Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSP
Abstract We evaluate cloud simulations using satellite simulators against multiple observational data sets. These simulators have been run within the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory's Atmosphere Model version 4.0 (AM4.0), as well as an alternative configuration where a fully two‐moment Mo...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Earth and Space Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA004053 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849430826536665088 |
|---|---|
| author | Huan Guo Levi G. Silvers David Paynter Wenhao Dong Songmiao Fan Xianwen Jing Ryan Kramer Kristopher Rand Kentaroh Suzuki Yuying Zhang Ming Zhao |
| author_facet | Huan Guo Levi G. Silvers David Paynter Wenhao Dong Songmiao Fan Xianwen Jing Ryan Kramer Kristopher Rand Kentaroh Suzuki Yuying Zhang Ming Zhao |
| author_sort | Huan Guo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract We evaluate cloud simulations using satellite simulators against multiple observational data sets. These simulators have been run within the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory's Atmosphere Model version 4.0 (AM4.0), as well as an alternative configuration where a fully two‐moment Morrison‐Gettelman cloud microphysical parameterization with prognostic precipitation (MG2) is applied, denoted as AM4‐MG2. The modeled cloud spatial distributions, vertical profiles, phase partitioning, cloud‐to‐precipitation transitions, and radiative effects compare reasonably well with satellite observations. Model biases include the under‐prediction of total and low‐level clouds, especially optically thin/intermediate clouds with cloud optical depth of less than 23, but the over‐prediction of thick clouds, indicating “too few, too bright” biases. These biases counteract each other, and give rise to reasonable estimates of cloud radiative effects. The underestimate of low‐level clouds is associated with too early and too frequent drizzle/precipitation formation. The precipitation bias is improved in AM4‐MG2, where the autoconversion scheme initiates the precipitation more realistically. There also exist discrepancies between models and observations for midlevel and high‐level clouds. Additional biases include the underestimate of liquid cloud fraction and the overestimate of ice cloud fraction. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8a1ff1c747774d59a305aeb37c624d64 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2333-5084 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | American Geophysical Union (AGU) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Earth and Space Science |
| spelling | doaj-art-8a1ff1c747774d59a305aeb37c624d642025-08-20T03:27:51ZengAmerican Geophysical Union (AGU)Earth and Space Science2333-50842025-06-01126n/an/a10.1029/2024EA004053Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSPHuan Guo0Levi G. Silvers1David Paynter2Wenhao Dong3Songmiao Fan4Xianwen Jing5Ryan Kramer6Kristopher Rand7Kentaroh Suzuki8Yuying Zhang9Ming Zhao10NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton NJ USADepartment of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USANOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton NJ USANOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton NJ USANOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton NJ USACollege of Urban and Environmental Sciences Hubei Normal University Hubei ChinaNOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton NJ USASAIC Science Applications International Corporation Reston VA USAAtmosphere and Ocean Research Institute The University of Tokyo Kashiwa JapanLawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore CA USANOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton NJ USAAbstract We evaluate cloud simulations using satellite simulators against multiple observational data sets. These simulators have been run within the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory's Atmosphere Model version 4.0 (AM4.0), as well as an alternative configuration where a fully two‐moment Morrison‐Gettelman cloud microphysical parameterization with prognostic precipitation (MG2) is applied, denoted as AM4‐MG2. The modeled cloud spatial distributions, vertical profiles, phase partitioning, cloud‐to‐precipitation transitions, and radiative effects compare reasonably well with satellite observations. Model biases include the under‐prediction of total and low‐level clouds, especially optically thin/intermediate clouds with cloud optical depth of less than 23, but the over‐prediction of thick clouds, indicating “too few, too bright” biases. These biases counteract each other, and give rise to reasonable estimates of cloud radiative effects. The underestimate of low‐level clouds is associated with too early and too frequent drizzle/precipitation formation. The precipitation bias is improved in AM4‐MG2, where the autoconversion scheme initiates the precipitation more realistically. There also exist discrepancies between models and observations for midlevel and high‐level clouds. Additional biases include the underestimate of liquid cloud fraction and the overestimate of ice cloud fraction.https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA004053cloudGCMsimulatorsatellite |
| spellingShingle | Huan Guo Levi G. Silvers David Paynter Wenhao Dong Songmiao Fan Xianwen Jing Ryan Kramer Kristopher Rand Kentaroh Suzuki Yuying Zhang Ming Zhao Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSP Earth and Space Science cloud GCM simulator satellite |
| title | Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSP |
| title_full | Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSP |
| title_fullStr | Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSP |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSP |
| title_short | Assessing Clouds in GFDL's AM4.0 With Different Microphysical Parameterizations Using the Satellite Simulator Package COSP |
| title_sort | assessing clouds in gfdl s am4 0 with different microphysical parameterizations using the satellite simulator package cosp |
| topic | cloud GCM simulator satellite |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EA004053 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT huanguo assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT levigsilvers assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT davidpaynter assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT wenhaodong assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT songmiaofan assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT xianwenjing assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT ryankramer assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT kristopherrand assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT kentarohsuzuki assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT yuyingzhang assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp AT mingzhao assessingcloudsingfdlsam40withdifferentmicrophysicalparameterizationsusingthesatellitesimulatorpackagecosp |