Evaluating statistical cloud schemes: What can we gain from ground-based remote sensing?

Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres

Volumn 118, Issue 18, 2013, Pages 10,507-10,517

  Grutzun V ^a,b   Quaas, J ^c   Morcrette, C J ^d   Ament, F ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR METEOROLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^d MET OFFICE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cloud parameterizations; evaluation; global models; ground based remote sensing; perfect model approach; statistical cloud schemes

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC HUMIDITY; DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS; OPTICAL RADAR; PRECIPITATION (METEOROLOGY); PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; REMOTE SENSING; STATISTICS; VIRTUAL REALITY;

CLOUD PARAMETERIZATIONS; EVALUATION; GLOBAL MODELS; GROUND-BASED REMOTE SENSING; PERFECT MODEL; STATISTICAL CLOUD SCHEMES;

THREE DIMENSIONAL;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; CLOUD MICROPHYSICS; GROUND-BASED MEASUREMENT; IMAGE RESOLUTION; MIXING; NUMERICAL MODEL; PROBABILITY; REMOTE SENSING; THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING;

EID: 84886081781     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21698996     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50813     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Astin, I., L. Di Girolamo, and, H. M. van de Poll, (2001), Bayesian confidence intervals for true fractional coverage from finite transect measurements: Implications for cloud studies from space, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 17,303-17,310.
2. Baldauf, M., A. Seifert, J. Forstner, D. Majewski, M. Raschendorfer, and, T. Reinhardt, (2011), Operational convective-scale numerical weather prediction with the COSMO model: Description and sensitivities, Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 3887-3905.
3. Bouniol, D., et al. (2010), Using continuous ground-based radar and lidar measurements for evaluating the representation of clouds in four operational models, J. Appl. Meteor., 49, 1971-1991.
4. Boutle, I. A., S. J. Abel, P. G. Hill, and, C. J. Morcrette, (2013), Spatial variability of liquid cloud and rain: Observations and microphysical effects, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., doi: 10.1002/qj.2140.
5. Duynkerke, P. G., P. J. Jonker, A. Chlond, M. C. Van Zanten, J. Cuxart, P. Clarke, E. Sanchez, G. Martin, G. Lenderink, and, J. Teixeira, (1999), Intercomparison of three- and one-dimensional model simulations and aircraft observations of stratocumulus, Bound.-Layer Meteor., 92, 453-487.
6. Gal-Chen, T., and, R. C. J. Sommerville, (1975), On the use of a coordinate transformation for the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys., 17, 209-228.
7. Golaz, J.-C., V. E. Larson, and, W. R. Cotton, (2002), A PDF-based model for boundary layer clouds. Part I: Method and model description, J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 3552-3571.
8. Hennemuth, B., A. Weiss, J. Bösenberg, D. Jacob, H. Linné, G. Peters, and, S. Pfeifer, (2005), Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 287-308.
9. Hinkelman, L. M., T. P. Ackerman, and, R. T. Marchand, (1999), An evaluation of NCEP Eta model predictions of surface energy budget and cloud properties by comparison with measured ARM data, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19,535-19,594.
10. Hogan, R. J., C. Jakob, and, A. J. Illingworth, (2001), Comparison of ECMWF winter season cloud fraction with radar-derived values, J. Appl. Meteorol., 40, 513-525.
11. Illingworth, A. J., et al. (2007), CloudNet-continuous evaluation of cloud roles in seven operational models using ground-based observations, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 883-898.
12. King, M. D., W. P. Menzel, Y. J. Kaufman, D. Tanre, B. C. Gao, S. Platnic, S. A. Ackerman, L. A. Remer, R. Pincus, and, P. A. Hubanks, (2003), Cloud and aerosol properties, precipitable water, and profiles of temperature and water vapor from MODIS, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote Sens., 41, 442-458.
13. LeTreut, H., and, Z.-X. Li, (1991), Sensitivity of an atmospheric general circulation model to prescribed SST changes: Feedback effects associated with the simulation of cloud optical properties, Clim. Dyn., 5, 175-187.
14. LeTreut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson, and, M. Prather, (2007), Historical overview of climate change, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by, S. Solomon, et al., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
15. Löhnert, U., S. Crewell, and, C. Simmer, (2004), An integrated approach toward retrieving phyically consistent profiles of temperature, humidity, and cloud liquid water, J. Appl. Meteorol., 43, 1295-1307.
16. Mace, G. G., C. Jakob, and, K. P. Moran, (1998), Validation of hydrometeor occurrence predicted by the ECMWF model using millimeter wave radar data, Geophys. Res. Let., 25, 1645-1648.
17. Morcrette, C. J., (2012), Prognostic-cloud-scheme increment diagnostics: A novel addition to the case-study tool kit, Atmosph. Sci. Lett., 13, 200-207, doi: 10.1002/asl.380.
18. Morcrette, C. J., E. J. O'Connor, and, J. C. Petch, (2012), Evaluation of two cloud parameterization schemes using ARM and Cloud-Net observations, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 138, 964-979.
19. Quaas, J., (2012), Evaluating the critical relative humidity as a measure of subgrid-scale variability of humidity in general circulation model cloud cover parameterizations using satellite data, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D09208, doi: 10.1029/2012JD017495.
20. Stevens, B., et al. (2013), The atmospheric component of the MPI-M Earth System Model: ECHAM6, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 146-172, doi: 10.1002/jame.20015.
21. Tompkins, A. M., (2002), A prognostic parameterization for the sub-scale variability of water vapor and clouds in large scale models and its use to diagnose cloud cover, J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 1917-1942.
22. Tompkins, A. M., (2003), Impact of temperature and humidity variability on cloud cover assessed using aircraft data, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 129, 2151-2170.
23. Uttal, T., and, R. A. Kropfli, (2001), The effect of radar pulse length on cloud reflectivity statistics, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 18, 947-961.
24. van Meijgaard, E., and, S. Crewell, (2005), Comparison of model predicted liquid water path with ground-based measurements during CLIWA-NET, Atmos. Res., 75, 201-226.
25. Weber, T., J. Quaas, and, P. Räisänen, (2011), Evaluation of the statistical cloud scheme in the ECHAM5 model using satellite data, Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 2079-2091.
26. Zhu, P., and, P. Zuidema, (2009), On the use of PDF schemes to parameterize sub-grid clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05807, doi: 10.1029/2008GL036817.