale-dependent deep convection play important roles in simulating a realistic MJO in the present GCM. Also noted is that the precipitation climatologies of the present atmospheric GCM (AGCM) and the coupled ocean–atmosphere GCM (CGCM) are quite different from each other, indicating that the air–sea interaction plays an important role in determining the climatology, and this result suggests us to tune the model physics and their parameters with CGCM rather than with AGCM.


Gray zone GCM Cloud microphysics Scale-dependent convection MJO 


  1. Ahn, M.-S., and I.S. Kang. 2018. A practical approach to scale-adaptive deep convection in a GCM by controlling the cumulus base mass flux. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science (in revision).Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, M.-S., D. Kim, K.R. Sperber, I.S. Kang, E. Maloney, D. Waliser, H. Hendon on behalf of WGNE MJO Task Force. 2017. MJO simulation in CMIP5 climate models: MJO skill metrics and process oriented diagnosis. Climate Dynamics 49: 4023–4045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arakawa, A., J.-H. Jung, and C.-M. Wu. 2011. Toward unification of the multiscale modeling of the atmosphere. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11 (8): 3731–3742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedict, J.J., and D.A. Randall. 2009. Structure of the Madden-Julian oscillation in the superparameterized CAM. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 66 (11): 3277–3296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryan, G.H., and H. Morrison. 2012. Sensitivity of a simulated squall line to horizontal resolution and parameterization of microphysics. Monthly Weather Review 140 (1): 202–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan, G.H., J.C. Wyngaard, and J.M. Fritsch. 2003. Resolution requirements for the simulation of deep moist convection. Monthly Weather Review 131 (10): 2394–2416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C.-T., and T. Knutson. 2008. On the verification and comparison of extreme rainfall indices from climate models. Journal of Climate 21: 1605–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeMott, C.A., D.A. Randall, and M. Khairoutdinov. 2007. Convective precipitation variability as a tool for general circulation model analysis. Journal of Climate 20: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grabowski, W.W., X. Wu, M.W. Moncrieff, and W.D. Hall. 1998. Cloud-resolving modeling of cloud systems during Phase III of GATE. Part II: Effects of resolution and the third spatial dimension. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 55 (21): 3264–3282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ham, Yoo-Geun, Jong-Seong Kug, In-Sik Kang, Fei-Fei Jin, and Axel Timmermann. 2010. Impact of diurnal atmosphere-ocean coupling on tropical climate simulations using a coupled GCM. Climate Dynamics 34: 905–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holloway, C.E., S.J. Woolnough, and G.M.S. Lister. 2013. The effects of explicit versus parameterized convection on the MJO in a large-domain high-resolution tropical case study. Part I: Characterization of large-scale organization and propagation*. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 70: 1342–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holloway, C.E., S.J. Woolnough, and G.M.S. Lister. 2015. The effects of explicit versus parameterized convection on the MJO in a large-domain high resolution tropical case study. Part II: Processes leading to differences in MJO development. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 72: 2719–2743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hung, M.-P., J.-L. Lin, W. Wang, D. Kim, T. Shinoda, and S.J. Weaver. 2013. MJO and convectively coupled equatorial waves simulated by CMIP5 climate models. Journal of Climate 26: 6185–6214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iorio, J., P. Duffy, B. Govindasamy, S. Thompson, M. Khairoutdinov, and D. Randall. 2004. Effects of model resolution and subgrid-scale physics on the simulation of precipitation in the continental United States. Climate Dynamics 23 (3–4): 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jung, J.-H., and A. Arakawa. 2004. The resolution dependence of model physics: Illustrations from nonhydrostatic model experiments. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 61 (1): 88–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kang, I.-S., Y.-M. Yang, and W.-K. Tao. 2015. GCMs with implicit and explicit representation of cloud microphysics for simulation of extreme precipitation frequency. Climate Dynamics 45: 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kang, I.-S., M.-S. Ahn, and Y.-M. Yang. 2016. A GCM with cloud microphysics and its MJO simulation. Geoscience Letters 3: 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, D., and I.-S. Kang. 2012. A bulk mass flux convection scheme for climate model: Description and moisture sensitivity. Climate Dynamics 38: 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klemp, J.B., and R. Wilhelmson. 1978. The simulation of three-dimensional convective storm dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 35: 1070–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kodama, C., Y. Yamada, A.T. Noda, K. Kikuchi, Y. Kajikawa, T. Nasuno, T. Tomita, T. Yamaura, H.G. Takahashi, M. Hara, Y. Kawatani, M. Satoh, and M. Sugi. 2015. A 20-year climatology of a NICAM AMIP-type simulation. Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan 93: 393–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Le Trent, H., and Z.-X. Li. 1991. Sensitivity of an atmospheric general circulation model to prescribed SST changes: Feedback effects associated with the simulation of cloud optical properties. Climate Dynamics 5 (3): 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, M.-I., I.-S. Kang, J.-K. Kim, and B.E. Mapes. 2001. Influence of cloud-radiation interaction on simulating tropical intraseasonal oscillation with an atmospheric general circulation model. Journal Geophysical Research 106 (14): 219–233.Google Scholar
  23. Li, F., W.D. Collins, M.F. Wehner, D.L. Williamson, J.G. Olson, and C. Algieri. 2011. Impact of horizontal resolution on simulation of precipitation extremes in an aqua-planet version of community atmospheric model (CAM3). Tellus A 63: 884–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, S.-J. 2004. A “vertically Lagrangian” finite-volume dynamical core for global models. Monthly Weather Review 132 (10): 2293–2307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin, Y.-L., R.D. Farley, and H.D. Orville. 1983. Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 22 (6): 1065–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miura, H., M. Satoh, T. Nasuno, A.T. Noda, and K. Oouchi. 2007. A Madden-Julian oscillation event realistically simulated by a global cloud-resolving model. Science 318 (5857): 1763–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miyakawa, T., M. Satoh, H. Miura, H. Tomita, H. Yashiro, A.T. Noda, Y. Yamada, C. Kodama, M. Kimoto, and K. Yoneyama. 2014. Madden-Julian oscillation prediction skill of a new-generation global model. Nature Communications 5: 3769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moorthi, S., and M.J. Suarez. 1992. Relaxed Arakawa–Schubert: A parameterization of moist convection for general circulation models. Monthly Weather Review 120: 978–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moncrieff, M.W., and E. Klinker. 1997. Organized convective systems in the tropical western Pacific as a process in general circulation models. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 123: 805–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakajima, T., M. Tsukamoto, Y. Tsushima, and A. Numaguti. 1995. Modelling of the radiative processes in an AGCM. Climate System Dynamics and Modelling 3: 104–123.Google Scholar
  31. Noh, Y., and H.J. Kim. 1999. Simulations of temperature and turbulence structure of the oceanic boundary layer with the improved nearsurface process. Journal of Geophysical Research 104: 15621–15634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oouchi, K., A.T. Noda, M. Satoh, H. Miura, H. Tomita, T. Nasuno, and S. Iga. 2009. A simulated preconditioning of typhoon genesis controlled by a boreal summer Madden-Julian Oscillation event in a global cloud-system-resolving model. SOLA 5: 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pauluis, O., and S. Garner. 2006. Sensitivity of radiative-convective equilibrium simulations to horizontal resolution. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 63 (7): 1910–1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Satoh, M., and Coauthors. 2014. The non-hydrostatic icosahedral atmospheric model: Description and development. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science 1: 18.Google Scholar
  35. Tao, W.-K., J. Simpson, D. Baker, S. Braun, M.-D. Chou, B. Ferrier, D. Johnson, A. Khain, S. Lang, and B. Lynn. 2003. Microphysics, radiation and surface processes in the Goddard Cumulus Ensemble (GCE) model. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 82 (1): 97–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tiedtke, M. 1984. Sensitivity of the time-mean large-scale flow to cumulus convection in the ECMWF model, 297–316.Google Scholar
  37. Tomita, H., H. Miura, S. Iga, T. Nasuno, and M. Satoh. 2005. A global cloud-resolving simulation: Preliminary results from an aqua planet experiment. Geophysical Reseach Letters 32: 1–4. Scholar
  38. Wehner, M.F., R.L. Smith, G. Bala, and P. Duffy. 2010. The effect of horizontal resolution on simulation of very extreme US precipitation events in a global atmosphere model. Climate Dynamics 34: 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weisman, M.L., W.C. Skamarock, and J.B. Klemp. 1997. The resolution dependence of explicitly modeled convective systems. Monthly Weather Review 125 (4): 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu, H., H. Hendon, and C. Jakob. 2009. Convection in a parameterized and superparameterized model and its role in the representation of the MJO. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 66 (9): 2796–2811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Ocean Operational Oceanographic Research Center, SOED, Second Institute of OceanographyHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Center of Excellence of Climate Change Research, King Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Department of Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of OceanographyChonnam National UniversityGwangjuKorea

Personalised recommendations