Articles | Volume 22, issue 1
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 319–333, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-319-2022
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 319–333, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-319-2022
Research article
10 Jan 2022
Research article | 10 Jan 2022

Demistify: a large-eddy simulation (LES) and single-column model (SCM) intercomparison of radiation fog

Ian Boutle et al.

Related authors

The first Met Office Unified Model–JULES Regional Atmosphere and Land configuration, RAL1
Mike Bush, Tom Allen, Caroline Bain, Ian Boutle, John Edwards, Anke Finnenkoetter, Charmaine Franklin, Kirsty Hanley, Humphrey Lean, Adrian Lock, James Manners, Marion Mittermaier, Cyril Morcrette, Rachel North, Jon Petch, Chris Short, Simon Vosper, David Walters, Stuart Webster, Mark Weeks, Jonathan Wilkinson, Nigel Wood, and Mohamed Zerroukat
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1999–2029, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1999-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1999-2020, 2020
Short summary
TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI): motivations and protocol version 1.0
Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Eric T. Wolf, Ian Boutle, Michael J. Way, Anthony D. Del Genio, Nathan J. Mayne, Konstantinos Tsigaridis, Ravi K. Kopparapu, Jun Yang, Francois Forget, Avi Mandell, and Shawn D. Domagal Goldman
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 707–716, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-707-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-707-2020, 2020
Short summary
The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations
David Walters, Anthony J. Baran, Ian Boutle, Malcolm Brooks, Paul Earnshaw, John Edwards, Kalli Furtado, Peter Hill, Adrian Lock, James Manners, Cyril Morcrette, Jane Mulcahy, Claudio Sanchez, Chris Smith, Rachel Stratton, Warren Tennant, Lorenzo Tomassini, Kwinten Van Weverberg, Simon Vosper, Martin Willett, Jo Browse, Andrew Bushell, Kenneth Carslaw, Mohit Dalvi, Richard Essery, Nicola Gedney, Steven Hardiman, Ben Johnson, Colin Johnson, Andy Jones, Colin Jones, Graham Mann, Sean Milton, Heather Rumbold, Alistair Sellar, Masashi Ujiie, Michael Whitall, Keith Williams, and Mohamed Zerroukat
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1909–1963, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019, 2019
Short summary
In situ measurements of cloud microphysical and aerosol properties during the break-up of stratocumulus cloud layers in cold air outbreaks over the North Atlantic
Gary Lloyd, Thomas W. Choularton, Keith N. Bower, Martin W. Gallagher, Jonathan Crosier, Sebastian O'Shea, Steven J. Abel, Stuart Fox, Richard Cotton, and Ian A. Boutle
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17191–17206, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17191-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17191-2018, 2018
Short summary
Aerosol–fog interaction and the transition to well-mixed radiation fog
Ian Boutle, Jeremy Price, Innocent Kudzotsa, Harri Kokkola, and Sami Romakkaniemi
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 7827–7840, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7827-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7827-2018, 2018
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Clouds and Precipitation | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
Do Arctic mixed-phase clouds sometimes dissipate due to insufficient aerosol? Evidence from comparisons between observations and idealized simulations
Lucas J. Sterzinger, Joseph Sedlar, Heather Guy, Ryan R. Neely III, and Adele L. Igel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8973–8988, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8973-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8973-2022, 2022
Short summary
Contrail formation within cirrus: ICON-LEM simulations of the impact of cirrus cloud properties on contrail formation
Pooja Verma and Ulrike Burkhardt
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8819–8842, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8819-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8819-2022, 2022
Short summary
Impact of Holuhraun volcano aerosols on clouds in cloud-system-resolving simulations
Mahnoosh Haghighatnasab, Jan Kretzschmar, Karoline Block, and Johannes Quaas
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8457–8472, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8457-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8457-2022, 2022
Short summary
Warm and moist air intrusions into the winter Arctic: a Lagrangian view on the near-surface energy budgets
Cheng You, Michael Tjernström, and Abhay Devasthale
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8037–8057, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8037-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8037-2022, 2022
Short summary
Convective updrafts near sea-breeze fronts
Shizuo Fu, Richard Rotunno, and Huiwen Xue
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 7727–7738, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7727-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-7727-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Ahlgrimm, M. and Forbes, R.: Improving the representation of low clouds and drizzle in the ECMWF model based on ARM observations from the Azores, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 668–685, 2014. a
Angevine, W. M., Olson, J., Kenyon, J., Gustafson, W. I., Endo, S., Suselj, K., and Turner, D. D.: Shallow Cumulus in WRF Parameterizations Evaluated against LASSO Large-Eddy Simulations, Mon. Weather Rev., 146, 4303–4322, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0115.1, 2018. a
Baldauf, M., Seifert, A., Förstner, J., Majewski, D., Raschendorfer, M., and Reinhardt, T.: Operational Convective-Scale Numerical Weather Prediction with the COSMO Model: Description and Sensitivities, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 3887–3905, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-10-05013.1, 2011. a
Bašták Ďurán, I., Köhler, M., Eichhorn-Müller, A., Maurer, V., Schmidli, J., Schomburg, A., Klocke, D., Göcke, T., Schäfer, S., Schlemmer, L., and Dewani, N.: The ICON Single-Column Mode, Atmosphere, 12, 906, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12070906, 2021. a
Beare, R. J., MacVean, M. K., Holtslag, A. A. M., Cuxart, J., Esau, I., Golaz, J.-C., Jimenez, M. A., Khairoutdinov, M., Kosovic, B., Lewellen, D., Lund, T. S., Lundquist, J. K., McCabe, A., Moene, A. F., Noh, Y., Raasch, S., and Sullivan, P.: An Intercomparison of Large-Eddy Simulations of the Stable Boundary Layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 118, 247–272, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-004-2820-6, 2006. a, b
Download
Short summary
Fog forecasting is one of the biggest problems for numerical weather prediction. By comparing many models used for fog forecasting with others used for fog research, we hoped to help guide forecast improvements. We show some key processes that, if improved, will help improve fog forecasting, such as how water is deposited on the ground. We also showed that research models were not themselves a suitable baseline for comparison, and we discuss what future observations are required to improve them.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint