loading page

Toward Understanding the Simulated Phase Partitioning of Arctic Single-Layer Mixed-Phase Clouds in E3SM
  • +5
  • Meng Zhang,
  • Shaocheng Xie,
  • Xiaohong Liu,
  • Wuyin Lin,
  • Kai Zhang,
  • Hsi-Yen Ma,
  • Xue Zheng,
  • Yuying Zhang
Meng Zhang
Texas A&M University
Author Profile
Shaocheng Xie
LLNL
Author Profile
Xiaohong Liu
Texas A&M University

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Wuyin Lin
Brookhaven National Laboratory (DOE)
Author Profile
Kai Zhang
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Author Profile
Hsi-Yen Ma
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (DOE)
Author Profile
Xue Zheng
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (DOE)
Author Profile
Yuying Zhang
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
Author Profile

Abstract

Significant changes are found in the modeled phase partitioning of Arctic mixed-phase clouds in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1) compared to its predecessor, the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5). In this study, we aim to understand how the changes in modeled mixed-phase cloud properties are attributed to the updates made in the EAMv1 physical parameterizations. Impacts of the Classical Nucleation Theory (CNT) ice nucleation scheme, the Cloud Layer Unified By Binormals (CLUBB) parameterization, and updated Morrison and Gettelman microphysical scheme (MG2) are examined. Sensitivity experiments using the short-term hindcast approach are performed to isolate the impact of these new features on simulated mixed-phase clouds. Results are compared to the DOE’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE) observations. We find that mixed-phase clouds simulated in EAMv1 are overly dominated by supercooled liquid and cloud ice water is substantially underestimated. The individual change of physical parameterizations is found to decrease cloud ice water mass mixing ratio in EAMv1 simulated single-layer mixed-phase clouds. A budget analysis of detailed cloud microphysical processes suggests that the lack of ice particles that participate in the mass growth processes strongly inhibits the mass mixing ratio of cloud ice. The insufficient heterogeneous ice nucleation at temperatures warmer than -15C in CNT and the negligible ice processes in CLUBB are primarily responsible for the significant underestimation of cloud ice water content in the Arctic single-layer mixed-phase clouds.
Jul 2020Published in Earth and Space Science volume 7 issue 7. 10.1029/2020EA001125