English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. The Regional Arctic System Model version 1 (RASM1) has been developed toprovide high-resolution simulations of the Arctic atmosphere–ocean–seaice–land system. Here, we provide a baseline for the capability of RASM tosimulate interface processes by comparing retrospective simulations fromRASM1 for 1990–2014 with the Community Earth System Model version 1 (CESM1)and the spread across three recent reanalyses. Evaluations of surface and2 m air temperature, surface radiative and turbulent fluxes, precipitation,and snow depth in the various models and reanalyses are performed usingglobal and regional datasets and a variety of in situ datasets, includingflux towers over land, ship cruises over oceans, and a field experiment oversea ice. These evaluations reveal that RASM1 simulates precipitation that issimilar to CESM1, reanalyses, and satellite gauge combined precipitationdatasets over all river basins within the RASM domain. Snow depth in RASM iscloser to upscaled surface observations over a flatter region than in moremountainous terrain in Alaska. The sea ice–atmosphere interface is wellsimulated in regards to radiation fluxes, which generally fall withinobservational uncertainty. RASM1 monthly mean surface temperature andradiation biases are shown to be due to biases in the simulated mean diurnalcycle. At some locations, a minimal monthly mean bias is shown to be due tothe compensation of roughly equal but opposite biases between daytime andnighttime, whereas this is not the case at locations where the monthly meanbias is higher in magnitude. These biases are derived from errors in thediurnal cycle of the energy balance (radiative and turbulent flux)components. Therefore, the key to advancing the simulation of SAT and thesurface energy budget would be to improve the representation of the diurnalcycle of radiative and turbulent fluxes. The development of RASM2 aims toaddress these biases. Still, an advantage of RASM1 is that it captures theinterannual and interdecadal variability in the climate of the Arctic region,which global models like CESM cannot do.

geoscientific model development

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