Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 5.414
IF5.414
IF 5-year value: 5.958
IF 5-year
5.958
CiteScore value: 9.7
CiteScore
9.7
SNIP value: 1.517
SNIP1.517
IPP value: 5.61
IPP5.61
SJR value: 2.601
SJR2.601
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 191
Scimago H
index
191
h5-index value: 89
h5-index89
Volume 14, issue 18
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10103–10118, 2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10103-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10103–10118, 2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10103-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 23 Sep 2014

Research article | 23 Sep 2014

Comparison of ice cloud properties simulated by the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5) with in-situ observations

T. Eidhammer, H. Morrison, A. Bansemer, A. Gettelman, and A. J. Heymsfield T. Eidhammer et al.
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA

Abstract. Detailed measurements of ice crystals in cirrus clouds were used to compare with results from the Community Atmospheric Model Version 5 (CAM5) global climate model. The observations are from two different field campaigns with contrasting conditions: Atmospheric Radiation Measurements Spring Cloud Intensive Operational Period in 2000 (ARM-IOP), which was characterized primarily by midlatitude frontal clouds and cirrus, and Tropical Composition, Cloud and Climate Coupling (TC4), which was dominated by anvil cirrus. Results show that the model typically overestimates the slope parameter of the exponential size distributions of cloud ice and snow, while the variation with temperature (height) is comparable. The model also overestimates the ice/snow number concentration (0th moment of the size distribution) and underestimates higher moments (2nd through 5th), but compares well with observations for the 1st moment. Overall the model shows better agreement with observations for TC4 than for ARM-IOP in regards to the moments. The mass-weighted terminal fall speed is lower in the model compared to observations for both ARM-IOP and TC4, which is partly due to the overestimation of the size distribution slope parameter. Sensitivity tests with modification of the threshold size for cloud ice to snow autoconversion (Dcs) do not show noticeable improvement in modeled moments, slope parameter and mass weighed fall speed compared to observations. Further, there is considerable sensitivity of the cloud radiative forcing to Dcs, consistent with previous studies, but no value of Dcs improves modeled cloud radiative forcing compared to measurements. Since the autoconversion of cloud ice to snow using the threshold size Dcs has little physical basis, future improvement to combine cloud ice and snow into a single category, eliminating the need for autoconversion, is suggested.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint