Mesoscale Modeling of Springtime Arctic Mixed-Phase Stratiform Clouds Using a New Two-Moment Bulk Microphysics Scheme

Morrison, Hugh; Pinto, James O.

doi:10.1175/jas3564.1

Cited by 155 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of aerosols on mixedphase clouds is a more complex issue (Curry et al, 1996;Girard et al, 2005;Morrison and Pinto, 2005;Morrison et al, 2008;de Boer et al, 2009) and not directly addressed in this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Space-based evaluation of interactions between aerosols and low-level Arctic clouds during the Spring and Summer of 2008

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study explores the indirect effects of anthropogenic and biomass burning aerosols on Arctic clouds by co-locating a combination of MODIS and POLDER cloud products with output from the FLEXPART tracer transport model. During the activities of the International Polar Year for the Spring and Summer of 2008, we find a high sensitivity of Arctic cloud radiative properties to both anthropogenic and biomass burning pollution plumes, particularly at air temperatures near freezing or potential temperatures near 286 K. However, the sensitivity is much lower at both colder and warmer temperatures, possibly due to increases in the wet and dry scavenging of cloud condensation nuclei: the pollution plumes remain but the component that influences Arctic clouds has been removed along transport pathways. The analysis shows that, independent of local temperature, cloud optical depth is approximately four times more sensitive to changes in pollution levels than is cloud effective radius. This suggests that some form of feedback mechanism amplifies the radiative response of Arctic clouds to pollution through changes in cloud liquid water path.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Space-based evaluation of interactions between aerosols and low-level Arctic clouds during the Spring and Summer of 2008

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A two-moment bulk microphysics model Morrison and Pinto, 2005) is employed in order to compare with the detailed 2-D microphysics scheme presented above. The bulk model is altered to include a detailed spectral representation of the aerosol size distribution following Lebo and Seinfeld (2011).…”

Section: Bulk Microphysics Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As one moves toward models with smaller domains, e.g., numerical weather prediction models or cloud resolving models (CRM), relevant dynamical processes are better resolved and this requires more precise numerical cloud models. Frequently, single-moment or two-moment bulk microphysics schemes are employed in these models (e.g., Lin et al, 1983;Hobbs, 1983, 1984;Ferrier, 1994;Walko et al, 1995;Feingold et al, 1998;Rasch and Kristjansson, 1998;Simpson et al, 2003;Hong et al, 2004;Thompson et al, 2004;Morrison and Pinto, 2005;Hong and Lim, 2006;Li et al, 2008;Thompson et al, 2008;Wang and Feingold, 2009a,b;Lim and Hong, 2010). These models predict either the first moment of a cloud particle size distribution (i.e., number concentration) or both the first and third moments (i.e., number concentration and mass mixing ratio), respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A continuous spectral aerosol-droplet microphysics model

Lebo

Seinfeld

2011

Atmos. Chem. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A two-dimensional (2-D) continuous spectral aerosol-droplet microphysics model is presented and implemented into the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model for large-eddy simulations (LES) of warm clouds. Activation and regeneration of aerosols are treated explicitly in the calculation of condensation/evaporation. The model includes a 2-D spectrum that encompasses wet aerosol particles (i.e., haze droplets), cloud droplets, and drizzle droplets in a continuous and consistent manner and allows for the explicit tracking of aerosol size within cloud droplets due to collision-coalescence. The system of differential equations describing condensation/evaporation (i.e., mass conservation and energy conservation) is solved simultaneously within each grid cell. The model is demonstrated by simulating a marine stratocumulus deck for two different aerosol loadings (100 and 500 cm −3 ), and comparison with the more traditional microphysics modeling approaches (both 1-D bin and bulk schemes) is evaluated. The simulations suggest that in a 1-D bin microphysics scheme, without regeneration, too few particles are produced and hence the mode of the droplet size spectrum occurs at a larger size relative to the 2-D bin model results. Moreover, with regeneration, the 1-D scheme produces too many small droplets and thus shifts the mode toward smaller sizes. These large shifts in the droplet size distribution can potentially have significant effects on the efficiency of the collision-coalescence process, fall speeds, and ultimately precipitation.

show abstract

“…Morrison and Pinto, 2005). Often, multiple microphysics schemes are compared against each other and against observations (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty from the choice of microphysics scheme in convection-permitting models significantly exceeds aerosol effects

White

Gryspeerdt²,

Stier

et al. 2017

Atmos. Chem. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study investigates the hydrometeor development and response to cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) perturbations in convection-permitting model configurations. We present results from a real-data simulation of deep convection in the Congo basin, an idealised supercell case, and a warm-rain large-eddy simulation (LES). In each case we compare two frequently used double-moment bulk microphysics schemes and investigate the response to CDNC perturbations. We find that the variability among the two schemes, including the response to aerosol, differs widely between these cases. In all cases, differences in the simulated cloud morphology and precipitation are found to be significantly greater between the microphysics schemes than due to CDNC perturbations within each scheme. Further, we show that the response of the hydrometeors to CDNC perturbations differs strongly not only between microphysics schemes, but the inter-scheme variability also differs between cases of convection. Sensitivity tests show that the representation of autoconversion is the dominant factor that drives differences in rain production between the microphysics schemes in the idealised precipitating shallow cumulus case and in a subregion of the Congo basin simulations dominated by liquidphase processes. In this region, rain mass is also shown to be relatively insensitive to the radiative effects of an overlying layer of ice-phase cloud. The conversion of cloud ice to snow is the process responsible for differences in cold cloud bias between the schemes in the Congo. In the idealised supercell case, thermodynamic impacts on the storm system using different microphysics parameterisations can equal those due to aerosol effects. These results highlight the large uncertainty in cloud and precipitation responses to aerosol in convectionpermitting simulations and have important implications not only for process studies of aerosol-convection interaction, but also for global modelling studies of aerosol indirect effects. These results indicate the continuing need for tighter observational constraints of cloud processes and response to aerosol in a range of meteorological regimes.

show abstract

Mesoscale Modeling of Springtime Arctic Mixed-Phase Stratiform Clouds Using a New Two-Moment Bulk Microphysics Scheme

Cited by 155 publications

References 100 publications

Space-based evaluation of interactions between aerosols and low-level Arctic clouds during the Spring and Summer of 2008

Space-based evaluation of interactions between aerosols and low-level Arctic clouds during the Spring and Summer of 2008

A continuous spectral aerosol-droplet microphysics model

Uncertainty from the choice of microphysics scheme in convection-permitting models significantly exceeds aerosol effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About