Search

Cold pools formed by precipitating convective clouds are an important source of mesoscale temperature variability. However, their sub‐mesoscale (100 m–10 km) structure has not been quantified, impeding validation of numerical models and understanding of their atmospheric and societal impacts. We assess temperature variability in observed and simulated cold pools using variograms calculated from dense network observations collected during a field experiment and in high‐resolution case‐study and idealized simulations. The temperature variance in cold pools is enhanced for spatial scales between ∼5 and 15 km compared to pre‐cold pool conditions, but the magnitude varies strongly with cold pool evolution and environment. Simulations capture the overall cold pool variogram shape well but underestimate the magnitude of the variability, irrespective of model resolution. Temperature variograms outside of cold pool periods are represented by the range of simulations evaluated here, suggesting that models misrepresent cold pool formation and/or dissipation processes. Plain Language Summary: Cold pools are cool gusty winds beneath thunderstorms that are formed by cooling from rainfall. They have many important impacts in the atmosphere and on society but are difficult to properly simulate in numerical weather models. The variability in cold pool temperature is an understudied feature of cold pools but which is important to represent in numerical models. In this study, we examine cold pool temperature variability from a dense network of surface weather station observations collected during a field campaign, and we compare those observations to numerical simulations of cold pools in a range of environments. We find that cold pools enhance temperature variability for distances greater than ∼5 km but suppress variability on smaller distances, and that the magnitude of cold pool temperature variability is strongly dependent on the environment and cold pool lifetime. We also show that numerical models, even at very high resolutions, are not able to properly simulate the magnitude of cold pool temperature variability. We highlight areas for improvement in numerical models that may help to improve simulations of cold pool variability, including land‐atmosphere interactions, turbulence, and conversion processes between water vapor and condensed water in storms. Key Points: Cold pool impacts on sub‐mesoscale temperature variability are quantified using variograms derived from observations and simulationsCold pools enhance temperature variability on scales between 5 and 15 km, but the magnitude varies strongly with lifetime and environmentHigh‐resolution case‐study and idealized simulations underestimate the magnitude of cold pool variability, irrespective of resolution [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Cold pools formed by precipitating convective clouds are an important source of mesoscale temperature variability. However, their sub‐mesoscale (100 m–10 km) structure has not been quantified, impeding validation of numerical models and understanding of their atmospheric and societal impacts. We assess temperature variability in observed and simulated cold pools using variograms calculated from dense network observations collected during a field experiment and in high‐resolution case‐study and idealized simulations. The temperature variance in cold pools is enhanced for spatial scales between ∼5 and 15 km compared to pre‐cold pool conditions, but the magnitude varies strongly with cold pool evolution and environment. Simulations capture the overall cold pool variogram shape well but underestimate the magnitude of the variability, irrespective of model resolution. Temperature variograms outside of cold pool periods are represented by the range of simulations evaluated here, suggesting that models misrepresent cold pool formation and/or dissipation processes.

The spread in global mean precipitation among climate models is explored in two ensembles using the complementary perspectives of surface evaporation and energy budgets. Models with higher global mean precipitation have stronger oceanic evaporation, driven by drier near‐surface air. The drier surface conditions occur alongside increases in near‐surface temperature and moisture at 925 hPa, which point to stronger boundary layer mixing. Correlations suggest that the degree of lower tropospheric mixing explains 18%–49% of the intermodel precipitation variance. To test this hypothesis, the degree of mixing is indirectly varied in a single‐model experiment by adjusting the relative humidity threshold that controls low‐cloud fraction. Indeed, increasing lower tropospheric mixing results in more global mean precipitation. Energetically, increased precipitation rates are associated with more downwelling longwave radiation to the surface and weaker sensible heat fluxes. These results highlight how lower‐tropospheric processes must be better constrained to reduce the precipitation discrepancy among climate models. Plain Language Summary: Climate models exhibit a spread in their simulation of the present‐day global mean precipitation rate; a fundamental climate statistic whose spread is surprisingly understudied. This 13% spread compares with the expected change in the global mean precipitation rate in a warmer climate scenario. Complex precipitation physics can make understanding what processes control the global mean precipitation rate across climate models inherently difficult. We find that the degree of mixing within the lower 1‐km of the atmosphere (lower‐tropospheric mixing) controls a large fraction of the spread in global mean precipitation across models. We also show linkages between the lower tropospheric mixing and the energy budget framework that is typically used to understand the global mean precipitation rate. Our results highlight a local scale process (mixing) that controls and impacts a global scale climate statistic (global mean precipitation). They also suggest that future attempts to bridge satellite observations and climate model output can potentially help reduce the existing spread and bias among climate models. Key Points: Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project simulations disagree on the magnitude of the present‐day global mean precipitation rate by 13%Lower tropospheric mixing explains as much as 49% of the intermodel varianceMost (up to 75%) of the spread in column atmospheric energy happens at the surface [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]