Evaluation of the atmosphere–land–ocean–sea ice interface processes in the Regional Arctic System Model version 1 (RASM1) using local and globally gridded observations

• Main Authors: Brunke, Michael A., Cassano, John J., Dawson, Nicholas, DuVivier, Alice K., Gutowski, William J., Jr., Hamman, Joseph, Maslowski, Wieslaw, Nijssen, Bart, Eyre, J. E. Jack Reeves, Renteria, José C., Roberts, Andrew, Zeng, Xubin
• Other Authors: Naval Postgraduate School, Oceanography
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Published: Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union 2018
• Subjects: Arctic; Sea ice; Alaska
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10945/68420

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4817-2018 Includes supplementary material The Regional Arctic System Model version 1 (RASM1) has been developed to provide high-resolution simulations of the Arctic atmosphere–ocean–sea ice–land system. Here, we provide a baseline for the capability of RASM to simulate interface processes by comparing retrospective simulations from RASM1 for 1990–2014 with the Community Earth System Model version 1 (CESM1) and the spread across three recent reanalyses. Evaluations of surface and 2 m air temperature, surface radiative and turbulent fluxes, precipitation, and snow depth in the various models and reanalyses are performed using global and regional datasets and a variety of in situ datasets, including flux towers over land, ship cruises over oceans, and a field experiment over sea ice. These evaluations reveal that RASM1 simulates precipitation that is similar to CESM1, reanalyses, and satellite gauge combined precipitation datasets over all river basins within the RASM domain. Snow depth in RASM is closer to upscaled surface observations over a flatter region than in more mountainous terrain in Alaska. The sea ice–atmosphere interface is well simulated in regards to radiation fluxes, which generally fall within observational uncertainty. RASM1 monthly mean surface temperature and radiation biases are shown to be due to biases in the simulated mean diurnal cycle. At some locations, a minimal monthly mean bias is shown to be due to the compensation of roughly equal but opposite biases between daytime and nighttime, whereas this is not the case at locations where the monthly mean bias is higher in magnitude. These biases are derived from errors in the diurnal cycle of the energy balance (radiative and turbulent flux) components. Therefore, the key to advancing the simulation of SAT and the surface energy budget would be to improve the representation of the diurnal cycle of radiative and turbulent fluxes. The development of RASM2 ...