the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluating Arctic clouds modelled with the Unified Model and Integrated Forecasting System
Jutta Vüllers
Peggy Achtert
Paul Field
Jonathan J. Day
Richard Forbes
Ruth Price
Ewan O'Connor
Michael Tjernström
John Prytherch
Ryan Neely III
Ian M. Brooks
Abstract. By synthesising remote-sensing measurements made in the central Arctic into a model-gridded Cloudnet cloud product, we evaluate how well the Met Office Unified Model (UM) and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) capture Arctic clouds and their associated interactions with the surface energy balance and the thermodynamic structure of the lower troposphere. This evaluation was conducted using a four-week observation period from the Arctic Ocean 2018 expedition, where the transition from sea ice melting to freezing conditions was measured. Three different cloud schemes were tested within a nested limited area model (LAM) configuration of the UM – two regionally-operational single-moment schemes (UM_RA2M and UM_RA2T), and one novel double-moment scheme (UM_CASIM-100) – while one global simulation was conducted with the IFS, utilising its default cloud scheme (ECMWF_IFS).
Consistent weaknesses were identified across both models, with both the UM and IFS overestimating cloud occurrence below 3 km. This overestimation was also consistent across the three cloud configurations used within the UM framework, with > 90 % mean cloud occurrence simulated between 0.15 and 1 km in all model simulations. However, the cloud microphysical structure, on average, was modelled reasonably well in each simulation, with the cloud liquid water content (LWC) and ice water content (IWC) comparing well with observations over much of the vertical profile. The key microphysical discrepancy between the models and observations was in the LWC between 1 and 3 km, where most simulations (all except UM_RA2T) overestimated the observed LWC.
Despite this reasonable performance in cloud physical structure, both models failed to adequately capture cloud-free episodes: this consistency in cloud cover likely contributes to the ever-present near-surface temperature bias simulated in every simulation. Both models also consistently exhibited temperature and moisture biases below 3 km, with particularly strong cold biases coinciding with the overabundant modelled cloud layers. These biases are likely due to too much cloud top radiative cooling from these persistent modelled cloud layers and were interestingly consistent across the three UM configurations tested, despite differences in their parameterisations of cloud on a sub-grid-scale. Alarmingly, our findings suggest that these biases in the regional model were inherited from the driving model, thus triggering too much cloud formation within the lower troposphere. Using representative cloud condensation nuclei concentrations in our double-moment UM configuration, while improving cloud microphysical structure, does little to alleviate these biases; therefore, no matter how comprehensive we make the cloud physics in the nested LAM configuration used here, its cloud and thermodynamic structure will continue to be overwhelmingly biased by the meteorological conditions of its driving model.
- Preprint
(4479 KB) -
Supplement
(1947 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Gillian Young et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-662', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2021
This paper compares NWP model output from the UM (using several different cloud schemes) and the IFS against ground-based observations collected in the central Arctic during a summer time cruise that sampled both sea ice melting conditions and refreezing conditions. The results demonstrated that both model frameworks overestimated cloud occurrence, but that using a total water content method, which takes into account the insensitivity of the ground-based remote sensors to very small amounts of cloud water content (or very small particle size) provided better agreement in cloud occurrence. Even still, the models tended to overestimate the LWC relative to the observations, which was hypothesized to result in too much cloud top radiative cooling which had deleterious impacts on the simulated temperature profile. However, they also showed that the UM models, which were all limited area models, sensitive to the forcing conditions from the global model used to drive these simulations. They also showed that a more accurate treatment of aerosols in the UM-LAM with the most complex cloud microphysics did change the profile of LWC in the lowest levels, but had virtually no other effect on the cloud lifetime, precipitation amount, or the biases in the thermodynamic profiles.
I found this paper very interesting, well-motivated, and well written.
My main comment is associated with the 4th point raised in the conclusions:
I think that the sensitivity of the results to the forcing dataset used to drive the UM models casts a lot of questions on this analysis. In section 3.4 (and later sections), the authors work hard to connect errors in clouds to errors in thermodynamic profiles (it seemed like a cause-effect implication). However, I don’t think the authors have done enough to convince me that the errors in the clouds are causing the rest of the issues. I think this could be addressed reasonably simply by showing the biases in the thermodynamic profiles over the region from the forcing dataset itself (e.g., in Fig 13 and subsequent figures). I realize that the UM models are providing 12-36 h forecasts that start from the forcing dataset, but I think adding these bias profiles would still be useful in making their case.
In a very similar and related comment: it looks like the biases in the LWC profiles from the three UM models are quite different, but the biases in the temperature and moisture profiles are essentially identical. If errors in the cloud properties are truly the driver (via radiation) of the biases in the temperature profiles, then I would have hypothesized we would see differences in the biases in the temperature profiles from the three models. Why don’t we?
Minor comments:
- The differences between the model diagnosed cloud cover and the cloud cover derived from the TWC “cloudNet simulator” was striking. I feel that there was too much emphasis on the Cv estimate; I believe that we need to use instrument simulators much more routinely in model – observation comparisons. I would like to see this emphasized more in the conclusions.
- Line 389: that all model simulations overestimate LWC in the 1-3 km range relative to the observations is interesting, especially since the obs are using an adiabatic assumption to distribute the liquid water. Thus, the true bias in LWC in the models is likely even larger than what was shown. I think this should be pointed out somewhere in the paper.
- Fig 6: the units of LWP are incorrect; I suspect they should be g/m2
- Lines 472-474: the water vapor units are g/kg, not g/m3
- The yellow color used to denote the IFS results is too faint to see well; please increase its contrast
- Line 522: Satellites provide good coverage of the arctic, and the infrared sounders do provide thermodynamic profiles (of some quality, depending on your metric). I think that some mention to the challenge of using these satellite data for DA is needed here.
- LW radiative cooling is strongly dependent on (a) the integrated water content of the cloud and (b) if there is another cloud above the radiating layer or not. Turner et al. JAMC 2018 provides a good illustration of this for arctic clouds. Line 562 is hypothesizing too much LW radiative cooling, but we have seen that the different microphysics parameterizations yield different LWCs. Is this because there are clouds above this BL that is muting this radiative impact somehow?
- Lin 591: are the correlation coefs on Fig 14 for the “orig inv” or the “adj inv” dataset? It is not clear
- Line 607-609: if there is too much radiative cooling at cloud top (because the LWC is too high), then this would result in greater LW radiative warming in the lower part of the BL, which could lead to this warm bias in the surface (a possible explanation for the warm bias near the surface).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-662-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-662', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2021-662/acp-2021-662-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Authors' response to reviewer comments on acp-2021-662', Gillian McCusker, 01 Aug 2022
We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscripts and their suggestions for improvements. We apologise for the delay in responding to their reviews - please find attached our author's response.
In this document, we have answered each reviewer's queries. We have also quoted additional text that we have included in the revised manuscript, associated with the reviewers' comments where appropriate.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-662', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2021
This paper compares NWP model output from the UM (using several different cloud schemes) and the IFS against ground-based observations collected in the central Arctic during a summer time cruise that sampled both sea ice melting conditions and refreezing conditions. The results demonstrated that both model frameworks overestimated cloud occurrence, but that using a total water content method, which takes into account the insensitivity of the ground-based remote sensors to very small amounts of cloud water content (or very small particle size) provided better agreement in cloud occurrence. Even still, the models tended to overestimate the LWC relative to the observations, which was hypothesized to result in too much cloud top radiative cooling which had deleterious impacts on the simulated temperature profile. However, they also showed that the UM models, which were all limited area models, sensitive to the forcing conditions from the global model used to drive these simulations. They also showed that a more accurate treatment of aerosols in the UM-LAM with the most complex cloud microphysics did change the profile of LWC in the lowest levels, but had virtually no other effect on the cloud lifetime, precipitation amount, or the biases in the thermodynamic profiles.
I found this paper very interesting, well-motivated, and well written.
My main comment is associated with the 4th point raised in the conclusions:
I think that the sensitivity of the results to the forcing dataset used to drive the UM models casts a lot of questions on this analysis. In section 3.4 (and later sections), the authors work hard to connect errors in clouds to errors in thermodynamic profiles (it seemed like a cause-effect implication). However, I don’t think the authors have done enough to convince me that the errors in the clouds are causing the rest of the issues. I think this could be addressed reasonably simply by showing the biases in the thermodynamic profiles over the region from the forcing dataset itself (e.g., in Fig 13 and subsequent figures). I realize that the UM models are providing 12-36 h forecasts that start from the forcing dataset, but I think adding these bias profiles would still be useful in making their case.
In a very similar and related comment: it looks like the biases in the LWC profiles from the three UM models are quite different, but the biases in the temperature and moisture profiles are essentially identical. If errors in the cloud properties are truly the driver (via radiation) of the biases in the temperature profiles, then I would have hypothesized we would see differences in the biases in the temperature profiles from the three models. Why don’t we?
Minor comments:
- The differences between the model diagnosed cloud cover and the cloud cover derived from the TWC “cloudNet simulator” was striking. I feel that there was too much emphasis on the Cv estimate; I believe that we need to use instrument simulators much more routinely in model – observation comparisons. I would like to see this emphasized more in the conclusions.
- Line 389: that all model simulations overestimate LWC in the 1-3 km range relative to the observations is interesting, especially since the obs are using an adiabatic assumption to distribute the liquid water. Thus, the true bias in LWC in the models is likely even larger than what was shown. I think this should be pointed out somewhere in the paper.
- Fig 6: the units of LWP are incorrect; I suspect they should be g/m2
- Lines 472-474: the water vapor units are g/kg, not g/m3
- The yellow color used to denote the IFS results is too faint to see well; please increase its contrast
- Line 522: Satellites provide good coverage of the arctic, and the infrared sounders do provide thermodynamic profiles (of some quality, depending on your metric). I think that some mention to the challenge of using these satellite data for DA is needed here.
- LW radiative cooling is strongly dependent on (a) the integrated water content of the cloud and (b) if there is another cloud above the radiating layer or not. Turner et al. JAMC 2018 provides a good illustration of this for arctic clouds. Line 562 is hypothesizing too much LW radiative cooling, but we have seen that the different microphysics parameterizations yield different LWCs. Is this because there are clouds above this BL that is muting this radiative impact somehow?
- Lin 591: are the correlation coefs on Fig 14 for the “orig inv” or the “adj inv” dataset? It is not clear
- Line 607-609: if there is too much radiative cooling at cloud top (because the LWC is too high), then this would result in greater LW radiative warming in the lower part of the BL, which could lead to this warm bias in the surface (a possible explanation for the warm bias near the surface).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-662-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-662', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2021-662/acp-2021-662-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Authors' response to reviewer comments on acp-2021-662', Gillian McCusker, 01 Aug 2022
We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscripts and their suggestions for improvements. We apologise for the delay in responding to their reviews - please find attached our author's response.
In this document, we have answered each reviewer's queries. We have also quoted additional text that we have included in the revised manuscript, associated with the reviewers' comments where appropriate.
Gillian Young et al.
Gillian Young et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
988 | 235 | 25 | 1,248 | 147 | 17 | 10 |
- HTML: 988
- PDF: 235
- XML: 25
- Total: 1,248
- Supplement: 147
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1