The cloud droplet number concentration (N d) is of central interest to improve the understanding of cloud physics and for quantifying the effective radiative forcing by aerosol‐cloud interactions. Current standard satellite retrievals do not operationally provide N d, but it can be inferred from retrievals of cloud optical depth (τ c) cloud droplet effective radius (r e) and cloud top temperature. This review summarizes issues with this approach and quantifies uncertainties. A total relative uncertainty of 78% is inferred for pixel‐level retrievals for relatively homogeneous, optically thick and unobscured stratiform clouds with favorable viewing geometry. The uncertainty is even greater if these conditions are not met. For averages over 1° ×1° regions the uncertainty is reduced to 54% assuming random errors for instrument uncertainties. In contrast, the few evaluation studies against reference in situ observations suggest much better accuracy with little variability in the bias. More such studies are required for a better error characterization. N d uncertainty is dominated by errors in r e, and therefore, improvements in r e retrievals would greatly improve the quality of the N d retrievals. Recommendations are made for how this might be achieved. Some existing N d data sets are compared and discussed, and best practices for the use of N d data from current passive instruments (e.g., filtering criteria) are recommended. Emerging alternative N d estimates are also considered. First, new ideas to use additional information from existing and upcoming spaceborne instruments are discussed, and second, approaches using high‐quality ground‐based observations are examined.

Large-eddy simulations (LES) with the newThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. R. Heinze et al.at building confidence in the model's ability to simulate small-to mesoscale variability in turbulence, clouds and precipitation. The results are encouraging: the high-resolution model matches the observed variability much better at small-to mesoscales than the coarser resolved reference model. In its highest grid resolution, the simulated turbulence profiles are realistic and column water vapour matches the observed temporal variability at short time-scales. Despite being somewhat too large and too frequent, small cumulus clouds are well represented in comparison with satellite data, as is the shape of the cloud size spectrum. Variability of cloud water matches the satellite observations much better in ICON than in the reference model. In this sense, it is concluded that the model is fit for the purpose of using its output for parametrization development, despite the potential to improve further some important aspects of processes that are also parametrized in the high-resolution model.

Abstract. The Satellite Application Facility on Climate Monitoring (CM-SAF) aims at the provision of satellite-derived geophysical parameter data sets suitable for climate monitoring. CM-SAF provides climatologies for Essential Climate Variables (ECV), as required by the Global Climate Observing System implementation plan in support of the UNFCCC. Several cloud parameters, surface albedo, radiation fluxes at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface as well as atmospheric temperature and humidity products form a sound basis for climate monitoring of the atmosphere. The products are categorized in monitoring data sets obtained in near real time and data sets based on carefully intercalibrated radiances. The CM-SAF products are derived from several instruments on-board operational satellites in geostationary and polar orbit as the Meteosat and NOAA satellites, respectively. The existing data sets will be continued using data from the instruments on-board the new joint NOAA/EUMETSAT Meteorological Operational Polar satellite. The products have mostly been validated against several ground-based data sets both in situ and remotely sensed. The accomplished accuracy for products derived in near real time is sufficient to monitor variability on diurnal and seasonal scales. The demands on accuracy increase the longer the considered time scale is. Thus, interannual variability or trends can only be assessed if the sensor data are corrected for jumps created by instrument changes on successive satellites and more subtle effects like instrument and orbit drift and also changes to the spectral response function of an instrument. Thus, a central goal of the recently started Continuous Development and Operations Phase of the CM-SAF (2007–2012) is to further improve all CM-SAF data products to a quality level that allows for studies of interannual variability.

More than one hundred days were simulated over very large domains with fine (0.156 km to 2.5 km) grid spacing for realistic conditions to test the hypothesis that storm (kilometer) and large-eddy (hectometer) resolving simulations would provide an improved representation of clouds and precipitation in atmospheric simulations. At scales that resolve convective storms (storm-resolving for short) scales, the vertical velocity variance becomes resolved and a better physical basis is achieved for representing clouds and precipitation. Similar to past studies we find an improved representation of precipitation at kilometer scales, as compared to models with parameterised convection. The main precipitation features (location, diurnal cycle and spatial propagation) are well captured already at kilometer scales, and refining resolution to hectometer scales does not substantially change the simulations in these respects. It does, however, lead to a reduction in the precipitation on the timescales considered-most notably over the Tropical ocean. Changes in the distribution of precipitation, with less frequent extremes are also found in simulations incorporating hecto-meter scales. Hectometer scales appear more important for the representation of clouds, and make it possible to capture many important aspects of the cloud field, from the vertical distribution of cloud cover, to the distribution of cloud sizes, to the diel (daily) cycle. Qualitative improvements, particularly in the ability to differentiate cumulus from stratiform clouds, are seen when reducing the grid spacing from kilometer to hectometer scales. At the hectometer scale new challenges arise, but the similarity of observed and simulated scales, and the more direct 1 connection between the circulation and the unconstrained degrees of freedom make these challenges less daunting. This quality, combined with an already improved simulation as compared to more parameterised models, underpins our conviction that the use and further development of storm-resolving models offers exciting opportunities for advancing understanding of climate and climate change.

No abstract

Abstract. The HD(CP) 2 Observational Prototype Experiment (HOPE) was performed as a major 2-month field experiment in Jülich, Germany, in April and May 2013, followed by a smaller campaign in Melpitz, Germany, in September 2013. HOPE has been designed to provide an observational dataset for a critical evaluation of the new German community atmospheric icosahedral non-hydrostatic (ICON) model at the scale of the model simulations and further to provide information on land-surface-atmospheric boundary layer exchange, cloud and precipitation processes, as well as sub-grid variability and microphysical properties that are subject to parameterizations. HOPE focuses on the onset of clouds and precipitation in the convective atmospheric boundary layer. This paper summarizes the instrument set-ups, the intensive observation periods, and example results from both campaigns.HOPE-Jülich instrumentation included a radio sounding station, 4 Doppler lidars, 4 Raman lidars (3 of them providePublished by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. temperature, 3 of them water vapour, and all of them particle backscatter data), 1 water vapour differential absorption lidar, 3 cloud radars, 5 microwave radiometers, 3 rain radars, 6 sky imagers, 99 pyranometers, and 5 sun photometers operated at different sites, some of them in synergy. The HOPEMelpitz campaign combined ground-based remote sensing of aerosols and clouds with helicopter-and balloon-based in situ observations in the atmospheric column and at the surface.HOPE provided an unprecedented collection of atmospheric dynamical, thermodynamical, and micro-and macrophysical properties of aerosols, clouds, and precipitation with high spatial and temporal resolution within a cube of approximately 10 × 10 × 10 km 3 . HOPE data will significantly contribute to our understanding of boundary layer dynamics and the formation of clouds and precipitation. The datasets have been made available through a dedicated data portal.First applications of HOPE data for model evaluation have shown a general agreement between observed and modelled boundary layer height, turbulence characteristics, and cloud coverage, but they also point to significant differences that deserve further investigations from both the observational and the modelling perspective.

Abstract. Cloud properties from both ground-based as well as from geostationary passive satellite observations have been used previously for diagnosing aerosol–cloud interactions. In this investigation, a 2-year data set together with four selected case studies are analyzed with the aim of evaluating the consistency and limitations of current ground-based and satellite-retrieved cloud property data sets. The typically applied adiabatic cloud profile is modified using a sub-adiabatic factor to account for entrainment within the cloud. Based on the adiabatic factor obtained from the combination of ground-based cloud radar, ceilometer and microwave radiometer, we demonstrate that neither the assumption of a completely adiabatic cloud nor the assumption of a constant sub-adiabatic factor is fulfilled (mean adiabatic factor 0.63 ± 0.22). As cloud adiabaticity is required to estimate the cloud droplet number concentration but is not available from passive satellite observations, an independent method to estimate the adiabatic factor, and thus the influence of mixing, would be highly desirable for global-scale analyses. Considering the radiative effect of a cloud described by the sub-adiabatic model, we focus on cloud optical depth and its sensitivities. Ground-based estimates are here compared vs. cloud optical depth retrieved from the Meteosat SEVIRI satellite instrument resulting in a bias of −4 and a root mean square difference of 16. While a synergistic approach based on the combination of ceilometer, cloud radar and microwave radiometer enables an estimate of the cloud droplet concentration, it is highly sensitive to radar calibration and to assumptions about the moments of the droplet size distribution. Similarly, satellite-based estimates of cloud droplet concentration are uncertain. We conclude that neither the ground-based nor satellite-based cloud retrievals applied here allow a robust estimate of cloud droplet concentration, which complicates its use for the study of aerosol–cloud interactions.

The accuracy and precision are determined of cloud liquid water path (LWP) retrievals from the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) on board Meteosat-8 using 1 yr of LWP retrievals from microwave radiometer (MWR) measurements of two CloudNET stations in northern Europe. The MWR retrievals of LWP have a precision that is superior to current satellite remote sensing techniques, which justifies their use as validation data. The Cloud Physical Properties (CPP) algorithm of the Satellite Application Facility on Climate Monitoring (CM-SAF) is used to retrieve LWP from SEVIRI reflectances at 0.6 and 1.6 m. The results show large differences in the accuracy and precision of LWP retrievals from SEVIRI between summer and winter. During summer, the instantaneous LWP retrievals from SEVIRI agree well with those from the MWRs. The accuracy is better than 5 g m Ϫ2 and the precision is better than 30 g m Ϫ2 , which is similar to the precision of LWP retrievals from MWR. The added value of the 15-min sampling frequency of Meteosat-8 becomes evident in the validation of the daily median and diurnal variations in LWP retrievals from SEVIRI. The daily median LWP values from SEVIRI and MWR are highly correlated (correlation Ͼ 0.95) and have a precision better than 15 g m Ϫ2 . In addition, SEVIRI and MWR reveal similar diurnal variations in retrieved LWP values. The peak LWP values occur around noon. During winter, SEVIRI generally overestimates the instantaneous LWP values from MWR, the accuracy drops to about 10 g m 2 , and the precision to about 30 g m Ϫ2 . The most likely reason for these lower accuracies is the shortcoming of CPP, and similar one-dimensional retrieval algorithms, to model inhomogeneous clouds. It is suggested that neglecting cloud inhomogeneities leads to a significant overestimation of LWP retrievals from SEVIRI over northern Europe during winter.