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

  • Hugh Morrison
  • , Renata B. McCoy
  • , Stephen A. Klein
  • , Shaocheng Xie
  • , Yali Luo
  • , Alexander Avramov
  • , Mingxuan Chen
  • , Jason N.S. Cole
  • , Michael Falk
  • , Michael J. Foster
  • , Anthony D. del Genio
  • , Jerry Y. Harrington
  • , Corinna Hoose
  • , Marat F. Khairoutdinov
  • , Vincent E. Larson
  • , Xiaohong Liu
  • , Greg M. McFarquhar
  • , Michael R. Poellot
  • , Knut von Salzen
  • , Ben J. Shipway
  • Matthew D. Shupe, Yogesh C. Sud, David D. Turner, Dana E. Veron, Gregory K. Walker, Zhien Wang, Audrey B. Wolf, Kuan Man Xu, Fanglin Yang, Gong Zhang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

80 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1003-1019
Number of pages17
JournalQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Volume135
Issue number641
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2009
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Arctic clouds
  • Cloud-resolving models
  • Mixed-phase cloud
  • Single-column models

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed-phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. II: Multilayer cloud'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this