Multiscale assessment of Indian monsoon rainfall using ICON and CMIP6 model simulations

Abstract. Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM) rainfall is organized across multiple timescales, from diurnal convection to synoptic disturbances, intraseasonal oscillations, and the seasonal mean. Climate models often show different levels of skill at each of these timescales, raising an important question: how do scale-dependent biases shape overall monsoon variability? Here, we assess a medium-resolution (40 km), non-hydrostatic global model (ICON) together with five hydrostatic CMIP6-class models (CNRM, MPI, GFDL, MIROC6, and IITM-ESM; 50–190 km resolution). All simulations are evaluated in AMIP configuration against high-resolution IMERG observations during 1998–2014, allowing isolation of atmospheric sources of rainfall bias. Rainfall errors are strongly scale-dependent and exhibit clear land–ocean contrasts. At the diurnal scale, ICON reproduces amplitudes over the continent with a relatively small bias (∼ 5 %–10 %), whereas MPI overestimates land diurnal amplitude by more than 150 % with premature triggering. The CNRM and GFDL show early daytime convection and weak nocturnal rainfall, while MIROC6 and IITM-ESM exhibit reduced diurnal amplitude linked to convective and resolution limitations. Over the Bay of Bengal, ICON overestimates diurnal amplitude (∼ 60 %) and variance (∼ 180 %), whereas CMIP6 models underestimate nocturnal oceanic variability (amplitude < 40 %, variance < 60 %). At synoptic timescales (2–7 d), models differ in their ability to sustain organized monsoon disturbances. ICON and GFDL maintain realistic spatial structure with moderate suppression, while MPI underestimates synoptic variance by up to ∼ 70 %–80 %. Other models either has weakened synoptic activity or redistribute variability toward intermediate (10–20 d) bands. Across the ensemble, the 20–100 d intraseasonal band is systematically underestimated (by ∼ 30 %–60 %) in the AMIP framework, suggesting that coupled ocean–atmosphere feedbacks, among other factors, contribute to maintaining monsoon intraseasonal oscillations. Seasonal rainfall patterns reflect the combined effect of these multiscale biases. Models that maintain a balanced variance distribution across diurnal, synoptic, and intraseasonal bands show improved seasonal structure, whereas distortions at intermediate frequencies contribute to amplitude and migration errors. These results indicate that credible monsoon simulation depends not only on seasonal-mean accuracy but also on physically consistent variability across timescales. A scale-aware diagnostic framework is therefore essential for improving convective triggering, mesoscale organization, boundary-layer processes, and air–sea coupling in climate models.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Weather and Climate Dynamics
Published
2026-08-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-7-1447-2026
Primary Topic
Climate variability and models
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Multiscale assessment of Indian monsoon rainfall using ICON and CMIP6 model simulations

Subodh Kumar Saha, Utkarsh Verma, Samir Pokhrel, Andreas F. Prein et al.
Weather and Climate Dynamics
Climate variability and models
article

Multiscale assessment of Indian monsoon rainfall using ICON and CMIP6 model simulations

Subodh Kumar Saha, Utkarsh Verma, Samir Pokhrel, Andreas F. Prein, Anurag Dipankar, Praveen Kumar Pothapakula, Shivamurthy Ravindra Yashas, Archana Rai, Hasibur Rahaman, K P Pribin, Anusha Sunkisala, Nishant Gautam, Patita Kalyana Sahoo, Hemantkumar Chaudhari
article en

Abstract

Abstract. Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM) rainfall is organized across multiple timescales, from diurnal convection to synoptic disturbances, intraseasonal oscillations, and the seasonal mean. Climate models often show different levels of skill at each of these timescales, raising an important question: how do scale-dependent biases shape overall monsoon variability? Here, we assess a medium-resolution (40 km), non-hydrostatic global model (ICON) together with five hydrostatic CMIP6-class models (CNRM, MPI, GFDL, MIROC6, and IITM-ESM; 50–190 km resolution). All simulations are evaluated in AMIP configuration against high-resolution IMERG observations during 1998–2014, allowing isolation of atmospheric sources of rainfall bias. Rainfall errors are strongly scale-dependent and exhibit clear land–ocean contrasts. At the diurnal scale, ICON reproduces amplitudes over the continent with a relatively small bias (∼ 5 %–10 %), whereas MPI overestimates land diurnal amplitude by more than 150 % with premature triggering. The CNRM and GFDL show early daytime convection and weak nocturnal rainfall, while MIROC6 and IITM-ESM exhibit reduced diurnal amplitude linked to convective and resolution limitations. Over the Bay of Bengal, ICON overestimates diurnal amplitude (∼ 60 %) and variance (∼ 180 %), whereas CMIP6 models underestimate nocturnal oceanic variability (amplitude < 40 %, variance < 60 %). At synoptic timescales (2–7 d), models differ in their ability to sustain organized monsoon disturbances. ICON and GFDL maintain realistic spatial structure with moderate suppression, while MPI underestimates synoptic variance by up to ∼ 70 %–80 %. Other models either has weakened synoptic activity or redistribute variability toward intermediate (10–20 d) bands. Across the ensemble, the 20–100 d intraseasonal band is systematically underestimated (by ∼ 30 %–60 %) in the AMIP framework, suggesting that coupled ocean–atmosphere feedbacks, among other factors, contribute to maintaining monsoon intraseasonal oscillations. Seasonal rainfall patterns reflect the combined effect of these multiscale biases. Models that maintain a balanced variance distribution across diurnal, synoptic, and intraseasonal bands show improved seasonal structure, whereas distortions at intermediate frequencies contribute to amplitude and migration errors. These results indicate that credible monsoon simulation depends not only on seasonal-mean accuracy but also on physically consistent variability across timescales. A scale-aware diagnostic framework is therefore essential for improving convective triggering, mesoscale organization, boundary-layer processes, and air–sea coupling in climate models.

Weather and Climate DynamicsVol. 7(3)
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IN), Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (IN), ETH Zurich (CH), Ministry of Earth Sciences (IN), Institute for Independent Studies Zürich (CH), Savitribai Phule Pune University (IN), Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (IN)
Life below water
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Climate variability and models
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.