Cloud Phase Simulation at High Latitudes in EAMv2: Evaluation using CALIPSO Observations and Comparison with EAMv1

This study performs a comprehensive evaluation of the simulated cloud phase in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) atmosphere model version 2 (EAMv2) and version 1 (EAMv1). Enabled by the CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Main Authors: Zhang, Meng, Xie, Shaocheng, Liu, Xiaohong, Lin, Wuyin, Zheng, Xue, Golaz, Jean‐Christophe, Zhang, Yuying
Language:unknown
Published: 2023
Subjects:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Arctic
Southern Ocean
Barents Sea
Norwegian Sea
Antarc*
Antarctica
Online Access:http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1895300
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1895300
https://doi.org/10.1029/2022jd037100
Description
Summary:This study performs a comprehensive evaluation of the simulated cloud phase in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) atmosphere model version 2 (EAMv2) and version 1 (EAMv1). Enabled by the CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation) simulator, EAMv2 and EAMv1 predicted cloud phase is compared against the GCM-Oriented CALIPSO Cloud Product (CALIPSO-GOCCP) at high latitudes where mixed-phase clouds are prevalent. Our results indicate that the underestimation of cloud ice in simulated high-latitude mixed-phase clouds in EAMv1 has been significantly reduced in EAMv2. The increased ice clouds in the Arctic mainly result from the modification on the WBF (Wegner-Bergeron-Findeisen) process in EAMv2. The impact of the modified WBF process is moderately compensated by the low limit of cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) in cloud microphysics and the new dCAPE_ULL trigger used in deep convection in EAMv2. Moreover, it is found that the new trigger largely contributes to the better cloud phase simulation over the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea in the Arctic and the Southern Ocean where large errors are found in EAMv1. However, errors in simulated cloud phase in EAMv1, such as the overestimation of supercooled liquid clouds near the surface in both hemispheres and the underestimation of ice clouds over Antarctica, persist in EAMv2. In conclusion, this study highlights the impact of deep convection parameterizations, which has received little attention, on high-latitude mixed-phase clouds, and the importance of continuous improvement of cloud microphysics in climate models for accurately representing mixed-phase clouds.

Similar Items