This study evaluates the tropical intraseasonal variability, especially the fidelity of The results show that current state-of-the-art GCMs still have significant problems and display a wide range of skill in simulating the tropical intraseasonal variability. The total intraseasonal (2-128 day) variance of precipitation is too weak in most of the models. About half of the models have signals of convectively coupled equatorial waves, with Kelvin and MRG-EIG waves especially prominent. However, the variances are generally too weak for all wave modes except the EIG wave, and the phase speeds are generally too fast, being scaled to excessively deep equivalent depths. An interesting result is that this scaling is consistent within a given model across modes, in that both the symmetric and antisymmetric modes scale similarly to a certain equivalent depth.Excessively deep equivalent depths suggest that these models may not have a large enough reduction in their "effective static stability" due to diabatic heating. 3The MJO variance approaches the observed value in only two of the 14 models, but is less than half of the observed value in the other 12 models. The ratio between the eastward MJO variance and the variance of its westward counterpart is too small in most of the models, which is consistent with the lack of highly coherent eastward propagation of the MJO in many models. Moreover, the MJO variance in 13 of the 14 models does not come from a pronounced spectral peak, but usually is associated with an overreddened spectrum, which in turn is associated with a too strong persistence of equatorial precipitation. The two models that arguably do best at simulating the MJO are the only ones having convective closures/triggers linked in some way to moisture convergence.4

This work documents the first version of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) new EnergyExascale Earth System Model (E3SMv1). We focus on the standard resolution of the fully coupled physical model designed to address DOE mission-relevant water cycle questions. Its components include atmosphere and land (110-km grid spacing), ocean and sea ice (60 km in the midlatitudes and 30 km at the equator and poles), and river transport (55 km) models. This base configuration will also serve as a foundation for additional configurations exploring higher horizontal resolution as well as augmented capabilities in the form of biogeochemistry and cryosphere configurations. The performance of E3SMv1 is evaluated by means of a standard set of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Characterization of Klima simulations consisting of a long preindustrial control, historical simulations (ensembles of fully coupled and prescribed SSTs) as well as idealized CO 2 forcing simulations. The model performs well overall with biases typical of other CMIP-class models, although the simulated Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is weaker than many CMIP-class models. While the E3SMv1 historical ensemble captures the bulk of the observed warming between preindustrial (1850) and present day, the trajectory of the warming diverges from observations in the Key Points: • This work documents E3SMv1, the first version of the U.S. DOE Energy Exascale Earth System Model • The performance of E3SMv1 is documented with a set of standard CMIP6 DECK and historical simulations comprising nearly 3,000 years • E3SMv1 has a high equilibrium climate sensitivity (5.3 K) and strong aerosol-related effective radiative forcing (-1.65 W/m 2 ) Correspondence to: Chris Golaz, golaz1@llnl.gov Citation: Golaz, J.-C., Caldwell, P. M., Van Roekel, L. P., Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q., Wolfe, J. D., et al. (2019). The DOE E3SM coupled model version 1: Overview and evaluation at standard resolution. second half of the twentieth century with a period of delayed warming followed by an excessive warming trend. Using a two-layer energy balance model, we attribute this divergence to the model's strong aerosol-related effective radiative forcing (ERF ari+aci = −1.65 W/m 2 ) and high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS = 5.3 K). Plain Language Summary The U.S. Department of Energy funded the development of a new state-of-the-art Earth system model for research and applications relevant to its mission. The Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1 (E3SMv1) consists of five interacting components for the global atmosphere, land surface, ocean, sea ice, and rivers. Three of these components (ocean, sea ice, and river) are new and have not been coupled into an Earth system model previously. The atmosphere and land surface components were created by extending existing components part of the Community Earth System Model, Version 1. E3SMv1's capabilities are demonstrated by performing a set of standardized simulation experiments described by...

[1] To assess the current status of climate models in simulating clouds, basic cloud climatologies from ten atmospheric general circulation models are compared with satellite measurements from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) and the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) program. An ISCCP simulator is employed in all models to facilitate the comparison. Models simulated a four-fold difference in high-top clouds. There are also, however, large uncertainties in satellite high thin clouds to effectively constrain the models. The majority of models only simulated 30-40% of middle-top clouds in the ISCCP and CERES data sets. Half of the models underestimated low clouds, while none overestimated them at a statistically significant level. When stratified in the optical thickness ranges, the majority of the models simulated optically thick clouds more than twice the satellite observations. Most models, however, underestimated optically intermediate and thin clouds. Compensations of these clouds biases are used to explain the simulated longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. Seasonal sensitivities of clouds are also analyzed to compare with observations. Models are shown to simulate seasonal variations better for high clouds than for low clouds. Latitudinal distribution of the seasonal variations correlate with satellite measurements at >0.9, 0.6-0.9, and À0.2-0.7 levels for high, middle, and low clouds, respectively. The seasonal sensitivities of cloud types are found to strongly depend on the basic cloud climatology in the models. Models that systematically underestimate middle clouds also underestimate seasonal variations, while those that overestimate optically thick clouds also overestimate their seasonal sensitivities. Possible causes of the systematic cloud biases in the models are discussed.

This study provides an overview of the coupled high‐resolution Version 1 of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SMv1) and documents the characteristics of a 50‐year‐long high‐resolution control simulation with time‐invariant 1950 forcings following the HighResMIP protocol. In terms of global root‐mean‐squared error metrics, this high‐resolution simulation is generally superior to results from the low‐resolution configuration of E3SMv1 (due to resolution, tuning changes, and possibly initialization procedure) and compares favorably to models in the CMIP5 ensemble. Ocean and sea ice simulation is particularly improved, due to better resolution of bathymetry, the ability to capture more variability and extremes in winds and currents, and the ability to resolve mesoscale ocean eddies. The largest improvement in this regard is an ice‐free Labrador Sea, which is a major problem at low resolution. Interestingly, several features found to improve with resolution in previous studies are insensitive to resolution or even degrade in E3SMv1. Most notable in this regard are warm bias and associated stratocumulus deficiency in eastern subtropical oceans and lack of improvement in El Niño. Another major finding of this study is that resolution increase had negligible impact on climate sensitivity (measured by net feedback determined through uniform +4K prescribed sea surface temperature increase) and aerosol sensitivity. Cloud response to resolution increase consisted of very minor decrease at all levels. Large‐scale patterns of precipitation bias were also relatively unaffected by grid spacing.

The Energy Exascale Earth System Model Atmosphere Model version 1, the atmospheric component of the Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model is described. The model began as a fork of the well‐known Community Atmosphere Model, but it has evolved in new ways, and coding, performance, resolution, physical processes (primarily cloud and aerosols formulations), testing and development procedures now differ significantly. Vertical resolution was increased (from 30 to 72 layers), and the model top extended to 60 km (~0.1 hPa). A simple ozone photochemistry predicts stratospheric ozone, and the model now supports increased and more realistic variability in the upper troposphere and stratosphere. An optional improved treatment of light‐absorbing particle deposition to snowpack and ice is available, and stronger connections with Earth system biogeochemistry can be used for some science problems. Satellite and ground‐based cloud and aerosol simulators were implemented to facilitate evaluation of clouds, aerosols, and aerosol‐cloud interactions. Higher horizontal and vertical resolution, increased complexity, and more predicted and transported variables have increased the model computational cost and changed the simulations considerably. These changes required development of alternate strategies for tuning and evaluation as it was not feasible to “brute force” tune the high‐resolution configurations, so short‐term hindcasts, perturbed parameter ensemble simulations, and regionally refined simulations provided guidance on tuning and parameterization sensitivity to higher resolution. A brief overview of the model and model climate is provided. Model fidelity has generally improved compared to its predecessors and the CMIP5 generation of climate models.

This study provides comprehensive insight into the notable differences in clouds and precipitation simulated by the Energy Exascale Earth System Model Atmosphere Model version 0 and version 1 (EAMv1). Several sensitivity experiments are conducted to isolate the impact of changes in model physics, resolution, and parameter choices on these differences. The overall improvement in EAMv1 clouds and precipitation is primarily attributed to the introduction of a simplified third-order turbulence parameterization Cloud Layers Unified By Binormals (along with the companion changes) for a unified treatment of boundary layer turbulence, shallow convection, and cloud macrophysics, though it also leads to a reduction in subtropical coastal stratocumulus clouds. This lack of stratocumulus clouds is considerably improved by increasing vertical resolution from 30 to 72 layers, but the gain is unfortunately subsequently offset by other retuning to reach the top-of-atmosphere energy balance. Increasing vertical resolution also results in a considerable underestimation of high clouds over the tropical warm pool, primarily due to the selection for numerical stability of a higher air parcel launch level in the deep convection scheme. Increasing horizontal resolution from 1°to 0.25°without retuning leads to considerable degradation in cloud and precipitation fields, with much weaker tropical and subtropical short-and longwave cloud radiative forcing and much stronger precipitation in the intertropical convergence zone, indicating poor scale awareness of the cloud parameterizations. To avoid this degradation, significantly different parameter settings for the low-resolution (1°) and high-resolution (0.25°) were required to achieve optimal performance in EAMv1. Plain Language Summary The Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) is a new and ongoingU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) climate modeling effort to develop a high-resolution Earth system model specifically targeting next-generation DOE supercomputers to meet the science needs of the nation and the mission needs of DOE. The increase of model resolution along with improvements in representing cloud and convective processes in the E3SM atmosphere model version 1 has led to quite significant model behavior changes from its earlier version, particularly in simulated clouds and precipitation. To understand what causes the model behavior changes, this study conducts sensitivity experiments to isolate the impact of changes in model physics, resolution, and parameter choices on these changes. Results from these sensitivity tests and discussions on the underlying physical processes provide substantial insight into the model errors and guidance for future E3SM development. Key Points:• CLUBB along with the companion changes in EAMv1 primarily account for the overall improvements in clouds and precipitation simulation • Underestimate of coastal Sc in EAMv1 is due to CLUBB and model tuning; increased vertical resolution partially offsets this degradation • The poor scale awareness of EAMv1 r...

[1] This paper describes a modified formulation of stratiform condensation rate associated with fractional cloudiness in the Community Atmospheric Model Version 2 (CAM2). It introduces an equation to link cloudiness change with the variation of total condensate. Together with a diagnostic cloud relationship that represents subgrid-scale variability of relative humidity, a closed system is formed to calculate the fractional condensation rate. As a result, the new formulation eliminates the two closure assumptions in the Rasch and Kristjànsson [1998] prognostic cloud scheme. It also extends the Sundqvist [1978] scheme by including the influence of convective detrainment and advection of condensates on the fractional cloudiness. Comparison is made between the present formulation and the Rasch and Kristjànsson scheme by using data from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program and through global model simulations with CAM2. It is shown that relative to the Rasch and Kristjànsson scheme, the new formulation produces less clouds and a slightly warmer troposphere, thus reducing the original cold bias in the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate Model (CCM). Even though the overall impact of the new formulation on the model climate is small, the modifications lead to more consistent treatments of fractional cloudiness change, condensation rate, and cloud water change in the model.

We revise the convective triggering function in Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) by introducing a dynamic constraint on the initiation of convection that emulates the collective dynamical effects to prevent convection from being triggered too frequently and allowing air parcels to launch above the boundary layer to capture nocturnal elevated convection. The former is referred to as the dynamic Convective Available Potential Energy (dCAPE) trigger and the latter as the Unrestricted Launch Level (ULL) trigger. Compared to the original trigger in EAMv1 that initiates convection whenever CAPE is larger than a threshold, the revised trigger substantially improves the simulated diurnal cycle of precipitation over both midlatitude and tropical lands. The nocturnal peak of precipitation and the eastward propagation of convection downstream of the Rockies and over the adjacent Great Plains are much better captured than those in the default model. The overall impact on mean precipitation is minor with some notable improvements over the Indo-Western Pacific, subtropical Pacific and Atlantic, and South America. In general, the dCAPE trigger helps to better capture late afternoon rainfall peak, while ULL is key to capturing nocturnal elevated convection and the eastward propagation of convection. The dCAPE trigger also primarily contributes to the considerable reduction of convective precipitation over subtropical regions and the frequency of light-to-moderate precipitation occurrence. However, no clear improvement is seen in intense convection and the amplitude of diurnal precipitation.