Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models

Muge Komurcu, Trude Storelvmo, Ivy Tan, Ulrike Lohmann, Yuxing Yun, Joyce E. Penner, Yong Wang, Xiaohong Liu, Toshihiko Takemura

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    68 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Mixed-phase clouds (clouds that consist of both cloud droplets and ice crystals) are frequently present in the Earth’s atmosphere and influence the Earth’s energy budget through their radiative properties, which are highly dependent on the cloud water phase. In this study, the phase partitioning of cloud water is compared among six global climate models (GCMs) and with Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization retrievals. It is found that the GCMs predict vastly different distributions of cloud phase for a given temperature, and none of them are capable of reproducing the spatial distribution or magnitude of the observed phase partitioning. While some GCMs produced liquid water paths comparable to satellite observations, they all failed to preserve sufficient liquid water at mixed-phase cloud temperatures. Our results suggest that validating GCMs using only the vertically integrated water contents could lead to amplified differences in cloud radiative feedback. The sensitivity of the simulated cloud phase in GCMs to the choice of heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterization is also investigated. The response to a change in ice nucleation is quite different for each GCM, and the implementation of the same ice nucleation parameterization in all models does not reduce the spread in simulated phase among GCMs. The results suggest that processes subsequent to ice nucleation are at least as important in determining phase and should be the focus of future studies aimed at understanding and reducing differences among the models.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)3372-3400
    Number of pages29
    JournalJournal of Geophysical Research
    Volume119
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 27 2014

    Fingerprint

    Climate models
    climate models
    cloud water
    global climate
    climate modeling
    ice nucleation
    Water
    Ice
    nucleation
    water
    ice
    Nucleation
    parameterization
    partitioning
    Parameterization
    lidar
    liquid
    liquids
    cloud droplet
    ice crystal

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Geophysics
    • Forestry
    • Oceanography
    • Aquatic Science
    • Ecology
    • Water Science and Technology
    • Soil Science
    • Geochemistry and Petrology
    • Earth-Surface Processes
    • Atmospheric Science
    • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
    • Space and Planetary Science
    • Palaeontology

    Cite this

    Komurcu, M., Storelvmo, T., Tan, I., Lohmann, U., Yun, Y., Penner, J. E., ... Takemura, T. (2014). Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 119(6), 3372-3400. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021119

    Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models. / Komurcu, Muge; Storelvmo, Trude; Tan, Ivy; Lohmann, Ulrike; Yun, Yuxing; Penner, Joyce E.; Wang, Yong; Liu, Xiaohong; Takemura, Toshihiko.

    In: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 119, No. 6, 27.03.2014, p. 3372-3400.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Komurcu, M, Storelvmo, T, Tan, I, Lohmann, U, Yun, Y, Penner, JE, Wang, Y, Liu, X & Takemura, T 2014, 'Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models', Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 3372-3400. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021119
    Komurcu M, Storelvmo T, Tan I, Lohmann U, Yun Y, Penner JE et al. Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2014 Mar 27;119(6):3372-3400. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021119
    Komurcu, Muge ; Storelvmo, Trude ; Tan, Ivy ; Lohmann, Ulrike ; Yun, Yuxing ; Penner, Joyce E. ; Wang, Yong ; Liu, Xiaohong ; Takemura, Toshihiko. / Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models. In: Journal of Geophysical Research. 2014 ; Vol. 119, No. 6. pp. 3372-3400.
    @article{12c77508df6f45a2ae5ece862231793b,
    title = "Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models",
    abstract = "Mixed-phase clouds (clouds that consist of both cloud droplets and ice crystals) are frequently present in the Earth’s atmosphere and influence the Earth’s energy budget through their radiative properties, which are highly dependent on the cloud water phase. In this study, the phase partitioning of cloud water is compared among six global climate models (GCMs) and with Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization retrievals. It is found that the GCMs predict vastly different distributions of cloud phase for a given temperature, and none of them are capable of reproducing the spatial distribution or magnitude of the observed phase partitioning. While some GCMs produced liquid water paths comparable to satellite observations, they all failed to preserve sufficient liquid water at mixed-phase cloud temperatures. Our results suggest that validating GCMs using only the vertically integrated water contents could lead to amplified differences in cloud radiative feedback. The sensitivity of the simulated cloud phase in GCMs to the choice of heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterization is also investigated. The response to a change in ice nucleation is quite different for each GCM, and the implementation of the same ice nucleation parameterization in all models does not reduce the spread in simulated phase among GCMs. The results suggest that processes subsequent to ice nucleation are at least as important in determining phase and should be the focus of future studies aimed at understanding and reducing differences among the models.",
    author = "Muge Komurcu and Trude Storelvmo and Ivy Tan and Ulrike Lohmann and Yuxing Yun and Penner, {Joyce E.} and Yong Wang and Xiaohong Liu and Toshihiko Takemura",
    year = "2014",
    month = "3",
    day = "27",
    doi = "10.1002/2013JD021119",
    language = "English",
    volume = "119",
    pages = "3372--3400",
    journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research",
    issn = "0148-0227",
    number = "6",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models

    AU - Komurcu, Muge

    AU - Storelvmo, Trude

    AU - Tan, Ivy

    AU - Lohmann, Ulrike

    AU - Yun, Yuxing

    AU - Penner, Joyce E.

    AU - Wang, Yong

    AU - Liu, Xiaohong

    AU - Takemura, Toshihiko

    PY - 2014/3/27

    Y1 - 2014/3/27

    N2 - Mixed-phase clouds (clouds that consist of both cloud droplets and ice crystals) are frequently present in the Earth’s atmosphere and influence the Earth’s energy budget through their radiative properties, which are highly dependent on the cloud water phase. In this study, the phase partitioning of cloud water is compared among six global climate models (GCMs) and with Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization retrievals. It is found that the GCMs predict vastly different distributions of cloud phase for a given temperature, and none of them are capable of reproducing the spatial distribution or magnitude of the observed phase partitioning. While some GCMs produced liquid water paths comparable to satellite observations, they all failed to preserve sufficient liquid water at mixed-phase cloud temperatures. Our results suggest that validating GCMs using only the vertically integrated water contents could lead to amplified differences in cloud radiative feedback. The sensitivity of the simulated cloud phase in GCMs to the choice of heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterization is also investigated. The response to a change in ice nucleation is quite different for each GCM, and the implementation of the same ice nucleation parameterization in all models does not reduce the spread in simulated phase among GCMs. The results suggest that processes subsequent to ice nucleation are at least as important in determining phase and should be the focus of future studies aimed at understanding and reducing differences among the models.

    AB - Mixed-phase clouds (clouds that consist of both cloud droplets and ice crystals) are frequently present in the Earth’s atmosphere and influence the Earth’s energy budget through their radiative properties, which are highly dependent on the cloud water phase. In this study, the phase partitioning of cloud water is compared among six global climate models (GCMs) and with Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization retrievals. It is found that the GCMs predict vastly different distributions of cloud phase for a given temperature, and none of them are capable of reproducing the spatial distribution or magnitude of the observed phase partitioning. While some GCMs produced liquid water paths comparable to satellite observations, they all failed to preserve sufficient liquid water at mixed-phase cloud temperatures. Our results suggest that validating GCMs using only the vertically integrated water contents could lead to amplified differences in cloud radiative feedback. The sensitivity of the simulated cloud phase in GCMs to the choice of heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterization is also investigated. The response to a change in ice nucleation is quite different for each GCM, and the implementation of the same ice nucleation parameterization in all models does not reduce the spread in simulated phase among GCMs. The results suggest that processes subsequent to ice nucleation are at least as important in determining phase and should be the focus of future studies aimed at understanding and reducing differences among the models.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898805462&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898805462&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1002/2013JD021119

    DO - 10.1002/2013JD021119

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:84898805462

    VL - 119

    SP - 3372

    EP - 3400

    JO - Journal of Geophysical Research

    JF - Journal of Geophysical Research

    SN - 0148-0227

    IS - 6

    ER -