Energy transport in NorESM3dev

[adagj]

There has been some concern about cold high latitudes, reduced storm activity compared to NorESM2, and energy transport. I have tried to collect some previous results, and some results from the more recent beta09 simulations. Please add if you have relevant comments and/or results

Biases in storm-track activity
Method: Based on the bandpass-filter approach: storm tracks are represented in terms of the standard deviation of the bandpass-filtered Z500 field, retaining fluctuations in the field with time periods between 2.5 and 6 days

Energy transport in the Atmosphere and Ocean - ne30pg3tn14

(I only have atmospheric energy transport diagnostics for NorESM2-LM)

Energy transport in the Atmosphere and Ocean - ne16pg3tn14

@oyvindseland @matsbn @JensBDebernard @lisesg

[oyvindseland]

Thank you. So the poleward heat transport in the 1degree version is markedly weaker than in the 2 degree.

[lisesg]

@adagj: I can make new storm-track plots for a more recent experiment if that's useful? Just let me know where the data is on NIRD and which years to use.

[lisesg]

I can look at the 2 degree run, but the one degree runs only have monthly fields (I need daily Z500).

[adagj]

Ah, sorry for forgetting about that. @TomasTorsvik can you please output daily Z500 for the next submit?

[TomasTorsvik]

@adagj , @lisesg
Yes, I will include the daily Z500 output next time. Think we only had this output for 2 degree runs so far.

[lisesg]

Here's similar plots to before, but now showing the bias in storm-track activity wrt ERA5 for NorESM-2LM piControl (left; same plot as before), NorESM3 beta03 (middle; same plot as before), and beta09 (right; new!) for the NH (top) and SH (bottom):

There's some differences, but given that we only have 10 years for the beta09 run (and 30 years in the other cases) it's a bit difficult to say how meaningful they are. Overall, beta09 looks slightly better for the NH for DJF, MAM, and JJA whereas it is slightly worse for all seasons for the SH. But we should check again with more years.

[oyvindseland]

I am a bit uncertain on the interpretation. Does this indicate that synoptic activity is too low altogether in particular in autumn and winter and not only problems with position or it is the low Z500 also a consequence of a cold model