Assessment of simulations of a polar low with the Canadian Regional Climate Model

9. Dee DP, Uppala SM, Simmons AJ, Berrisford P, Poli P, Kobayashi S, et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc. 2011; 137(656): 553–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828 10. Laffineur T, Claud C, Chaboureau J-P, Noer G. Polar Lows over the Nordic Seas: Improved Represen- tation in ERA-Interim Compared to ERA-40 and the Impact on Downscaled Simulations. Mon Weather Rev. 2014; 142(6): 2271–89. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-13-00171.1 11. Zappa G, Shaffrey L, Hodges K. Can polar lows be objectively identified and tracked in the ECMWF operational analysis and the ERA-Interim reanalysis? Mon Weather Rev. 2014; 142(8): 2596–608. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00064.1 12. Hersbach H, Bell B, Berrisford P, Hirahara S, Hora´nyi A, Muñoz-Sabater J, et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc. 2020; 146(730): 1999–2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803 13. Stoll PJ, Spengler T, Terpstra A, Graversen RG. Polar lows–moist-baroclinic cyclones developing in four different vertical wind shear environments. Weather and Climate Dynamics. 2021; 2(1): 19–36. https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-19-2021 14. Bromwich DH, Wilson AB, Bai L, Liu Z, Barlage M, Shih C-F, et al. The Arctic System Reanalysis, Ver- sion 2. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2018; 99(4): 805–28. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0215.1 15. Smirnova J, Golubkin P. Comparing Polar Lows in Atmospheric Reanalyses: Arctic System Reanalysis versus ERA-Interim. Mon Weather Rev. 2017; 145(6): 2375–83. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-16-0333.1

16. Prein AF, Langhans W, Fosser G, Ferrone A, Ban N, Goergen K, et al. A review on regional convection- permitting climate modeling: Demonstrations, prospects, and challenges. Rev Geophys. 2015; 53(2): 323–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000475 PMID: 27478878 17. Stoll PJ, Valkonen TM, Graversen RG, Noer G. A well-observed polar low analysed with a regional and a global weather-prediction model. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc. 2020; 146(729): 1740–67. https://doi.org/10. 1002/qj.3764 18. Bechtold P, Ko¨hler M, Jung T, Leutbecher M, Rodwell M, Vitart F. Advances in simulating atmospheric variability with IFS cycle 32r3. Newsletter No 114 –Winter 2007/08. 2008:29–38. 19. Mu¨ller M, Batrak Y, Kristiansen J, Køltzow MAØ, Noer G, Korosov A. Characteristics of a Convective- Scale Weather Forecasting System for the European Arctic. Mon Weather Rev. 2017; 145(12): 4771– 87. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0194.1 20. Prein AF, Rasmussen R, Stephens G. Challenges and advances in convection-permitting climate modeling. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2017; 98(5): 1027–30. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0263.1 21. Bourassa MA, Gille ST, Bitz C, Carlson D, Cerovecki I, Clayson CA, et al. High-Latitude Ocean and Sea Ice Surface Fluxes: Challenges for Climate Research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2013; 94(3): 403–23. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D11-00244.1 22. Zhang F, Sun YQ, Magnusson L, Buizza R, Lin S-J, Chen J-H, et al. What Is the Predictability Limit of Midlatitude Weather? J Atmos Sci. 2019; 76(4): 1077–91. https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-d-18-0269.1

23. Spengler T, Renfrew IA, Terpstra A, Tjernstro¨m M, Screen J, Brooks IM, et al. High-Latitude Dynamics of Atmosphere–Ice–Ocean Interactions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2016; 97(9): ES179–ES82. https://doi. org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00302.1 24. McInnes H, Kristiansen J, Kristja´ nsson JE, Schyberg H. The role of horizontal resolution for polar low simulations. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc. 2011; 137(660): 1674–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.849 25. Wagner JS, Gohm A, Do¨rnbrack A, Scha¨fler A. The mesoscale structure of a polar low: airborne lidar measurements and simulations. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc. 2011; 137(659): 1516–31. https://doi.org/10. 1002/qj.857 26. Coˆte´ J, Gravel S, Me´thot A, Patoine A, Roch M, Staniforth A. The Operational CMC–MRB Global Envi- ronmental Multiscale (GEM) Model. Part I: Design Considerations and Formulation. Mon Weather Rev. 1998; 126(6): 1373–95. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<1373:Tocmge>2.0.Co;2 27. Be´ lair S, Mailhot J, Girard C, Vaillancourt P. Boundary Layer and Shallow Cumulus Clouds in a Medium-Range Forecast of a Large-Scale Weather System. Mon Weather Rev. 2005; 133(7): 1938– 60. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr2958.1 28. Be´ lair S, Roch M, Leduc A-M, Vaillancourt PA, Laroche S, Mailhot J. Medium-Range Quantitative Pre- cipitation Forecasts from Canada’s New 33-km Deterministic Global Operational System. Weather Forecast. 2009; 24(3): 690–708. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008waf2222175.1 29. Girard C, Plante A, Desgagne´ M, McTaggart-Cowan R, Coˆte´ J, Charron M, et al. Staggered Vertical

Discretization of the Canadian Environmental Multiscale (GEM) Model Using a Coordinate of the Log- Hydrostatic-Pressure Type. Mon Weather Rev. 2014; 142(3): 1183–96. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d- 13-00255.1 30. Zadra A, Caya D, Coˆte´ J, Dugas B, Jones C, Laprise R, et al. The next Canadian Regional Climate Model. La Physique au Canada. 2008:75–83. PLOS ONE Assessment of simulations of a polar low with the canadian regional climate model PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292250 October 5, 2023 27 / 28