Select strengths and biases of models in representing the Arctic winter boundary layer over sea ice: the Larcform 1 single column model intercomparison

Weather and climate models struggle to represent lower tropospheric temperature and moisture profiles and surface fluxes in Arctic winter, partly because they lack or misrepresent physical processes that are specific to high latitudes. Observations have revealed two preferred states of the Arctic winter boundary layer. In the cloudy state, cloud liquid water limits surface radiative cooling, and temperature inversions are weak and elevated. In the radiatively clear state, strong surface radiative cooling leads to the build‐up of surface‐based temperature inversions. Many large‐scale models lack the cloudy state, and some substantially underestimate inversion strength in the clear state. Here, the transformation from a moist to a cold dry air mass is modeled using an idealized Lagrangian perspective. The trajectory includes both boundary layer states, and the single‐column experiment is the first Lagrangian Arctic air formation experiment (Larcform 1) organized within GEWEX GASS (Global atmospheric system studies). The intercomparison reproduces the typical biases of large‐scale models: some models lack the cloudy state of the boundary layer due to the representation of mixed‐phase microphysics or to the interaction between micro‐ and macrophysics. In some models, high emissivities of ice clouds or the lack of an insulating snow layer prevent the build‐up of surface‐based inversions in the radiatively clear state. Models substantially disagree on the amount of cloud liquid water in the cloudy state and on turbulent heat fluxes under clear skies. Observations of air mass transformations including both boundary layer states would allow for a tighter constraint of model behavior.

[1]  Christopher W. Fairall,et al.  Advancing Polar Prediction Capabilities on Daily to Seasonal Time Scales , 2016 .

[2]  R. Caballero,et al.  The Role of Moist Intrusions in Winter Arctic Warming and Sea Ice Decline , 2016 .

[3]  Andrew Gettelman,et al.  Contributions of Clouds, Surface Albedos, and Mixed-Phase Ice Nucleation Schemes to Arctic Radiation Biases in CAM5 , 2014 .

[4]  Ann M. Fridlind,et al.  Intercomparison of large‐eddy simulations of Arctic mixed‐phase clouds: Importance of ice size distribution assumptions , 2014 .

[5]  T. Mauritsen,et al.  Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models , 2014 .

[6]  William M. Putman,et al.  Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive , 2014 .

[7]  B. Medeiros,et al.  Mixed-phase clouds cause climate model biases in Arctic wintertime temperature inversions , 2014, Climate Dynamics.

[8]  R. Caballero,et al.  Large‐scale circulation associated with moisture intrusions into the Arctic during winter , 2013 .

[9]  A. P. Siebesma,et al.  The GASS/EUCLIPSE model intercomparison of the stratocumulus transition as observed during ASTEX: LES results , 2013 .

[10]  B. Stevens,et al.  Atmospheric component of the MPI‐M Earth System Model: ECHAM6 , 2013 .

[11]  A. Holtslag,et al.  The role of snow‐surface coupling, radiation, and turbulent mixing in modeling a stable boundary layer over Arctic sea ice , 2013 .

[12]  G. Cesana,et al.  Ubiquitous low‐level liquid‐containing Arctic clouds: New observations and climate model constraints from CALIPSO‐GOCCP , 2012 .

[13]  V. Barrett Quality careers education , 2012 .

[14]  M. Shupe,et al.  On the Relationship between Thermodynamic Structure and Cloud Top, and Its Climate Significance in the Arctic , 2012 .

[15]  Ann M. Fridlind,et al.  A FIRE-ACE/SHEBA Case Study of Mixed-Phase Arctic Boundary Layer Clouds: Entrainment Rate Limitations on Rapid Primary Ice Nucleation Processes , 2012 .

[16]  B. Stevens,et al.  The Atmospheric Component of the MPI-M Earth 1 System Model : ECHAM 6 2 , 2012 .

[17]  A. Barrett Why can't models simulate mixed-phase clouds correctly? , 2012 .

[18]  M. Shupe,et al.  Resilience of persistent Arctic mixed-phase clouds , 2012 .

[19]  J. Karlsson,et al.  On the Arctic Wintertime Climate in Global Climate Models , 2011 .

[20]  Dian J. Seidel,et al.  Climatological Characteristics of Arctic and Antarctic Surface-Based Inversions* , 2011 .

[21]  Clara Deser,et al.  Arctic Inversion Strength in Climate Models , 2011 .

[22]  William B. Rossow,et al.  Synoptically Driven Arctic Winter States , 2011 .

[23]  S. Belair,et al.  Medium-Range Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts from Canada's New 33-km Deterministic Global Operational System , 2009 .

[24]  Michael Tjernström,et al.  The vertical structure of the lower Arctic troposphere analysed from observations and the ERA‐40 reanalysis , 2009 .

[25]  W. Collins,et al.  Radiative forcing by long‐lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models , 2008 .

[26]  G. Powers,et al.  A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3 , 2008 .

[27]  U. Lohmann,et al.  Cloud microphysics and aerosol indirect effects in the global climate model ECHAM5-HAM , 2007 .

[28]  A. Zadra,et al.  The 15‐km version of the Canadian regional forecast system , 2006 .

[29]  M. Shupe,et al.  Arctic Mixed-Phase Cloud Properties Derived from Surface-Based Sensors at SHEBA , 2006 .

[30]  A. Holtslag,et al.  An Intercomparison of Large-Eddy Simulations of the Stable Boundary Layer , 2004 .

[31]  A. Holtslag,et al.  Single-Column Model Intercomparison for a Stably Stratified Atmospheric Boundary Layer , 2004 .

[32]  J. Dudhia,et al.  A Revised Approach to Ice Microphysical Processes for the Bulk Parameterization of Clouds and Precipitation , 2004 .

[33]  Ecmwf Newsletter,et al.  EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MEDIUM-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS , 2004 .

[34]  P. Guest,et al.  Measurements near the Atmospheric Surface Flux Group tower at SHEBA: Near‐surface conditions and surface energy budget , 2002 .

[35]  David L. Williamson,et al.  Time-Split versus Process-Split Coupling of Parameterizations and Dynamical Core , 2002 .

[36]  B. Scaillet,et al.  Physical conditions, structure, and dynamics of a zoned magma chamber: Mount Pelée (Martinique, Lesser Antilles Arc) , 2002 .

[37]  C. Bretherton,et al.  A GCSS Boundary-Layer Cloud Model Intercomparison Study Of The First Astex Lagrangian Experiment , 1999 .

[38]  Z. Janjic The Step-Mountain Eta Coordinate Model: Further Developments of the Convection, Viscous Sublayer, and Turbulence Closure Schemes , 1994 .

[39]  P. Duynkerke,et al.  Radiation Fog: A Comparison of Model Simulation with Detailed Observations , 1991 .

[40]  Judith A. Curry,et al.  On the Formation of Continental Polar Air , 1983 .

[41]  Hilding Sundqvist,et al.  A parameterization scheme for non-convective condensation including prediction of cloud water content , 1978 .

[42]  S. Manabe,et al.  The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model , 1975 .

[43]  B. J. Mason,et al.  Physics of Clouds and Precipitation , 1954, Nature.

[44]  Henry G. Houghton,et al.  On the Physics of Clouds and Precipitation , 1951 .

[45]  H. Wexler COOLING IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE AND THE STRUCTURE OF POLAR CONTINENTAL AIR , 1936 .

[46]  H. Sverdrup Norwegian North Polar Expedition with the Maud, 1918-1925. Scientific Results. Vols. II and III. Meteorology. Part I. Discussion. Part II. Tables , 1935 .