An official website of the United States government
Abstract This study uses cloud and radiative properties collected from in situ and remote sensing instruments during two coordinated campaigns over the Southern Ocean between Tasmania and Antarctica in January–February 2018 to evaluate the simulations of clouds and precipitation in nudged‐meteorology simulations with the CAM6 and AM4 global climate models sampled at the times and locations of the observations. Fifteen SOCRATES research flights sampled cloud water content, cloud droplet number concentration, and particle size distributions in mixed‐phase boundary layer clouds at temperatures down to −25°C. The 6‐week CAPRICORN2 research cruise encountered all cloud regimes across the region. Data from vertically pointing 94 GHz radars deployed was compared with radar simulator output from both models. Satellite data were compared with simulated top‐of‐atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes. Both models simulate observed cloud properties fairly well within the variability of observations. Cloud base and top in both models are generally biased low. CAM6 overestimates cloud occurrence and optical thickness while cloud droplet number concentrations are biased low, leading to excessive TOA reflected shortwave radiation. In general, low clouds in CAM6 precipitate at the same frequency but are more homogeneous compared to observations. Deep clouds are better simulated but produce snow too frequently. AM4 underestimates cloud occurrence but overestimates cloud optical thickness even more than CAM6, causing excessive outgoing longwave radiation fluxes but comparable reflected shortwave radiation. AM4 cloud droplet number concentrations match observations better than CAM6. Precipitating low and deep clouds in AM4 have too little snow. Further investigation of these microphysical biases is needed for both models.
more »
« less
Insights of warm-cloud biases in Community Atmospheric Model 5 and 6 from the single-column modeling framework and Aerosol and Cloud Experiments in the Eastern North Atlantic (ACE-ENA) observations
Abstract. There has been a growing concern that most climate models predict precipitation that is too frequent, likely due to lack of reliable subgrid variabilityand vertical variations in microphysical processes in low-level warm clouds.In this study, the warm-cloud physics parameterizations in the singe-columnconfigurations of NCAR Community Atmospheric Model version 6 and 5 (SCAM6and SCAM5, respectively) are evaluated using ground-based and airborneobservations from the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Aerosol and Cloud Experiments in the EasternNorth Atlantic (ACE-ENA) field campaign near the Azores islands during2017–2018. The 8-month single-column model (SCM) simulations show that both SCAM6 and SCAM5 cangenerally reproduce marine boundary layer cloud structure, majormacrophysical properties, and their transition. The improvement in warm-cloud properties from the Community Atmospheric Model 5 and 6 (CAM5 to CAM6) physics can be found through comparison with the observations. Meanwhile, both physical schemes underestimate cloud liquidwater content, cloud droplet size, and rain liquid water content butoverestimate surface rainfall. Modeled cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)concentrations are comparable with aircraft-observed ones in the summer but areoverestimated by a factor of 2 in winter, largely due to the biases in thelong-range transport of anthropogenic aerosols like sulfate. We also testthe newly recalibrated autoconversion and accretion parameterizations thataccount for vertical variations in droplet size. Compared to theobservations, more significant improvement is found in SCAM5 than in SCAM6.This result is likely explained by the introduction of subgrid variationsin cloud properties in CAM6 cloud microphysics, which further suppresses thescheme's sensitivity to individual warm-rain microphysical parameters. Thepredicted cloud susceptibilities to CCN perturbations in CAM6 are within areasonable range, indicating significant progress since CAM5 which produces anaerosol indirect effect that is too strong. The present study emphasizes theimportance of understanding biases in cloud physics parameterizations bycombining SCM with in situ observations.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2031751
- PAR ID:
- 10475407
- Publisher / Repository:
- EGU
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
- Volume:
- 23
- Issue:
- 15
- ISSN:
- 1680-7324
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 8591 to 8605
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract In this study, we evaluated the performance of machine learning (ML) models (XGBoost) in predicting low‐cloud fraction (LCF), compared to two generations of the community atmospheric model (CAM5 and CAM6) and ERA5 reanalysis data, each having a different cloud scheme. ML models show a substantial enhancement in predicting LCF regarding root mean squared errors and correlation coefficients. The good performance is consistent across the full spectrums of atmospheric stability and large‐scale vertical velocity. Employing an explainable ML approach, we revealed the importance of including the amount of available moisture in ML models for representing spatiotemporal variations in LCF in the midlatitudes. Also, ML models demonstrated marked improvement in capturing the LCF variations during the stratocumulus‐to‐cumulus transition (SCT). This study suggests ML models' great potential to address the longstanding issues of “too few” low clouds and “too rapid” SCT in global climate models.more » « less
-
Abstract This study presents the first model intercomparison of aerosol‐cloud‐turbulence interactions in a controlled cloudy Rayleigh‐Bénard Convection chamber environment, utilizing the Pi Chamber at Michigan Technological University. We analyzed simulated cloud chamber‐averaged statistics of microphysics and thermodynamics in a warm‐phase, cloudy environment under steady‐state conditions at varying aerosol injection rates. Simulation results from seven distinct models (DNS, LES, and a 1D turbulence model) were compared. Our findings demonstrate that while all models qualitatively capture observed trends in droplet number concentration, mean radius, and droplet size distributions at both high and low aerosol injection rates, significant quantitative differences were observed. Notably, droplet number concentrations varied by over two orders of magnitude between models for the same injection rates, indicating sensitivities to the model treatments in droplet activation and removal and wall fluxes. Furthermore, inconsistencies in vertical relative humidity profiles and in achieving steady‐state liquid water content suggest the need for further investigation into the mechanisms driving these variations. Despite these discrepancies, the models generally reproduced consistent power‐law relationships between the microphysical variables. This model intercomparison underscores the importance of controlled cloud chamber experiments for validating and improving cloud microphysical parameterizations. Recommendations for future modeling studies are also highlighted, including constraining wall conditions and processes, investigating droplet/aerosol removal (including sidewall losses), and conducting simplified experiments to isolate specific processes contributing to model divergence and reduce model uncertainties.more » « less
-
Abstract Characteristics of, and fundamental differences between, the radiative‐convective equilibrium (RCE) climate states following the Radiative‐Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project (RCEMIP) protocols in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5) and version 6 (CAM6) are presented. This paper explores the characteristics of clouds, moisture, precipitation and circulation in the RCE state, as well as the tropical response to surface warming, in CAM5 and CAM6 with different parameterizations. Overall, CAM5 simulates higher precipitation rates that result in larger global average precipitation, despite lower outgoing longwave radiation compared to CAM6. Differences in the structure of clouds, particularly the amount and vertical location of cloud liquid, exist between the CAM versions and can, in part, be related to distinct representations of shallow convection and boundary layer processes. Both CAM5 and CAM6 simulate similar peaks in cloud fraction, relative humidity, and cloud ice, linked to the usage of a similar deep convection parameterization. These anvil clouds rise and decrease in extent in response to surface warming. More generally, extreme precipitation, aggregation of convection, and climate sensitivity increase with warming in both CAM5 and CAM6. This analysis provides a benchmark for future studies that explore clouds, convection, and climate in CAM with the RCEMIP protocols now available in the Community Earth System Model. These results are discussed within the context of realistic climate simulations using CAM5 and CAM6, highlighting the usefulness of a hierarchical modeling approach to understanding model and parameterization sensitivities to inform model development efforts.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Abstract. In the current global climate models (GCMs), the nonlinearity effect ofsubgrid cloud variations on the parameterization of warm-rain process, e.g.,the autoconversion rate, is often treated by multiplying the resolved-scalewarm-rain process rates by a so-called enhancement factor (EF). In thisstudy, we investigate the subgrid-scale horizontal variations andcovariation of cloud water content (qc) and cloud droplet numberconcentration (Nc) in marine boundary layer (MBL) clouds based on thein situ measurements from a recent field campaign and study the implicationsfor the autoconversion rate EF in GCMs. Based on a few carefully selectedcases from the field campaign, we found that in contrast to the enhancingeffect of qc and Nc variations that tends to make EF > 1, the strong positive correlation between qc and Nc results in asuppressing effect that tends to make EF < 1. This effect isespecially strong at cloud top, where the qc and Nc correlation canbe as high as 0.95. We also found that the physically complete EF thataccounts for the covariation of qc and Nc is significantly smallerthan its counterpart that accounts only for the subgrid variation ofqc, especially at cloud top. Although this study is based on limitedcases, it suggests that the subgrid variations of Nc and itscorrelation with qc both need to be considered for an accuratesimulation of the autoconversion process in GCMs.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8591-2023
