Can a relaxation technique be used to validate clouds and sulphur species in a GCM?

• Published in: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
• Main Authors: Feichter, Johann, Lohmann, Ulrike
• Other Authors: EC Environment Project: SINDICATE
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 1999
• Subjects: North Atlantic
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qj.1999.49712555609; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fqj.1999.49712555609; https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qj.1999.49712555609

Abstract The Hamburg version of the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) general circulation model, ECHAM4, developed for climate studies, is used to study the hydrological cycle and the atmospheric sulphur cycle. A technique, the Newtonian relaxation, is introduced to compare results from the model with measurements of cloud parameters and sulphur species concentrations. The model is forced by ECMWF analyses to simulate September 1993, and results are compared to observations on different spatial and temporal scales: monthly mean horizontal satellite data, daily mean averages at European and Canadian stations and aircraft soundings over the north Atlantic off the Canadian coast. The model is able to reproduce monthly mean horizontal distributions of liquid water path and precipitation. Daily mean precipitation fluxes and the temporal evolution of gaseous and particulate sulphur also agree quite well with observations. Based on this comparison with observations the performance of two different cloud physics parametrizations is discussed. These experiments indicate that variables like relative humidity, cloud cover and precipitation are controlled by the large‐scale dynamics, whereas the cloud water content depends on the parametrization of the cloud microphysics. Coupling of the model‐calculated sulphate mixing ratios to the cloud microphysics improves the model's sulphate distribution but slightly worsens the agreement between calculated and observed precipitation.