You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2014. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Large-eddy simulations of mixed-phase Arctic clouds by 11 different models are analyzed with the goal of improving understanding and model representation of processes controlling the evolution of these clouds. In a case based on observations from the Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), it is found that ice number concentration, Ni, exerts significant influence on the cloud structure. Increasing Ni leads to a substantial reduction in liquid water path (LWP), in agreement with earlier studies. In contrast to previous intercomparison studies, all models here use the same ice particle properties (i.e., mass-size, mass-fall speed, and mass-capacitance relationships) and a common radiation parameterization. The constrained setup exposes the importance of ice particle size distributions (PSDs) in influencing cloud evolution. A clear separation in LWP and IWP predicted by models with bin and bulk microphysical treatments is documented and attributed primarily to the assumed shape of ice PSD used in bulk schemes. Compared to the bin schemes that explicitly predict the PSD, schemes assuming exponential ice PSD underestimate ice growth by vapor deposition and overestimate mass-weighted fall speed leading to an underprediction of IWP by a factor of two in the considered case. Sensitivity tests indicate LWP and IWP are much closer to the bin model simulations when a modified shape factor which is similar to that predicted by bin model simulation is used in bulk scheme. These results demonstrate the importance of representation of ice PSD in determining the partitioning of liquid and ice and the longevity of mixed-phase clouds.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA
2 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
3 Center for Global Change Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
4 Science Systems and Applications Inc./NASA LaRC, Hampton, Virginia, USA
5 Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, Pennsylvania, USA
6 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
7 Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
8 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA
9 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
10 Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
11 Met Office, Exeter, UK
12 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, University of Colorado/NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
13 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA