Brief communication: Evaluating Antarctic precipitation in ERA5 and CMIP6 against CloudSat observations

CMIP5, CMIP6, and ERA5 Antarctic precipitation is evaluated against CloudSat data. At continental and regional scales, ERA5 and the median CMIP models are biased high, with insignificant improvement from CMIP5 to CMIP6. However, there are fewer positive outliers in CMIP6. AMIP configurations perform...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Cryosphere
Main Authors: Roussel, Marie-Laure, Lemonnier, Florentin, Genthon, Christophe, Krinner, Gerhard
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2020
Subjects:
article
Verlagsveröffentlichung
Antarctic
Antarc*
The Cryosphere
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2715-2020
https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00052927
https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00052580/tc-14-2715-2020.pdf
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/14/2715/2020/tc-14-2715-2020.pdf
Description
Summary:CMIP5, CMIP6, and ERA5 Antarctic precipitation is evaluated against CloudSat data. At continental and regional scales, ERA5 and the median CMIP models are biased high, with insignificant improvement from CMIP5 to CMIP6. However, there are fewer positive outliers in CMIP6. AMIP configurations perform better than the coupled ones, and, surprisingly, relative errors in areas of complex topography are higher (up to 50 %) in the five higher-resolution models. The seasonal cycle is reproduced well by the median of the CMIP models, but not by ERA5. Progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6 being limited, there is still room for improvement.

Similar Items