Abstract
Prognostic cloud schemes in large‐scale models are typically formulated in terms of grid‐cell average values of cloud condensate concentration q, although variability in q at spatial scales smaller than the grid cell is known to exist. Because the source and sink processes modifying q are nonlinear, the process rates computed using the mean value of q are biased relative to process rates which account for subgrid‐scale variability. A preliminary assessment shows that these biases can modify instantaneous process rates by as much as a factor of 2. Observations of q at a continental site suggest that the bias is avoided in current practice through the arbitrary tuning of model parameters. Models might be improved if subgrid‐scale variability in q were explicitly considered; several approaches to this goal are suggested.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
