4.6 Article

Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed-phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. II: Multilayer cloud

Journal

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Volume 135, Issue 641, Pages 1003-1019

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/qj.415

Keywords

mixed-phase cloud; Arctic clouds; single-column models; cloud-resolving models

Funding

  1. Office of Science of the United States Department of Energy [DE-A102-94ER61768, DE-FG02-02ER63337, DE-FG02-03ER63539, DE-FG02-05ER64058, DE-FG02-05ER64069, DE-FG02-06ER64167, DE-FG02-02ER63370, DE-FG02-06ER64168, DE-AI02-06ER64183, DE-FG02-07ER64378]
  2. National Science Foundation [ATM-0415184, ATM-0442605, G7424-1]
  3. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  4. Department of Defense Center for Geosciences/Atmospheric Research at Colorado State University via Cooperative Agreement [DAAD19-02-2-0005]
  5. Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research
  6. Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences
  7. United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Cloud Modeling and Analysis Initiative
  8. NASA [NNG06GBBIG]
  9. Colorado State University under cooperative agreement [ATM-0425247]
  10. US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  11. Battelle Memorial Institute [DE-AC06-76RLO-1830]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Results are presented from an intercomparison of single-column and cloud-resolving model simulations of a deep, multilayered, mixed-phase cloud system observed during the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. This cloud system was associated with strong surface turbulent sensible and latent heat fluxes as cold air flowed over the open Arctic Ocean, combined with a low pressure system that supplied moisture at mid-levels. The simulations, performed by 13 single-column and 4 cloud-resolving models, generally overestimate liquid water path and strongly underestimate ice water path, although there is a large spread among models. This finding is in contrast with results for the single-layer, low-level mixed-phase stratocumulus case in Part I, as well as previous studies of shallow mixed-phase Arctic clouds, that showed an underprediction of liquid water path. These results suggest important differences in the ability of models to simulate deeper Arctic mixed-phase clouds versus the shallow, single-layered mixed-phase clouds in Part I. The observed liquid-ice mass ratios were much smaller than in Part I, despite the similarity of cloud temperatures. Thus, models employing microphysics schemes with temperature-based partitioning of cloud liquid and ice masses are not able to produce results consistent with observations for both cases. Models with more sophisticated, two-moment treatment of cloud microphysics produce a somewhat smaller liquid water path closer to observations. Cloud-resolving models tend to produce a larger cloud fraction than single-column models. The liquid water path and cloud fraction have a large impact on the cloud radiative forcing at the surface, which is dominated by long-wave flux. Copyright (C) 2009 Royal Meteorological Society

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available