the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Observed Process-level Constraints of Cloud and Precipitation Properties over the Southern Ocean for Earth System Model Evaluation
Abstract. Over the remote Southern Ocean, cloud feedbacks contribute substantially to Earth system model (ESM) radiative biases. The evolution of low Southern Ocean clouds (cloud top heights < ~ 3 km) is strongly modulated by precipitation and/or evaporation, which act as the primary sink of cloud condensate. Constraining precipitation processes in ESMs requires robust observations suitable for process-level evaluations. A year-long subset (April 2016 – March 2017) of ground-based profiling instrumentation deployed during the Macquarie Island Cloud and Radiation Experiment (MICRE) field campaign (54.5° S, 158.9° E) combines a 95 GHz (W-band) Doppler cloud radar, two lidar ceilometers, and balloon-borne soundings to quantify the occurrence frequency of precipitation from liquid-phase cloud base. Liquid-based clouds at Macquarie Island precipitate ~ 70 % of the time, with deeper and colder clouds precipitating more frequently and at a higher intensity compared to thinner and warmer clouds. Supercooled cloud layers precipitate more readily than layers with cloud top temperatures > 0 °C, regardless of the geometric thickness of the layer, and also evaporate more frequently. We further demonstrate an approach to employ these observational constraints for evaluation of a 9-year GISS-ModelE3 ESM simulation. Model output is processed through the Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2) radar and lidar instrument simulator with the same instrument specifications as those deployed during MICRE, therefore accounting for instrument sensitivities and ensuring a coherent comparison. Relative to MICRE observations, the ESM produces a smaller cloud occurrence frequency, smaller precipitation occurrence frequency, and greater sub-cloud evaporation. The lower precipitation occurrence frequency by the ESM relative to MICRE contrasts with numerous studies that suggest a ubiquitous bias by ESMs to precipitate too frequently over the SO when compared with satellite-based observations, likely owing to sensitivity limitations of space-borne instrumentation and different sampling methodologies for ground- versus space-based observations. Despite these deficiencies, the ESM reproduces the observed tendency for deeper and colder clouds to precipitate more frequently and at a higher intensity. The ESM also reproduces specific cloud regimes, including near-surface clouds that account for ~ 25 % of liquid-based clouds during MICRE and optically thin, non-precipitating clouds that account for ~ 27 % of clouds with bases higher than 250 m. We suggest that the demonstrated framework, which merges observations with appropriately constrained model output, is a valuable approach to evaluate processes responsible for cloud radiative feedbacks in ESMs.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(7357 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7357 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-170', Roger Marchand, 07 Apr 2023
Please see review details in attached PDF file
I very much enjoyed reading this article. The manuscript is well written and well organized, and the data analysis has been done with care. Frankly, I think the manuscript is perfectly publishable in its present form. What comments I have, are frankly being rather picky.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-170', Mark Miller, 24 Apr 2023
I commend the authors for producing a well-written manuscript. The analysis is solid, well-documented, and it characterizes cloud microphysical structure in a region of the planet, the Southern Ocean, where detailed observations are extremely rare. I have only a few minor comments and believe this manuscript is publishable in present form.
Line 230: I was a bit curious about the justification for selecting the minimum Doppler velocity for Dmin rather than some measure of central tendency. Although you refer the reader to Silber (2021), a sentence outlining the reasoning behind this choice in the current manuscript would help the reader.
Line 280: Is it possible that clouds that are part warm and part supercooled are frontal? My comment is more of a curiosity than substantive.
Line 295: The maximum growth rate of ice is -14C, so I wasn't surprised that this difference exists. It may be worth mentioning this temperature for those who are not familiar with mixed phase clouds.
Line 304: It would be interesting to characterize the vertical mixing state to determine the degree of decoupling (if there is any decoupling). There is a possibility that the cloud morphology you are describing is a hybrid: cumulus-coupled stratocumulus.
Line 515: Interesting finding. I wonder if preciptation occurence is really the best way to guage model performance. It is the vertical liquid/ice water flux that determines cloud water evolution. In other words, a cloud can precipitate almost continuously, but if the liquid/ice water flux is small, it may have minimal impact on the cloud life cycle. It's diffult to determine these fluxes from observations, as you note in the paper, but I wonder if there is really a difference in these fluxes between the cloud types despite the difference in precipitation occurence?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-170-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-170', McKenna Stanford, 20 Jun 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-170', Roger Marchand, 07 Apr 2023
Please see review details in attached PDF file
I very much enjoyed reading this article. The manuscript is well written and well organized, and the data analysis has been done with care. Frankly, I think the manuscript is perfectly publishable in its present form. What comments I have, are frankly being rather picky.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-170', Mark Miller, 24 Apr 2023
I commend the authors for producing a well-written manuscript. The analysis is solid, well-documented, and it characterizes cloud microphysical structure in a region of the planet, the Southern Ocean, where detailed observations are extremely rare. I have only a few minor comments and believe this manuscript is publishable in present form.
Line 230: I was a bit curious about the justification for selecting the minimum Doppler velocity for Dmin rather than some measure of central tendency. Although you refer the reader to Silber (2021), a sentence outlining the reasoning behind this choice in the current manuscript would help the reader.
Line 280: Is it possible that clouds that are part warm and part supercooled are frontal? My comment is more of a curiosity than substantive.
Line 295: The maximum growth rate of ice is -14C, so I wasn't surprised that this difference exists. It may be worth mentioning this temperature for those who are not familiar with mixed phase clouds.
Line 304: It would be interesting to characterize the vertical mixing state to determine the degree of decoupling (if there is any decoupling). There is a possibility that the cloud morphology you are describing is a hybrid: cumulus-coupled stratocumulus.
Line 515: Interesting finding. I wonder if preciptation occurence is really the best way to guage model performance. It is the vertical liquid/ice water flux that determines cloud water evolution. In other words, a cloud can precipitate almost continuously, but if the liquid/ice water flux is small, it may have minimal impact on the cloud life cycle. It's diffult to determine these fluxes from observations, as you note in the paper, but I wonder if there is really a difference in these fluxes between the cloud types despite the difference in precipitation occurence?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-170-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-170', McKenna Stanford, 20 Jun 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program ceilometer data Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility https://doi.org/10.5439/1181954
Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) surface meteorology station data Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility https://doi.org/10.5439/1597382
Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Bistatic Radar System for Atmospheric Studies (BASTA) radar data Australian Antarctic Division's Data Centre https://doi.org/10.26179/5d91836ca8fc3
University of Canterbury ceilometer data Australian Antarctic Division's Data Centre https://doi.org/10.26179/5d91835e2ccc3
Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Upper Air Soundings at Macquarie Island Australian Antarctic Division's Data Centre https://data.aad.gov.au/metadata/records/Antarctic_Meteorology
Model code and software
Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2) Radar and Lidar Instrument Simulator Package Israel Silber and Robert Jackson https://github.com/columncolab/EMC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
472 | 203 | 15 | 690 | 10 | 9 |
- HTML: 472
- PDF: 203
- XML: 15
- Total: 690
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
McKenna Wallace Stanford
Israel Silber
Andrew Ackerman
Greg Cesana
Johannes Mülmenstädt
Alain Protat
Simon Alexander
Adrian McDonald
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(7357 KB) - Metadata XML