Evaluation of a sub-kilometre NWP system in an Arctic fjord-valley system in winter

Terrain challenges the prediction of near-surface atmospheric conditions, even in kilometre-scale numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. In this study, the ALADIN-HIRLAM NWP system with 0.5 km horizontal grid spacing and an increased number of vertical levels is compared to the 2.5-km model system similar to the currently operational NWP system at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute. The impact of the increased resolution on the forecasts’ ability to represent boundary-layer processes is investigated for the period from 12 to 16 February 2018 in an Arctic fjord-valley system in the Svalbard archipelago. Model simulations are compared to a wide range of observations conducted during a field campaign. The model configuration with sub-kilometre grid spacing improves both the spatial structure and overall verification scores for the near-surface temperature and wind forecasts compared to the 2.5-km experiment. The subkilometre experiment successfully captures the wind channelling through the valley and the temperature field associated with it. In a situation of a cold-air pool development, the sub-kilometre experiment has a particularly high near-surface temperature bias at low elevations. The use of measurement campaign data, however, reveals some encouraging results, e.g. the sub-kilometre system has a more realistic vertical profile of temperature and wind speed, and the surface temperature sensitivity to the net surface energy is closer to the observations. This work demonstrates the potential of sub-kilometre NWP systems for forecasting weather in complex Arctic terrain, and also suggests that the increase in resolution needs to be accompanied with further development of other parts of the model system

Improving Arctic weather and seasonal climate prediction: recommendations for future forecast systems evolution from the European project APPLICATE

The Arctic environment is changing, increasing the vulnerability of local communities and ecosystems, and impacting its socio-economic landscape. In this context, weather and climate prediction systems can be powerful tools to support strategic planning and decision-making at different time horizons. This article presents several success stories from the H2020 project APPLICATE on how to advance Arctic weather and seasonal climate prediction, synthesizing the key lessons learned throughout the project and providing recommendations for future model and forecast system development.The results discussed in this article were supported by the project APPLICATE (727862), funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. PO was additionally supported by the Spanish fellowship RYC-2017-22772.Peer ReviewedArticle signat per 29 autors/es: Pablo Ortega (1), Edward W. Blockley (2), Morten Køltzow (3), François Massonnet (4), Irina Sandu (5), Gunilla Svensson (6), Juan C. Acosta Navarro (1), Gabriele Arduini (5), Lauriane Batté (7), Eric Bazile (7), Matthieu Chevallier (8), Rubén Cruz-García (1), Jonathan J. Day (5), Thierry Fichefet (4), Daniela Flocco (9), Mukesh Gupta (4), Kerstin Hartung (6,10), Ed Hawkins (9), Claudia Hinrichs (11), Linus Magnusson (5), Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro (1), Sergio Pérez-Montero (1), Leandro Ponsoni (4), Tido Semmler (11), Doug Smith (2), Jean Sterlin (4), Michael Tjernström (6), Ilona Välisuo (7,12), and Thomas Jung (11,13) // (1) Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, Spain | (2) Met Office, Exeter, UK | (3) Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway | (4) Université catholique de Louvain, Earth and Life Institute, Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium | (5) European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK | (6) Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden | (7) CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, Toulouse, France | (8) Météo-France, Toulouse, France | (9) National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK. | (10) Now at: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany | (11) Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany | (12) Now at: Meteorology Unit, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland | (13) Department of Physics and Electrical Engineering, University of Bremen, Bremen, GermanyPostprint (published version

Greenland ice sheet rainfall climatology, extremes and atmospheric river rapids

Greenland rainfall has come into focus as a climate change indicator and from a variety of emerging cryospheric impacts. This study first evaluates rainfall in five state-of-the-art numerical prediction systems (NPSs) (CARRA, ERA5, NHM-SMAP, RACMO, MAR) using in situ rainfall data from two regions spanning from land onto the ice sheet. The new EU Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Arctic Regional ReAnalysis (CARRA), with a relatively fine (2.5 km) horizontal grid spacing and extensive within-model-domain observational initialization, has the lowest average bias and highest explained variance relative to the field data. ERA5 inland wet bias versus CARRA is consistent with the field data and other research and is presumably due to more ERA5 topographic smoothing. A CARRA climatology 1991–2021 has rainfall increasing by more than one-third for the ice sheet and its peripheral ice masses. CARRA and in situ data illuminate extreme (above 300 mm per day) local rainfall episodes. A detailed examination CARRA data reveals the interplay of mass conservation that splits flow around southern Greenland and condensational buoyancy generation that maintains along-flow updraft ‘rapids’ 2 km above sea level, which produce rain bands within an atmospheric river interacting with Greenland. CARRA resolves gravity wave oscillations that initiate as a result of buoyancy offshore, which then amplify from terrain-forced uplift. In a detailed case study, CARRA resolves orographic intensification of rainfall by up to a factor of four, which is consistent with the field data

Short range weather forecasts in the European Arctic; recent work and experiences with AROME Arctic

<p>Presentation at Arctic Frontiers about high resolution Arctic NWP.</p

Aerosol modeling over Europe: 2. Interannual variability of aerosol shortwave direct radiative forcing

Aerosol distribution over Europe and its direct radiative forcing have been simulated with a regional atmosphere-chemistry model and an off-line radiation transfer model. Primary and secondary organic and inorganic aerosols have been considered. The simulation was conducted for meteorologically different years 2002 and 2003 to analyze the spatial and temporal variability of the aerosol distribution and the direct forcing. The accompanying paper focuses on the aerosol distribution, while radiative forcing is discussed in this paper. The mixing state of aerosols, externally or internally, is shown to influence the strength, regional distribution and sign of radiative forcing, thereby regulating the forcing efficiency. Positive top-of-the-atmosphere forcing was simulated over eastern and southeastern Europe in spring and winter because of contribution of black carbon. Its strength varies from +0.2 to +1 Wm-2, depending on aerosol mixing assumptions. Sensitivity studies show a mean European direct forcing of –0.3 Wm-2 in winter and –2.5 Wm-2 in summer, regionally ranging from –5 to + 4 Wm-2

The Importance of Lateral Boundaries, Surface Forcing and Choice of Domain Size for Dynamical Downscaling of Global Climate Simulations

Dynamical downscaling by atmospheric Regional Climate Models (RCMs) forced with low-resolution data should produce climate details and add quality and value to the low-resolution data. The aim of this study was to explore the importance of (i) the oceanic surface forcing (sea-surface temperature (SST) and sea-ice), (ii) the lateral boundary condition data, and (iii) the size of the integration domain with respect to improved quality and value in dynamically downscaled data. Experiments addressing the three aspects were performed and the results were investigated for mean sea level pressure (mslp), 2 m air temperature (T2m) and daily precipitation. Although changes in SST gave a clear response locally, changes in the lateral boundary data and the size of the integration domain turned out to be more important with our geographical scope being Norway. The T2m turned out less sensitive to the changes in lateral forcing and the size of the integration domain than mslp and precipitation. The sensitivity for all three variables differed between Norwegian regions; northern parts of Norway were the most sensitive. Even though the sensitivities found in this study might be different in other regions and for other RCMs, these results call for careful consideration when choosing integration domain and driving lateral boundary data when performing dynamical downscaling

Value of the Copernicus Arctic Regional Reanalysis (CARRA) in representing near-surface temperature and wind speed in the north-east European Arctic

The representation of 2-m air temperature and 10-m wind speed in the high-resolution (with a 2.5-km grid spacing) Copernicus Arctic Regional Reanalysis (CARRA) and the coarser resolution (ca. 31-km grid spacing) global European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecasts fifth-generation reanalysis (ERA5) for Svalbard, northern Norway, Sweden and Finland is evaluated against observations. The largest differences between the two reanalyses are found in regions with complex terrain and coastlines, and over the sea ice for temperature in winter. In most aspects, CARRA outperforms ERA5 in its agreement with the observations, but the value added by CARRA varies with region and season. Furthermore, the added value by CARRA is seen for both parameters but is more pronounced for temperature than wind speed. CARRA is in better agreement with observations in terms of general evaluation metrics like bias and standard deviation of the errors, is more similar to the observed spatial and temporal variability and better captures local extremes. A better representation of high-impact weather like polar lows, vessel icing and warm spells during winter is also demonstrated. Finally, it is shown that a substantial part of the difference between reanalyses and observations is due to representativeness issues, that is, sub-grid variability, which cannot be represented in gridded data. This representativeness error is larger in ERA5 than in CARRA, but the fraction of the total error is estimated to be similar in the two analyses for temperature but larger in ERA5 for wind speed