Abstract

In this study, we investigate how the regional climate model HIRHAM5 reproduces the spatial and temporal distribution of Arctic snowfall when compared to CloudSat satellite observations during the examined period of 2007–2010. For this purpose, both approaches, i.e. the assessment of surface snowfall rate (observation-to-model) and the radar reflectivity factor profiles (model-to-observation), are carried out considering spatial and temporal sampling differences. The HIRHAM5 model, which is constrained in its synoptic representation by nudging to ERA-Interim, represents the snowfall in the Arctic region well in comparison to CloudSat products. The spatial distribution of the snowfall patterns is similar in both identifying the southeastern coast of Greenland and the North Atlantic corridor as regions gaining more than twice as much snowfall as the Arctic average, defined here for latitudes between 66° N and 81° N. An excellent agreement (difference less than 1 %) in Arctic averaged annual snowfall rate between HIRHAM5 and CloudSat is found whereas ERA-Interim reanalysis shows an underestimation of 45 % and significant deficits in the representation of the snowfall frequency distribution. From the spatial analysis it can be seen that the largest differences in the mean annual snowfall rates are an overestimation near the coastlines of Greenland and other regions with large orographical variations, as well as an underestimation in the northern North Atlantic ocean. To a large extent, the differences can be explained by clutter contamination, blind zone or higher resolution of CloudSat measurements, but clearly HIRHAM5 overestimates the orographic-driven precipitation. The underestimation of HIRHAM5 within the North Atlantic corridor south of Svalbard is likely connected to a poor description of the marine cold air outbreaks which could be identified by separating snowfall into different circulation weather type regimes. By simulating the radar reflectivity factor profiles from HIRHAM5 utilizing the PAMTRA forward-modeling operator, the contribution of individual hydrometeor types can be assessed. Looking at a latitude band at 72–73° N, snow can be identified as the hydrometeor type dominating radar reflectivity factor values across all seasons. The largest differences between the observed and simulated reflectivity factor values are related to the contribution of cloud ice particles, which is underestimated in the model most likely due to the small size of the particles. The model-to-observation approach offers a promising diagnostic when improving cloud schemes as illustrated by comparison of different schemes available for HIRHAM5.

Highlights

  • We investigate how the regional climate model HIRHAM5 reproduces the spatial and temporal distribution of Arctic snowfall when compared to CloudSat satellite observations during the examined period of 2007 - 2010

  • The underestimation of HIRHAM5 15 within the North Atlantic corridor south of Svalbard is likely connected to a poor description of the marine cold air outbreaks which could be identified by separating snowfall into different circulation weather type regimes

  • 85 In this study, we evaluate the performance of the HIRHAM5 Regional Climate Models (RCMs) (Christensen et al, 2007) to reproduce the seasonal and regional distribution of Arctic snowfall by comparison to CloudSat observations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Precipitation acts as a significant coupling between Earth’s hydrological, energy and bio-geochemical cycles (Hou 25 et al, 2014) and snowfall is an important climate indicator. Edel et al (2020) composed the snowfall climatology based on CloudSat observations with a similar sampling grid over the years 2007 - 2010 and compared the frequency and phase of precipitation to modeled values of ERA-Interim and two versions of the Arctic System Reanalysis (ASR), finding similar geographical patterns and significant 75 mean snowfall rate differences, especially over Greenland. The discarded so-called blind zone may cause an underestimation 80 of the surface snowfall rate (about 10%) as the microphysical growth processes in snow can significantly enhance the snowfall intensity near the surface (Maahn et al, 2014) Another limitation of utilizing remote sensing observations to evaluate snowfall rate is the uncertainty of the used retrieval that derives the rate from the measured radar reflectivity factor (e.g., Kulie and Bennartz, 2009; Milani et al, 2018). The studied period is between years 2007-2010, defined from the availability of an all-day period of CloudSat data

HIRHAM5
ERA-Interim
CloudSat observations
PAMTRA
Sampling
Circulation Weather Type classification
Comparison of modeled and retrieved surface snowfall rates
Circulation Weather Types (CWT)
Results of model-to-observation evaluation
Regional differences in reflectivity profiles
Vertical structure of hydrometeors
Differences between the different cloud microphysical schemes
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call