Search

This study reports the Single-Column Model (SCM) part of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)/the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Cloud System Study (GCSS) joint SCM and Cloud-Resolving Model (CRM) Case 3 intercomparison study, with a focus on evaluation of cumulus parametrizations used in SCMs. Fifteen SCMs are evaluated under summertime midlatitude continental conditions using data collected at the ARM Southern Great Plains site during the summer 1997 Intensive Observing Period. Results from ten CRMs are also used to diagnose problems in the SCMs. It is shown that most SCMs can generally capture well the convective events that were well-developed within the SCM domain, while most of them have difficulties in simulating the occurrence of those convective events that only occurred within a small part of the domain. All models significantly underestimate the surface stratiform precipitation. A third of them produce large errors in surface precipitation and thermodynamic structures. Deficiencies in convective triggering mechanisms are thought to be one of the major reasons. Using a triggering mechanism that is based on the vertical integral of parcel buoyant energy without additional appropriate constraints results in overactive convection, which in turn leads to large systematic warm/dry biases in the troposphere. It is also shown that a non-penetrative convection scheme can underestimate the depth of instability for midlatitude convection, which leads to large systematic cold/moist biases in the troposphere. SCMs agree well quantitatively with CRMs in the updraught mass fluxes, while most models significantly underestimate the downdraught mass fluxes. Neglect of mesoscale updraught and downdraught mass fluxes in the SCMs contributes considerably to the discrepancies between the SCMs and the CRMs. In addition, uncertainties in the diagnosed mass fluxes in the CRMs and deficiencies with cumulus parametrizations are not negligible. Similar results are obtained in the sensitivity tests when different forcing approaches are used. Finally, sensitivity tests from an SCM indicate that its simulations can be greatly improved when its triggering mechanism and closure assumption are improved. © Royal Meteorological Society, 2002. J. C. Petch's contribution is Crown copyright.

SUMMARY This paper reports an intercomparison study of midlatitude continental cumulus convection simulated by eight two-dimensional and twothree-dimensional cloud-resolving models (CRMs), driven by observed large-scale advective temperature and moisture tendencies, surface turbulent euxes, and radiative-heating proe les during three sub-periods of the summer 1997 Intensive Observation Period of the US Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program. Each sub-period includes two or three precipitation events of various intensities over a span of 4 or 5 days. The results can be summarized as follows. CRMs can reasonably simulate midlatitude continental summer convection observed at the ARM Cloud and Radiation Testbed site in terms of the intensity of convective activity, and the temperature and specie c-humidity evolution. Delayed occurrences of the initial precipitation events are a common feature for all three sub-cases among the models. Cloud mass e uxes, condensate mixing ratios and hydrometeor fractions produced by all CRMs are similar. Some of the simulated cloud properties such as cloud liquid-water path and hydrometeor fraction are rather similar to available observations. All CRMs produce large downdraught mass euxes with magnitudes similar to those of updraughts, in contrast to CRM results for tropical convection. Some inter-model differences in cloud properties are likely to be related to those in the parametrizations of microphysical processes. There is generally a good agreement between the CRMs and observations with CRMs being signie cantly better than single-column models (SCMs), suggesting that current results are suitable for use in improving parametrizations in SCMs. However, improvements can still be made in the CRM simulations; these include the proper initialization of the CRMs and a more proper method of diagnosing cloud boundaries in model outputs for comparison with satellite and radar cloud observations.