Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SM

Abstract Arctic mixed‐phase clouds simulated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) are found to be overly dominated by supercooled liquid with little ice production. Sensitivity experiments using the short‐term hindcast ap...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Meng Zhang, Shaocheng Xie, Xiaohong Liu, Wuyin Lin, Kai Zhang, Hsi‐Yen Ma, Xue Zheng, Yuying Zhang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: American Geophysical Union (AGU) 2020-07-01
Series:Earth and Space Science
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001125
_version_ 1828748059979284480
author Meng Zhang
Shaocheng Xie
Xiaohong Liu
Wuyin Lin
Kai Zhang
Hsi‐Yen Ma
Xue Zheng
Yuying Zhang
author_facet Meng Zhang
Shaocheng Xie
Xiaohong Liu
Wuyin Lin
Kai Zhang
Hsi‐Yen Ma
Xue Zheng
Yuying Zhang
author_sort Meng Zhang
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Arctic mixed‐phase clouds simulated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) are found to be overly dominated by supercooled liquid with little ice production. Sensitivity experiments using the short‐term hindcast approach are performed to isolate the impact of several new parameterizations on the simulated mixed‐phase clouds in EAMv1. These include the Classical Nucleation Theory (CNT) ice nucleation scheme, the Cloud Layer Unified By Binormals (CLUBB) parameterization, and the updated Morrison and Gettelman microphysics scheme (MG2). Results are compared to the DOE's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M‐PACE) observations. It is found that all of these new parameterizations are responsible for the decrease of cloud ice water content in EAMv1 simulated single‐layer mixed‐phase clouds. A budget analysis of detailed cloud microphysical processes suggests that a lack of initial ice particles from ice nucleation or convective detrainment strongly diminishes the cloud ice water content through the subsequent ice mass growth processes. Reduced heterogeneous ice nucleation by CNT at temperatures warmer than −15°C along with negligible ice processes in CLUBB are primarily responsible for the problem. Because the use of MG2 does not impact initial ice formation, the MG2 cloud microphysics is not the primary reason for the underestimate of cloud ice. However, using MG2 leads to a lower total ice mass due to a higher accretion rate of liquid droplets by rain drops and a lower ice mass growth rate.
first_indexed 2024-04-14T04:54:37Z
format Article
id doaj.art-27a8e88f867547bc899f830a9e4ec035
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2333-5084
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-14T04:54:37Z
publishDate 2020-07-01
publisher American Geophysical Union (AGU)
record_format Article
series Earth and Space Science
spelling doaj.art-27a8e88f867547bc899f830a9e4ec0352022-12-22T02:11:11ZengAmerican Geophysical Union (AGU)Earth and Space Science2333-50842020-07-0177n/an/a10.1029/2020EA001125Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SMMeng Zhang0Shaocheng Xie1Xiaohong Liu2Wuyin Lin3Kai Zhang4Hsi‐Yen Ma5Xue Zheng6Yuying Zhang7Department of Atmospheric Sciences Texas A&M University College Station TX USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USADepartment of Atmospheric Sciences Texas A&M University College Station TX USABrookhaven National Laboratory Upton NY USAPacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland WA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USALawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USAAbstract Arctic mixed‐phase clouds simulated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) are found to be overly dominated by supercooled liquid with little ice production. Sensitivity experiments using the short‐term hindcast approach are performed to isolate the impact of several new parameterizations on the simulated mixed‐phase clouds in EAMv1. These include the Classical Nucleation Theory (CNT) ice nucleation scheme, the Cloud Layer Unified By Binormals (CLUBB) parameterization, and the updated Morrison and Gettelman microphysics scheme (MG2). Results are compared to the DOE's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M‐PACE) observations. It is found that all of these new parameterizations are responsible for the decrease of cloud ice water content in EAMv1 simulated single‐layer mixed‐phase clouds. A budget analysis of detailed cloud microphysical processes suggests that a lack of initial ice particles from ice nucleation or convective detrainment strongly diminishes the cloud ice water content through the subsequent ice mass growth processes. Reduced heterogeneous ice nucleation by CNT at temperatures warmer than −15°C along with negligible ice processes in CLUBB are primarily responsible for the problem. Because the use of MG2 does not impact initial ice formation, the MG2 cloud microphysics is not the primary reason for the underestimate of cloud ice. However, using MG2 leads to a lower total ice mass due to a higher accretion rate of liquid droplets by rain drops and a lower ice mass growth rate.https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001125
spellingShingle Meng Zhang
Shaocheng Xie
Xiaohong Liu
Wuyin Lin
Kai Zhang
Hsi‐Yen Ma
Xue Zheng
Yuying Zhang
Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SM
Earth and Space Science
title Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SM
title_full Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SM
title_fullStr Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SM
title_full_unstemmed Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SM
title_short Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single‐Layer Mixed‐Phase Clouds in E3SM
title_sort toward understanding the simulated phase partitioning of arctic single layer mixed phase clouds in e3sm
url https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EA001125
work_keys_str_mv AT mengzhang towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm
AT shaochengxie towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm
AT xiaohongliu towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm
AT wuyinlin towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm
AT kaizhang towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm
AT hsiyenma towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm
AT xuezheng towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm
AT yuyingzhang towardunderstandingthesimulatedphasepartitioningofarcticsinglelayermixedphasecloudsine3sm