Do Climate Models Need Microphysical and Convective Parameterizations to Generate Accurate Precipitation Fields?
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866912984310218752 |
|---|---|
| author | Moreno, Raul Durran, Dale |
| author_facet | Moreno, Raul Durran, Dale |
| contents | Accurately representing surface precipitation is crucial for the operational use of weather and climate models. Presently, global numerical weather prediction (NWP) models struggle to accurately generate precipitation due to their parametrization of unresolved deep convective clouds and, in regions of grid-resolved ascent, inadequate parameterizations of cloud microphysics. Here we bypass these parameterizations with a machine learning model that diagnoses precipitation from 13 ERA5 fields that are easily observed and assimilated, as opposed for example, to fields like rain or cloud liquid water. We train a pair of models; ML_ERA5 using ERA5 precipitation as the target, and ML_IMERG using a satellite based precipitation product. ML_ERA5 closely reproduces the ERA5 precipitation at all intensities. When evaluated against the satellite dataset, ML_IMERG closely matches observations, notably reproducing the diurnal cycle of the satellite product. ML_IMERG generally captures extremes better than ERA5 while also reducing ERA5's overproduction of light precipitation. When evaluated against a third ground-and-radar-based dataset, ML_IMERG inherits the strengths of the satellite dataset which is superior to ERA5 in the summer months. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_25936 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Do Climate Models Need Microphysical and Convective Parameterizations to Generate Accurate Precipitation Fields? Moreno, Raul Durran, Dale Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics Accurately representing surface precipitation is crucial for the operational use of weather and climate models. Presently, global numerical weather prediction (NWP) models struggle to accurately generate precipitation due to their parametrization of unresolved deep convective clouds and, in regions of grid-resolved ascent, inadequate parameterizations of cloud microphysics. Here we bypass these parameterizations with a machine learning model that diagnoses precipitation from 13 ERA5 fields that are easily observed and assimilated, as opposed for example, to fields like rain or cloud liquid water. We train a pair of models; ML_ERA5 using ERA5 precipitation as the target, and ML_IMERG using a satellite based precipitation product. ML_ERA5 closely reproduces the ERA5 precipitation at all intensities. When evaluated against the satellite dataset, ML_IMERG closely matches observations, notably reproducing the diurnal cycle of the satellite product. ML_IMERG generally captures extremes better than ERA5 while also reducing ERA5's overproduction of light precipitation. When evaluated against a third ground-and-radar-based dataset, ML_IMERG inherits the strengths of the satellite dataset which is superior to ERA5 in the summer months. |
| title | Do Climate Models Need Microphysical and Convective Parameterizations to Generate Accurate Precipitation Fields? |
| topic | Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25936 |