Abstract
Abstract. Many general circulation models (GCMs) have difficulty simulating
Arctic clouds and climate, causing substantial inter-model spread. To
address this issue, two Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP)
simulations from the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5) and Seoul
National University (SNU) Atmosphere Model version 0 (SAM0) with a unified
convection scheme (UNICON) are employed to identify an effective mechanism
for improving Arctic cloud and climate simulations. Over the Arctic, SAM0
produced a larger cloud fraction and cloud liquid mass than CAM5, reducing
the negative Arctic cloud biases in CAM5. The analysis of cloud water
condensation rates indicates that this improvement is associated with an
enhanced net condensation rate of water vapor into the liquid condensate of
Arctic low-level clouds, which in turn is driven by enhanced poleward
transports of heat and moisture by the mean meridional circulation and
transient eddies. The reduced Arctic cloud biases lead to improved
simulations of surface radiation fluxes and near-surface air temperature
over the Arctic throughout the year. The association between the enhanced
poleward transports of heat and moisture and increase in liquid clouds over
the Arctic is also evident not only in both models, but also in the
multi-model analysis. Our study demonstrates that enhanced poleward heat and
moisture transport in a model can improve simulations of Arctic clouds and
climate.
Funder
Korea Polar Research Institute
Seoul National University
Korea Meteorological Administration
Reference61 articles.
1. Barton, N. P., Klein, S. A., and Boyle, J. S.: On the contribution of
longwave radiation to global climate model biases in Arctic lower
tropospheric stability, J. Climate, 27, 7250–7269,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00126.1, 2014.
2. Bergeron, T.: Proces verbaux de l'Association de Meteorologie, edited by: Duport, P., International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, 1935.
3. Boe, J., Hall, A., and Qu, X.: Current GCMs' unrealistic negative feedback
in the Arctic, J. Climate, 22, 4682–4695, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2885.1,
2009.
4. Cesana, G. and Chepfer, H.: How well do climate models simulate cloud
vertical structure? A comparison between CALIPSO-GOCCP satellite
observations and CMIP5 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 1–6,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053153, 2012.
5. Cesana, G., Waliser, D. E., Jiang, X., and Li, J.-L. F.: Multi-model
evaluation of cloud phase transition using satellite and reanalysis data, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 7871–7892, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022932, 2015.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献