Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 319-333 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Atmospheric chemistry and physics |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 10 Jan 2022 |
Abstract
An intercomparison between 10 single-column (SCM) and 5 large-eddy simulation (LES) models is presented for a radiation fog case study inspired by the Local and Non-local Fog Experiment (LANFEX) field campaign. Seven of the SCMs represent single-column equivalents of operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, whilst three are research-grade SCMs designed for fog simulation, and the LESs are designed to reproduce in the best manner currently possible the underlying physical processes governing fog formation. The LES model results are of variable quality and do not provide a consistent baseline against which to compare the NWP models, particularly under high aerosol or cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) conditions. The main SCM bias appears to be toward the overdevelopment of fog, i.e. fog which is too thick, although the inter-model variability is large. In reality there is a subtle balance between water lost to the surface and water condensed into fog, and the ability of a model to accurately simulate this process strongly determines the quality of its forecast. Some NWP SCMs do not represent fundamental components of this process (e.g. cloud droplet sedimentation) and therefore are naturally hampered in their ability to deliver accurate simulations. Finally, we show that modelled fog development is as sensitive to the shape of the cloud droplet size distribution, a rarely studied or modified part of the microphysical parameterisation, as it is to the underlying aerosol or CDNC.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Atmospheric Science
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Atmospheric chemistry and physics, Vol. 22, No. 1, 10.01.2022, p. 319-333.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Demistify
T2 - A large-eddy simulation (LES) and single-column model (SCM) intercomparison of radiation fog
AU - Boutle, Ian
AU - Angevine, Wayne
AU - Bao, Jian Wen
AU - Bergot, Thierry
AU - Bhattacharya, Ritthik
AU - Bott, Andreas
AU - Ducongé, Leo
AU - Forbes, Richard
AU - Goecke, Tobias
AU - Grell, Evelyn
AU - Hill, Adrian
AU - Igel, Adele L.
AU - Kudzotsa, Innocent
AU - Lac, Christine
AU - Maronga, Bjorn
AU - Romakkaniemi, Sami
AU - Schmidli, Juerg
AU - Schwenkel, Johannes
AU - Steeneveld, Gert Jan
AU - Vié, Benoît
N1 - Funding Information: Juerg Schmidli was supported by the Hans Ertel Centre for Weather Research of DWD (The Atmospheric Boundary Layer in Numerical Weather Prediction) grant number 4818DWDP4. Ritthik Bhattacharya was supported by MeteoSwiss (project number 123001738). This work used resources of the Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ) granted by its Scientific Steering Committee (WLA) under project ID bb1096. Innocent Kudzotsa and Sami Romakkaniemi were supported by the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant no. 821205). Johannes Schwenkel was supported by the German Research Foundation (grant no. MA 6383/1-2)
PY - 2022/1/10
Y1 - 2022/1/10
N2 - An intercomparison between 10 single-column (SCM) and 5 large-eddy simulation (LES) models is presented for a radiation fog case study inspired by the Local and Non-local Fog Experiment (LANFEX) field campaign. Seven of the SCMs represent single-column equivalents of operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, whilst three are research-grade SCMs designed for fog simulation, and the LESs are designed to reproduce in the best manner currently possible the underlying physical processes governing fog formation. The LES model results are of variable quality and do not provide a consistent baseline against which to compare the NWP models, particularly under high aerosol or cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) conditions. The main SCM bias appears to be toward the overdevelopment of fog, i.e. fog which is too thick, although the inter-model variability is large. In reality there is a subtle balance between water lost to the surface and water condensed into fog, and the ability of a model to accurately simulate this process strongly determines the quality of its forecast. Some NWP SCMs do not represent fundamental components of this process (e.g. cloud droplet sedimentation) and therefore are naturally hampered in their ability to deliver accurate simulations. Finally, we show that modelled fog development is as sensitive to the shape of the cloud droplet size distribution, a rarely studied or modified part of the microphysical parameterisation, as it is to the underlying aerosol or CDNC.
AB - An intercomparison between 10 single-column (SCM) and 5 large-eddy simulation (LES) models is presented for a radiation fog case study inspired by the Local and Non-local Fog Experiment (LANFEX) field campaign. Seven of the SCMs represent single-column equivalents of operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, whilst three are research-grade SCMs designed for fog simulation, and the LESs are designed to reproduce in the best manner currently possible the underlying physical processes governing fog formation. The LES model results are of variable quality and do not provide a consistent baseline against which to compare the NWP models, particularly under high aerosol or cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) conditions. The main SCM bias appears to be toward the overdevelopment of fog, i.e. fog which is too thick, although the inter-model variability is large. In reality there is a subtle balance between water lost to the surface and water condensed into fog, and the ability of a model to accurately simulate this process strongly determines the quality of its forecast. Some NWP SCMs do not represent fundamental components of this process (e.g. cloud droplet sedimentation) and therefore are naturally hampered in their ability to deliver accurate simulations. Finally, we show that modelled fog development is as sensitive to the shape of the cloud droplet size distribution, a rarely studied or modified part of the microphysical parameterisation, as it is to the underlying aerosol or CDNC.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123002746&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5194/acp-22-319-2022
DO - 10.5194/acp-22-319-2022
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85123002746
VL - 22
SP - 319
EP - 333
JO - Atmospheric chemistry and physics
JF - Atmospheric chemistry and physics
SN - 1680-7316
IS - 1
ER -