Search

This study presents a multiscale assessment of the springtime U.S. Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCSs) in the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)'s Atmosphere Model version 4 (AM4). In AM4, MCSs exhibit lower intensity but longer duration, producing more precipitation compared to observation. The overall MCS activity demonstrates a "location bias" with its peak shifting from the Southern Great Plains to the Midwest in AM4, causing an eastward shift in associated precipitation. However, the dry bias of MCS precipitation over the Great Plains due to this shift is compensated by additional precipitation from amplified extratropical cyclone activities. Further analysis reveals that AM4 effectively reproduces the spatiotemporal distribution and relative frequency contribution of large-scale forcing patterns driving MCS genesis. The MCS location bias emerges under all forms of large-scale forcing patterns and is further attributed to local dynamic and thermodynamic factors including weaker surface lows, eastward-shifted fronts, and suppressed low-level jets (LLJs). Here we argue that the MCS location bias results from AM4 biases in both synoptic-mesoscale anomalies (i.e., fronts and LLJs) and seasonal mean circulations. The lack of two-way air-sea interaction in AM4 creates a hemispheric-scale sea level pressure bias, which is ultimately responsible for a seasonal mean northerly bias in lower-tropospheric winds and the subsequent weakening of LLJs. The existence of such biases in prescribed sea surface temperature (SST) experiments implies the need for extra caution when utilizing extended-range forecasts for MCSs over the continental U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate representation of mesoscale scale convective systems (MCSs) in climate models is of vital importance to understanding global energy, water cycles, and extreme weather. In this study, we evaluate the simulated MCS features over the United States from the newly developed GFDL global high-resolution (∼50 km) AM4 model by comparing them with the observations during spring to early summer (April–June) and late summer (July–August). The results show that the spatial distribution and seasonality of occurrence and genesis frequency of MCSs are reasonably simulated over the central United States in both seasons. The model reliably reproduces the observed features of MCS duration, translation speed, and size over the central United States, as well as the favorable large-scale circulation pattern associated with MCS development over the central United States during spring and early summer. However, the model misrepresents the amplitude and the phase of the diurnal cycle of MCSs during both seasons. In addition, the spatial distribution of occurrence and genesis frequency of MCSs over the eastern United States is substantially overestimated, with larger biases in early spring and summer. Furthermore, while large-scale circulation patterns are reasonably simulated in spring and early summer, they are misrepresented in the model during summer. Finally, we examine MCS-related precipitation, finding that the model overestimates MCS-related precipitation during spring and early summer, but this bias is insufficient to explain the significant dry bias observed in total precipitation over the central United States. Nonetheless, the dry biases in MCS-associated precipitation during late summer likely contribute to the overall precipitation deficit in the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An event‐based assessment of the sea surface temperature (SST) threshold at the genesis of tropical mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) is performed in this study. We show that this threshold (SSTG) has undergone a significant warming trend at a rate of ∼0.2°C per decade. The SSTG shows a remarkable correspondence with the tropical mean SST and upper‐tropospheric temperature on interannual and longer timescales. Using a high‐resolution global climate model that permits realistic simulations of tropical MCSs, we find that the observed features of SSTG are well simulated. Both observation and model simulations demonstrate that the upward tendency in SSTG primarily results from the environmental SST warming over MCS genesis regions rather than the changes in MCS genesis location. A continuous increase in SSTG is projected in a warming simulation, but the relationship between SSTG and upper‐tropospheric temperature remains unchanged, suggesting that the tropical tropospheric temperature generally follows a moist‐adiabatic adjustment. Plain Language Summary: The development of tropical ocean showers and thunderstorms requires a warm ocean surface as an energy source fueling the storm. As a good example, a sea surface temperature (SST) threshold of 26.5°C has long been recognized as a necessary condition for tropical cyclone genesis. Here we examine the SST threshold at the genesis of tropical mesoscale convective systems, which occur so frequently throughout the tropics that they play an important role in shaping the general circulation of the atmosphere as they redistribute moisture and energy in the atmosphere. Using satellite observations and a high‐resolution global climate model, we show that this threshold has undergone a significant warming trend during the past several decades and will continue to increase in the future. This warming trend is closely related to the changes in the tropical mean SST. A constant relationship between the SST threshold and upper‐tropospheric temperature is found in both the current climate and a warming climate, which corroborates the argument that tropospheric temperatures in the tropics approximately follow a moist adiabatic adjustment. Key Points: A significant warming trend in sea surface temperature at the genesis of tropical mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) sea surface temperature threshold (SSTG) has been observedA global climate model that can explicitly simulate MCSs captures the observed features of SSTG and projects a continuous increaseA constant relationship between SSTG and upper‐tropospheric temperature indicates the existence of a moist‐adiabatic adjustment [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]