As part of the EUROCS (EUROpean Cloud Systems study) project, cloud‐resolving model (CRM) simulations and parallel single‐column model (SCM) tests of the sensitivity of moist atmospheric convection to midtropospheric humidity are presented. This sensitivity is broadly supported by observations and some previous model studies, but is still poorly quantified. Mixing between clouds and environment is a key mechanism, central to many of the fundamental differences between convection schemes.Here, we define an idealized quasi‐steady ‘testbed’, in which the large‐scale environment is assumed to adjust the local mean profiles on a timescale of one hour. We then test sensitivity to the target profiles at heights above 2 km.Two independent CRMs agree reasonably well in their response to the different background profiles and both show strong deep precipitating convection in the more moist cases, but only shallow convection in the driest case. The CRM results also appear to be numerically robust. All the SCMs, most of which are one‐dimensional versions of global climate models (GCMs), show sensitivity to humidity but differ in various ways from the CRMs. Some of the SCMs are improved in the light of these comparisons, with GCM improvements documented elsewhere. © Crown copyright, 2004.

Here we present the first multi-model ensemble of regional climate simulations at kilometer-scale horizontal grid spacing over a decade long period. A total of 23 simulations run with a horizontal grid spacing of $$\sim $$∼ 3 km, driven by ERA-Interim reanalysis, and performed by 22 European research groups are analysed. Six different regional climate models (RCMs) are represented in the ensemble. The simulations are compared against available high-resolution precipitation observations and coarse resolution ( $$\sim $$∼ 12 km) RCMs with parameterized convection. The model simulations and observations are compared with respect to mean precipitation, precipitation intensity and frequency, and heavy precipitation on daily and hourly timescales in different seasons. The results show that kilometer-scale models produce a more realistic representation of precipitation than the coarse resolution RCMs. The most significant improvements are found for heavy precipitation and precipitation frequency on both daily and hourly time scales in the summer season. In general, kilometer-scale models tend to produce more intense precipitation and reduced wet-hour frequency compared to coarse resolution models. On average, the multi-model mean shows a reduction of bias from $$\sim \,$$∼ −40% at 12 km to $$\sim \,$$∼ −3% at 3 km for heavy hourly precipitation in summer. Furthermore, the uncertainty ranges i.e. the variability between the models for wet hour frequency is reduced by half with the use of kilometer-scale models. Although differences between the model simulations at the kilometer-scale and observations still exist, it is evident that these simulations are superior to the coarse-resolution RCM simulations in the representing precipitation in the present-day climate, and thus offer a promising way forward for investigations of climate and climate change at local to regional scales.

A better conceptual understanding and more realistic parameterizations of convective boundary layers in climate and weather prediction models have been major challenges in meteorological research. In particular, parameterizations of the dry convective boundary layer, in spite of the absence of water phase-changes and its consequent simplicity as compared to moist convection, typically suffer from problems in attempting to represent realistically the boundary layer growth and what is often referred to as countergradient fluxes. The eddy-diffusivity (ED) approach has been relatively successful in representing some characteristics of neutral boundary layers and surface layers in general. The mass-flux (MF) approach, on the other hand, has been used for the parameterization of shallow and deep moist convection. In this paper, a new approach that relies on a combination of the ED and MF parameterizations (EDMF) is proposed for the dry convective boundary layer. It is shown that the EDMF approach follows naturally from a decomposition of the turbulent fluxes into 1) a part that includes strong organized updrafts, and 2) a remaining turbulent field. At the basis of the EDMF approach is the concept that nonlocal subgrid transport due to the strong updrafts is taken into account by the MF approach, while the remaining transport is taken into account by an ED closure. Large-eddy simulation (LES) results of the dry convective boundary layer are used to support the theoretical framework of this new approach and to determine the parameters of the EDMF model. The performance of the new formulation is evaluated against LES results, and it is shown that the EDMF closure is able to reproduce the main properties of dry convective boundary layers in a realistic manner. Furthermore, it will be shown that this approach has strong advantages over the more traditional countergradient approach, especially in the entrainment layer. As a result, this EDMF approach opens the way to parameterize the clear and cumulus-topped boundary layer in a simple and unified way.

VALUE is an open European collaboration to intercompare downscaling approaches for climate change research, focusing on different validation aspects (marginal, temporal, extremes, spatial, process‐based, etc.). Here we describe the participating methods and first results from the first experiment, using “perfect” reanalysis (and reanalysis‐driven regional climate model (RCM)) predictors to assess the intrinsic performance of the methods for downscaling precipitation and temperatures over a set of 86 stations representative of the main climatic regions in Europe. This study constitutes the largest and most comprehensive to date intercomparison of statistical downscaling methods, covering the three common downscaling approaches (perfect prognosis, model output statistics—including bias correction—and weather generators) with a total of over 50 downscaling methods representative of the most common techniques.Overall, most of the downscaling methods greatly improve (reanalysis or RCM) raw model biases and no approach or technique seems to be superior in general, because there is a large method‐to‐method variability. The main factors most influencing the results are the seasonal calibration of the methods (e.g., using a moving window) and their stochastic nature. The particular predictors used also play an important role in cases where the comparison was possible, both for the validation results and for the strength of the predictor–predictand link, indicating the local variability explained. However, the present study cannot give a conclusive assessment of the skill of the methods to simulate regional future climates, and further experiments will be soon performed in the framework of the EURO‐CORDEX initiative (where VALUE activities have merged and follow on).Finally, research transparency and reproducibility has been a major concern and substantive steps have been taken. In particular, the necessary data to run the experiments are provided at http://www.value‐cost.eu/data and data and validation results are available from the VALUE validation portal for further investigation: http://www.value‐cost.eu/validationportal.