Recent in situ observations show that haze particles exist in a convection cloud chamber. The microphysics schemes previously used for large‐eddy simulations of the cloud chamber could not fully resolve haze particles and the associated processes, including their activation and deactivation. Specifically, cloud droplet activation was modeled based on Twomey‐type parameterizations, wherein cloud droplets were formed when a critical supersaturation for the available cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) was exceeded and haze particles were not explicitly resolved. Here, we develop and adapt haze‐capable bin and Lagrangian microphysics schemes to properly resolve the activation and deactivation processes. Results are compared with the Twomey‐type CCN‐based bin microphysics scheme in which haze particles are not fully resolved. We find that results from the haze‐capable bin microphysics scheme agree well with those from the Lagrangian microphysics scheme. However, both schemes significantly differ from those from a CCN‐based bin microphysics scheme unless CCN recycling is considered. Haze particles from the recycling of deactivated cloud droplets can strongly enhance cloud droplet number concentration due to a positive feedback in haze‐cloud interactions in the cloud chamber. Haze particle size distributions are more realistic when considering solute and curvature effects that enable representing the complete physics of the activation process. Our study suggests that haze particles and their interactions with cloud droplets may have a strong impact on cloud properties when supersaturation fluctuations are comparable to mean supersaturation, as is the case in the cloud chamber and likely is the case in the atmosphere, especially in polluted conditions.
Bin microphysics schemes are useful tools for cloud simulations and are often considered to provide a benchmark for model intercomparison. However, they may experience issues with numerical diffusion, which are not well quantified, and the transport of hydrometeors depends on the choice of advection scheme, which can also change cloud simulation results. Here, an atmospheric large‐eddy simulation model is adapted to simulate a statistically steady‐state cloud in a convection cloud chamber under well‐constrained conditions. Two bin microphysics schemes, a spectral bin method and the method of moments, as well as several advection methods for the transport of the microphysical variables are employed for model intercomparison. Results show that different combinations of microphysics and advection schemes can lead to considerable differences in simulated cloud properties, such as cloud droplet number concentration. We find that simulations using the advection scheme that suffers more from numerical diffusion tends to have a smaller droplet number concentration and liquid water content, while simulation with the microphysics scheme that suffers more from numerical diffusion tends to have a broader size distribution and thus larger mean droplet sizes. Sensitivities of simulations to bin resolution, spatial resolution, and temporal resolution are also tested. We find that refining the microphysical bin resolution leads to a broader cloud droplet size distribution due to the advection of hydrometeors. Our results provide insight for using different advection and microphysics schemes in cloud chamber simulations, which might also help understand the uncertainties of the schemes used in atmospheric cloud simulations.
more » « less- Award ID(s):
- 1754244
- PAR ID:
- 10368264
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1942-2466
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract The Pi Cloud Chamber offers a unique opportunity to study aerosol‐cloud microphysics interactions in a steady‐state, turbulent environment. In this work, an atmospheric large‐eddy simulation (LES) model with spectral bin microphysics is scaled down to simulate these interactions, allowing comparison with experimental results. A simple scalar flux budget model is developed and used to explore the effect of sidewalls on the bulk mixing temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, and supersaturation. The scaled simulation and the simple scalar flux budget model produce comparable bulk mixing scalar values. The LES dynamics results are compared with particle image velocimetry measurements of turbulent kinetic energy, energy dissipation rates, and large‐scale oscillation frequencies from the cloud chamber. These simulated results match quantitatively to experimental results. Finally, with the bin microphysics included the LES is able to simulate steady‐state cloud conditions and broadening of the cloud droplet size distributions with decreasing droplet number concentration, as observed in the experiments. The results further suggest that collision‐coalescence does not contribute significantly to this broadening. This opens a path for further detailed intercomparison of laboratory and simulation results for model validation and exploration of specific physical processes.
-
more » « less
Abstract Collisional growth of cloud droplets is an essential yet uncertain process for drizzle and precipitation formation. To improve the quantitative understanding of this key component of cloud‐aerosol‐turbulence interactions, observational studies of collision‐coalescence in a controlled laboratory environment are needed. In an existing convection‐cloud chamber (the Pi Chamber), collisional growth is limited by low liquid water content and short droplet residence times. In this work, we use numerical simulations to explore various configurations of a convection‐cloud chamber that may intensify collision‐coalescence. We employ a large‐eddy simulation (LES) model with a size‐resolved (bin) cloud microphysics scheme to explore how cloud properties and the intensity of collision‐coalescence are affected by the chamber size and aspect ratio, surface roughness, side‐wall wetness, side‐wall temperature arrangement, and aerosol injection rate. Simulations without condensation and evaporation within the domain are first performed to explore the turbulence dynamics and wall fluxes. The LES wall fluxes are used to modify the Scalar Flux‐budget Model, which is then applied to demonstrate the need for non‐uniform side‐wall temperature (two side walls as warm as the bottom and the two others as cold as the top) to maintain high supersaturation in a tall chamber. The results of LES with full cloud microphysics reveal that collision‐coalescence is greatly enhanced by employing a taller chamber with saturated side walls, non‐uniform side‐wall temperature, and rough surfaces. For the conditions explored, although lowering the aerosol injection rate broadens the droplet size distribution, favoring collision‐coalescence, the reduced droplet number concentration decreases the frequency of collisions.
-
more » « less
Two case studies of marine stratocumulus (one nocturnal and drizzling, the other daytime and nonprecipitating) are simulated by the UCLA large-eddy simulation model with bin microphysics for comparison with aircraft in situ observations. A high-bin-resolution variant of the microphysics is implemented for closer comparison with cloud drop size distribution (DSD) observations and a turbulent collision–coalescence kernel to evaluate the role of turbulence on drizzle formation. Simulations agree well with observational constraints, reproducing observed thermodynamic profiles (i.e., liquid water potential temperature and total moisture mixing ratio) as well as liquid water path. Cloud drop number concentration and liquid water content profiles also agree well insofar as the thermodynamic profiles match observations, but there are significant differences in DSD shape among simulations that cause discrepancies in higher-order moments such as sedimentation flux, especially as a function of bin resolution. Counterintuitively, high-bin-resolution simulations produce broader DSDs than standard resolution for both cases. Examination of several metrics of DSD width and percentile drop sizes shows that various discrepancies of model output with respect to the observations can be attributed to specific microphysical processes: condensation spuriously creates DSDs that are too wide as measured by standard deviation, which leads to collisional production of too many large drops. The turbulent kernel has the greatest impact on the low-bin-resolution simulation of the drizzling case, which exhibits greater surface precipitation accumulation and broader DSDs than the control (quiescent kernel) simulations. Turbulence effects on precipitation formation cannot be definitively evaluated using bin microphysics until the artificial condensation broadening issue has been addressed.
-
more » « less
Abstract Bin and bulk schemes are the two primary methods to parameterize cloud microphysical processes. This study attempts to reveal how their structural differences (size‐resolved vs. moment‐resolved) manifest in terms of cloud and precipitation properties. We use a bulk scheme, the Arbitrary Moment Predictor (AMP), which uses process parameterizations identical to those in a bin scheme but predicts only moments of the size distribution like a bulk scheme. As such, differences between simulations using AMP's bin scheme and simulations using AMP itself must come from their structural differences. In one‐dimensional kinematic simulations, the overall difference between AMP (bulk) and bin schemes is found to be small. Full‐microphysics AMP and bin simulations have similar mean liquid water path (mean percent difference <4%), but AMP simulates significantly lower mean precipitation rate (−35%) than the bin scheme due to slower precipitation onset. Individual processes are also tested. Condensation is represented almost perfectly with AMP, and only small AMP‐bin differences emerge due to nucleation, evaporation, and sedimentation. Collision‐coalescence is the single biggest reason for AMP‐bin divergence. Closer inspection shows that this divergence is primarily a result of autoconversion and not of accretion. In full microphysics simulations, lowering the diameter threshold separating cloud and rain category in AMP from
to reduces the largest AMP‐bin difference to ∼10%, making the effect of structural differences between AMP (and perhaps triple‐moment bulk schemes generally) and bin even smaller than the parameterization differences between the two bin schemes.
