Abstract

Abstract. The first intercomparisons of cloud microphysics schemes implemented in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) mesoscale atmospheric model (version 3.5.1) are performed on the Antarctic Peninsula using the polar version of WRF (Polar WRF) at 5 km resolution, along with comparisons to the British Antarctic Survey's aircraft measurements (presented in part 1 of this work; Lachlan-Cope et al., 2016). This study follows previous works suggesting the misrepresentation of the cloud thermodynamic phase in order to explain large radiative biases derived at the surface in Polar WRF continent-wide (at 15 km or coarser horizontal resolution) and in the Polar WRF-based operational forecast model Antarctic Mesoscale Prediction System (AMPS) over the Larsen C Ice Shelf at 5 km horizontal resolution. Five cloud microphysics schemes are investigated: the WRF single-moment five-class scheme (WSM5), the WRF double-moment six-class scheme (WDM6), the Morrison double-moment scheme, the Thompson scheme, and the Milbrandt–Yau double-moment seven-class scheme. WSM5 (used in AMPS) and WDM6 (an upgrade version of WSM5) lead to the largest biases in observed supercooled liquid phase and surface radiative biases. The schemes simulating clouds in closest agreement to the observations are the Morrison, Thompson, and Milbrandt schemes for their better average prediction of occurrences of clouds and cloud phase. Interestingly, those three schemes are also the ones allowing for significant reduction of the longwave surface radiative bias over the Larsen C Ice Shelf (eastern side of the peninsula). This is important for surface energy budget consideration with Polar WRF since the cloud radiative effect is more pronounced in the infrared over icy surfaces. Overall, the Morrison scheme compares better to the cloud observation and radiation measurements. The fact that WSM5 and WDM6 are single-moment parameterizations for the ice crystals is responsible for their lesser ability to model the supercooled liquid clouds compared to the other schemes. However, our investigation shows that all the schemes fail at simulating the supercooled liquid mass at some temperatures (altitudes) where observations show evidence of its persistence. An ice nuclei parameterization relying on both temperature and aerosol content like DeMott et al. (2010) (not currently used in WRF cloud schemes) is in best agreement with the observations, at temperatures and aerosol concentration characteristic of the Antarctic Peninsula where the primary ice production occurs (part 1), compared to parameterization only relying on the atmospheric temperature (used by the WRF cloud schemes). Overall, a realistic double-moment ice microphysics implementation is needed for the correct representation of the supercooled liquid phase in Antarctic clouds. Moreover, a more realistic ice-nucleating particle alone is not enough to improve the cloud modelling, and water vapour and temperature biases also need to be further investigated and reduced.

Highlights

  • Tropospheric clouds in Antarctica are amongst the least well observed on Earth due to the remote environment and harsh conditions that make field observation difficult

  • WRF single moment 5 (WSM5) does not lead as often as the other schemes to supercooled liquid formation, which is illustrated by its lowest LWC0 values, yet it does simulate as large average liquid water contents as the other schemes when and where liquid forms, except in the central region, where orographically induced clouds have systematically less liquid water

  • This suggests that schemes like the Morrison, Thompson, or Milbrandt schemes should be preferred to the WSM5 and WRF double-moment 6 (WDM6) schemes in studies dealing with the evolution of the energy budget of the Larsen C Ice Shelf within Polar Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Tropospheric clouds in Antarctica are amongst the least well observed on Earth due to the remote environment and harsh conditions that make field observation difficult. As a result of this, no modelling study has ever focused on comparing the performances of Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) cloud microphysics schemes to in situ cloud measurements. Oceanically driven mechanisms are the main contributor to glaciers melting on the peninsula (Wouters et al, 2015) In this context, improving the modelling of the different components of the energy budget of the Antarctic Peninsula is required to better understand its climatological evolution and how atmosphere-driven processes act along with ocean-driven processes to impact Antarctica’s ice mass balance and temperatures.

Overview of the airborne observations
Model settings
Cloud microphysics schemes
Preliminaries: results in radiation biases
The particular case of AWS14 in January 2011
General results in radiation biases
General trends for simulated clouds across the peninsula
Dynamics and microphysics structure of the simulated clouds
Liquid phase
Ice phase and mixed phase
Temperatures and water vapour in Polar WRF over the flight campaigns
On the radiative biases
Simulating the cloud thermodynamic phase
Findings
The INP parameterizations
Summary and perspective
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