ACP Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics ACP 1680-7324 Copernicus GmbH Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/acp-10-6371-2010 Comparison of a global-climate model to a cloud-system resolving model for the long-term response of thin stratocumulus clouds to preindustrial and present-day aerosol conditions Lee S. S. 1 Penner J. E. 1 Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 14 07 2010 10 13 6371 6389 This is an open-access article ditributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This article is available from http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/6371/2010/acp-10-6371-2010.html The full text article is available as a PDF file from http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/6371/2010/acp-10-6371-2010.pdf

The response of a case of thin, warm marine-boundary-layer (MBL) clouds to preindustrial (PI) and present-day (PD) conditions is simulated by a cloud-system resolving model (CSRM). Here, both the aerosol conditions and environmental conditions match those of a general circulation model (GCM). The environmental conditions are characterized by the initial condition and the large-scale forcings of humidity and temperature, as well as the surface fluxes. The response of the CSRM is compared to that simulated by the GCM. <br><br> The percentage increase of liquid-water path (LWP) due to a change from the PI to PD conditions is ~3 times larger in the CSRM than that in the GCM due to the formation of cumulus clouds. The formation of cumulus clouds is controlled by a larger increase in the surface latent-heat (LH) flux in the PD environment than in the PI environment rather than by the change in aerosols. However, the aerosol increase from the PI to PD level determines the LWP response in the stratocumulus clouds, while the impacts of changes in environmental conditions are negligible for stratocumulus clouds. The conversion of cloud liquid to rain through autoconversion and accretion plays a negligible role in the CSRM in the response to aerosols, whereas it plays a role that is as important as condensation in the GCM. Also, it is notable that the explicit simulation of microphysics in the CSRM leads to a smaller LWP in the CSRM than that in the GCM using heavily parameterized microphysics for stratocumulus clouds. The smaller LWP in the CSRM is closer to an observed LWP than the LWP in the GCM for stratocumulus clouds. <br><br> Supplementary simulations show that increasing aerosols increase the sensitivity of the cloud responses to the PI and PD environmental conditions. They also show that aerosol effects on clouds depend on the cloud type. The LWP of warm cumulus clouds is more sensitive to aerosols than that of stratocumulus clouds.

 References % vor jede Referenz Ackerman, A. S., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Stevens, D. E., and Toon, O. B.: The impact of humidity above stratiform clouds on indirect aerosol climate forcing, Nature, 432, 1014–1017, 2004. Andres, R. J. and Kasgnoc, A. D.: A time-averaged inventory of subaerial volcanic sulfur emissions, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 25251–25261, 1998. Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation 2. Multiple aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 6837–6844, 2000. Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation – 3. Sectional representation, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4026, doi:10.1029/2001JD000483, 2002. Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, cloud microphysics, and fractional cloudiness, Science, 245, 1227–1230, 1989. Beheng, K. D.: A parameterization of warm cloud microphysical conversion processes, Atmos. Res., 33, 193–206, 1994. Bluestein, H. B.: Synoptic-Dynamic Meteorology in Midlatitudes: Volume II: Observations and Theory of Weather Systems (Synoptic-Dynamic Meteorology in Midlatitudes), Oxford University Press, UK, 594~pp., 1993. Boville, B. A., Rasch, P. J., Hack, J. J., and McCaa, J. R.: Representation of clouds and precipitation processes in the community atmosphere model version 3 (cam3), J. Climate, 19, 2184–2198, 2006. Boucher, O., Treut, H. L., and Baker, M. B.: Precipitation and radiation modeling in a general circulation model: Introduction of cloud microphysical process. J. Geophys. Res., D100, 16395–16414, 1995. Bretherton, C. S. and Wyant, M. C.: Moisture transport, lower-tropospheric stability, and decoupling of cloud-topped boundary layers, J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 148–167, 1997. Chuang, C. C., Penner, J. E., Taylor, K. E., Grossman, A. S., and Walton, J. J.: An assessment of the radiative effects of anthropogenic sulfate, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3761–3778, 1997. Collins, W. D., Rasch, P. J., Boville, B. A., Hack, J. J., McCaa, J. R., Williamson, D. L., Briegleb, B. P., Bitz, C. M., Lin, S. J., and Zhang, M. H.: The formulation and atmospheric simulation of the community atmosphere model version 3 (cam3), J. Climate, 19, 2144–2161, 2006. Cotton, W. R., Stephens, M. A., Nehrkorn, T., and Tripoli, G. J.: The Colorado State University three-dimensional cloud/mesoscale model. Part II: An ice phase parameterization, J. Rech. Atmos. 16, 295–319, 1982. Cubasch, U., Dai, X., Ding, Y., et al.: Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, in Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 528–582, 2001. Feingold, G., Tzivion, S., and Levin, Z.: Evolution of raindrop spectra. Part I: Solution to the stochastic collection/breakup equation using the method of moments, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 3387–3399, 1988. Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., et al.: Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing, 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 Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., et al., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2007. Ginoux, P., Chin, M., Tegen, I., Prospero, J. M., Holben, B., Dubovik, O., and Lin, S. J.: Sources and distributions of dust aerosols simulated with the gocart model, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 20255–20273, 2001. Gong, S. L., Barrie, L. A., and Blanchet, J. P.: Modeling sea-salt aerosols in the atmosphere .1. Model development, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3805–3818, 1997. Guo, H., Liu, Y., Daum, P. H., Zeng, X., Li, X., and Tao, W.-K.: Effects of model resolution on entrainment (inversion heights), cloud-radiation interactions, and cloud radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 8, 20399–20425, doi:10.5194/acpd-8-20399-2008, 2008. Guo, H., Penner, J. E., Herzog, M., and Xie, S.: Investigation of the first and second aerosol indirect effects using data from the May 2003 Intensive Operational Period at the Southern Great Plains, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D15206, doi:10.1029/2006JD007173, 2007. Hack, J. J.: Parameterization of moist convection in the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM2), J. Geophys. Res., 99, 5551–5568, 1994. Ito, A. and Penner, J. E.: Historical emissions of carbonaceous aerosols from biomass and fossil fuel burning for the period 1870-2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB2028, doi:10.1029/2004GB002374, 2005. Jiang, H., Feingold, G., and Cotton, W. R.: Simulations of aerosol-cloud-dynamical feedbacks resulting from entrainment of aerosol into the marine boundary layer during the Atlantic Stratocumulus Transition Experiment, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4813, doi:10.1029/2001JD001502, 2002. Kettle, A. J. and Andreae, M. O.: Flux of dimethylsulfide from the oceans: A comparison of updated data seas and flux models, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 26793–26808, 2000. Khairoutdinov, M. and Kogan, Y.: A new cloud physics parameterization in a large-eddy simulation model of marine stratocumulus, Mon. Weather Rev., 128, 229–243, 2000. Lee, S. S., Penner, J. E., and Wang, M.: Comparison of a global-climate model simulation to a cloud-system resolving model simulation for long-term thin stratocumulus clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 6497–6520, doi:10.5194/acp-9-6497-2009, 2009a. Lee, S. S, Penner, J. E., and Saleeby, S. M.: Aerosol effects on liquid-water path of thin stratocumulus clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D07204, doi:10.1029/2008JD010513, 2009b. Liu, X. H., Penner, J. E., and Herzog, M.: Global modeling of aerosol dynamics: Model description, evaluation, and interactions between sulfate and nonsulfate aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18206, doi:10.1029/2004JD005674, 2005. Liu, X., Penner, J. E., and Wang, M.: Influence of anthropogenic sulfate and black carbon on upper tropospheric clouds in the NCAR CAM3 model coupled to the IMPACT global aerosol model, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D03204, doi:10.1029/2008JD010492, 2009. Marchand, R., Ackerman, T., Westwater, E. R., Clough, S. A., Cady-Pereira, K., and J. C. Liljegren, J. C.:An assessment of microwave absorption models and retrievals of cloud liquid water using clear-sky data. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4773, doi:10.1029/2003JD003843, 2003. McFarlane, S. A. and Evans, K. F.: Clouds and shortwave fluxes at Nauru. Part I: Retrieved cloud properties, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 733–744, 2004. Penner, J. E., Andreae, M., Annegarn, et al.: Aerosols, their direct and indirect effects, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., et al., chap. 5, 291–336, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2001. Pruppacher, H. R. and Klett, J. D.: Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation, 714~pp., D. Reidel, 1978. Ramaswamy, V., Boucher, O., Haigh, J., et al.: Radiative forcing of climate change, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, edited by: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., et al., 349–416, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2001. Rasch, P. J. and Kristjánsson, J. E.: A comparison of the CCM3 model climate using diagnosed and predicted condensate parameterizations, J. Climate, 11, 1587–1614, 1998. Rogers, R. R. and Yau, M. K.: A short course in cloud physics, Pergamon Press, 293~pp., 1991. Rossow, W. B. and Schiffer, R. A.: Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP, B. Am. Meteor.Soc., 80, 2261–2287, 1999. Saleeby, S. M. and Cotton, W. R.: A large-droplet mode and prognostic number concentration of cloud droplets in the Colorado state university regional atmospheric modeling system (RAMS). Part I: Module description and supercell test simulations, J. Appl. Meteor., 43, 182–195, 2004. Shupe, M. D. and Intrieri, J. M.: Cloud radiative forcing of the Arctic surface: The influence of cloud properties, surface albedo, and solar zenith angle, J. Climate, 17, 616–628, 2004. Simpson, J. and Tao, W.-K.: The Goddard Cumulus Ensemble model. Part II: Applications for studying cloud precipitating processes and for NASA TRMM, Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci., 4, 73–116, 1993. Smith, S. J., Pitcher, H., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Global and regional anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions, Global Planet. Change, 29, 99–119, 2001. Smith, S., Andres, R., Conception, L., and Lurz, J.: Historical sulfur dioxide emissions 1850–2000: Methods and resutls, jgcri research report pnnl 14537, Paciific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA, 14537, 16, 2004. Stevens, B., Cotton, W. R., Feingold G., and Moeng, C.-H.: Large-eddy simulations of strongly precipitating, shallow stratocumulus-topped boundary layers, J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 3616–3638, 1998. Stevens, B., Moeng, C. H., Ackerman, A. S., Bretherton, C. S., Chlond, A., de Roode, S., Edwards, J., Golaz, J. C., Jiang, H., Khairoutdinov, M., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Lewellen, D. C., Lock, A., Müller, F., Stevens, D. E., Whelan, E., and Zhu, P.: Evaluation of Large-Eddy Simulations via Observations of Nocturnal Marine Stratocumulus, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 1443–1462, 2005. Tao, W.-K, Simpson, J., Baker, D., et al.:Microphysics, radiation and surface processes in the Goddard Cumulus Ensemble (GCE) model, Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 82, 97–137,2003. Tao, W.-K. and Simpson, J.: The Goddard Cumulus Ensemble model. Part I: Model description, Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci., 4, 19–54, 1993. Tripoli, G. J. and Cotton, W. R.: A numerical investigation of~several factors contributing to the observed variable intensity of~deep convection over South Florida, J. Appl. Meteor., 19,~1037–1063, 1980. Turner, D. D., Vogelmann, A. M., Austin, R. T., et al.: Thin liquid water clouds: Their importance and our challenge, B. Am. Meteor. Soc., 88, 177–190, 2007. Wang, M., Penner, J. E., and Liu, X.: The coupled IMPACT aerosol and NCAR CAM3 climate model: evaluation of predicted aerosol number and size distribution, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06302, doi:10.1029/2008JD010459, 2009. Wang, M. and Penner, J. E.: Aerosol indirect forcing in a global model with particle nucleation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 239–260, doi:10.5194/acp-9-239-2009, 2009. Weisman, M. L. and Klemp, J. B.: The dependence of numerically simulated convective storms on vertical wind shear and buoyancy, Mon. Weather Rev., 110, 504–520, 1982. Zhang, M., Lin, W., Bretherton, C. S., Hack, J. J., and Phillip, J. R.: A modified formulation of fractional stratiform condensation rate in the NCAR Community Atmospheric Model (CAM2), J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4035, doi:10.1029/2002JD002523, 2003.