FastFind »   Lastname: doi:10.1029/ Year: Advanced Search  

AGU: Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres

 

Keywords

  • shallow frontal clouds
  • cloud-resolving models
  • single-column models

Index Terms

  • Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Cloud/radiation interaction
  • Atmospheric Processes: Boundary layer processes
  • Atmospheric Processes: Precipitation
  • Atmospheric Processes: Regional modeling
  • Atmospheric Processes: Radiative processes
Abstract
Cited By (11)
 

Abstract

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, D15S04, 26 PP., 2005
doi:10.1029/2004JD005153

Modeling springtime shallow frontal clouds with cloud-resolving and single-column models

Kuan-Man Xu

Climate Science Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

Minghua Zhang

Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary Atmospheres, Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA

Zachary A. Eitzen

Climate Science Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

Steven J. Ghan

Atmospheric Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA

Stephen A. Klein

NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA

Xiaoqing Wu

Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

Shaocheng Xie

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA

Mark Branson

Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Anthony D. Del Genio

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA

Sam F. Iacobellis

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA

Marat Khairoutdinov

Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Wuyin Lin

Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary Atmospheres, Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA

Ulrike Lohmann

Department of Physics and Atmospheric Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

David A. Randall

Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Richard C. J. Somerville

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA

Yogesh C. Sud

Climate and Radiation Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

Gregory K. Walker

Climate and Radiation Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

Audrey Wolf

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA

J. John Yio

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA

Junhua Zhang

Department of Physics and Atmospheric Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

This modeling study compares the performance of eight single-column models (SCMs) and four cloud-resolving models (CRMs) in simulating shallow frontal cloud systems observed during a short period of the March 2000 Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) intensive operational period. Except for the passage of a cold front at the beginning of this period, frontal cloud systems are under the influence of an upper tropospheric ridge and are driven by a persistent frontogenesis over the Southern Great Plains and moisture transport from the northwestern part of the Gulf of Mexico. This study emphasizes quantitative comparisons among the model simulations and with the ARM data, focusing on a 27-hour period when only shallow frontal clouds were observed. All CRMs and SCMs simulate clouds in the observed shallow cloud layer. Most SCMs also produce clouds in the middle and upper troposphere, while none of the CRMs produce any clouds there. One possible cause for this is the decoupling between cloud condensate and cloud fraction in nearly all SCM parameterizations. Another possible cause is the weak upper tropospheric subsidence that has been averaged over both descending and ascending regions. Significantly different cloud amounts and cloud microphysical properties are found in the model simulations. All CRMs and most SCMs underestimate shallow clouds in the lowest 125 hPa near the surface, but most SCMs overestimate the cloud amount above this layer. These results are related to the detailed formulations of cloud microphysical processes and fractional cloud parameterizations in the SCMs, and possibly to the dynamical framework and two-dimensional configuration of the CRMs. Although two of the CRMs with anelastic dynamical frameworks simulate the shallow frontal clouds much better than the SCMs, the CRMs do not necessarily perform much better than the SCMs for the entire period when deep and shallow frontal clouds are present.

Received 22 June 2004; accepted 10 November 2004; published 21 April 2005.

Citation: Xu, K.-M., et al. (2005), Modeling springtime shallow frontal clouds with cloud-resolving and single-column models, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D15S04, doi:10.1029/2004JD005153.

Cited By

Please wait one moment ...