At convection-permitting scales, we are curious about EAMv2 versus SCREAMv0 at 3 km. A main question is: is the resolution or the physics more important for 3 km? Due to the relatively low cost, we try to understand this question by using a 3 km Regionally Refined Mesh over California. With complex topography and coastline, California is a microclimate-rich region with significant spatial heterogeneity and is well suited as a testbed for assessing resolution effects and comparing the physics of the two models. We hypothesized that resolution would dominate at 3 km and the two models would look similar, however we find significant differences that will be presented in this poster. In addition, we find that the CA RRM is able to reproduce some of the biases seen in the global 3 km SCREAM. Lastly, since SCREAM has fewer physics options, sensitivity tests using EAMv2 may help us understand the impact of physics currently not included in SCREAM, and potentially benefit the future EAMxx model in the E3SM Phase 3.
In-person
yes
Poster
Add a poster or a presentations here
Discussion Link
Add a link to your chosen place for discussion: either slack link, public google doc link or email address
