Abstract
To better understand how model resolution affects the formation of Arctic boundary layer clouds, we investigated the influence of grid spacing on simulating cloud streets that occurred near Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska, on 2 May 2013 and were observed by MODIS (the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer). The Weather Research and Forecasting model was used to simulate the clouds using nested domains with increasingly fine resolution ranging from a horizontal grid spacing of 27 km in the boundary-layer-parameterized mesoscale domain to a grid spacing of 0.111 km in the large-eddy-permitting domain. We investigated the model-simulated mesoscale environment, horizontal and vertical cloud structures, boundary layer stability, and cloud properties, all of which were subsequently used to interpret the observed roll-cloud case. Increasing model resolution led to a transition from a more buoyant boundary layer to a more shear-driven turbulent boundary layer. The clouds were stratiform-like in the mesoscale domain, but as the model resolution increased, roll-like structures, aligned along the wind field, appeared with ever smaller wavelengths. A stronger vertical water vapor gradient occurred above the cloud layers with decreasing grid spacing. With fixed model grid spacing at 0.333 km, changing the model configuration from a boundary layer parameterization to a large-eddy-permitting scheme produced a more shear-driven and less unstable environment, a stronger vertical water vapor gradient below the cloud layers, and the wavelengths of the rolls decreased slightly. In this study, only the large-eddy-permitting simulation with gird spacing of 0.111 km was sufficient to model the observed roll clouds.
摘要
为了更好地了解模型分辨率如何影响北极边界层云的形成,我们以MODIS(中分辨率成像光谱仪)的观测为参考研究了网格间距对模拟 2013 年 5 月 2 日发生在阿拉斯加 Utqiaġvik(原巴罗)附近的云街道的影响。天气研究和预报模型WRF被用于用嵌套区域模拟云,其分辨率从边界层参数化中尺度区域的水平网格间距27公里到大涡允许区域的网格间距0.111公里不等。我们研究了模型模拟的中尺度环境、水平和垂直云结构、边界层稳定性和云属性,所有这些特性后来都用于解释观察到的卷云案例。模型分辨率的提高导致从浮力驱动为主的边界层过渡到剪切驱动主导的湍流边界层。云在中尺度域中以层云出现,但随着模型分辨率的提高,向风场看齐的卷状结构呈越来越短的波长。伴随着网格间距的减小,云层上方出现更强的垂直水汽梯度。当模型网格间距固定在0.333km时,将模型配置从边界层参数化改为大涡允许方案时,产生了更大的切变驱动和更少的不稳定环境,云层下方的垂直水汽梯度更强,卷波波长略有减小。在本研究中,只有网格间距为0.111km的大涡模拟才足以模拟观测到的卷云。
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asai, T., 1970a: Stability of a plane parallel flow with variable vertical shear and unstable stratification. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 48(2), 129–139, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj1965.48.2_129.
Asai, T., 1970b: Three-dimensional features of thermal convection in a plane couette flow. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 48(1), 18–29, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj1965.48.1_18.
Atkinson, B. W., and J. W. Zhang, 1996: Mesoscale shallow convection in the atmosphere. Rev. Geophys., 34(4), 403–431, https://doi.org/10.1029/96RG02623.
Buizza, R., and Coauthors, 2018: The development and evaluation process followed at ECMWF to upgrade the Integrated Forecasting System (IFS). ECMWF Technical Memoranda 829.
Byrkjedal, Ø., I. Esau, and N. G. Kvamstø, 2008: Sensitivity of simulated wintertime Arctic atmosphere to vertical resolution in the ARPEGE/IFS model. Climate Dyn., 30(7–8), 687–701, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0316-z.
Cheng, A. N., K.-M. Xu, and B. Stevens, 2010: Effects of resolution on the simulation of boundary - layer clouds and the partition of kinetic energy to subgrid scales. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 2(1), 3, https://doi.org/10.3894/JAMES.2010.2.3.
de Boer, G., and Coauthors, 2014: Near-surface meteorology during the Arctic Summer Cloud Ocean Study (ASCOS): Evaluation of reanalyses and global climate models. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(1), 427–445, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-427-2014.
Deardorff, J. W., 1972: Numerical investigation of neutral and unstable planetary boundary layers. J. Atmos. Sci., 291), 91-115, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029<0091:NIONAU>2.0.CO;2.
Deardorff, J. W., 1980: Stratocumulus-capped mixed layers derived from a three-dimensional model. Bound-Layer Meteorol., 18, 495-527, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00119502.
Fan, J. W., M. Ovtchinnikov, J. M. Comstock, S. A. McFarlane, and A. Khain, 2009: Ice formation in Arctic mixed-phase clouds: Insights from a 3-D cloud-resolving model with size-resolved aerosol and cloud microphysics. J. Geophys. Res., 114(D4), D04205, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010782.
Field, P. R., and Coauthors, 2017: Exploring the convective grey zone with regional simulations of a cold air outbreak. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 143(707), 2537–2555, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3105.
Gao, Y., L. R. Leung, C. Zhao, and S. Hagos, 2017: Sensitivity of U. S. summer precipitation to model resolution and convective parameterizations across gray zone resolutions. J. Geophys. Res., 122(5), 2714–2733, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025896.
Glendening, J. W., 1996: Lineal eddy features under strong shear conditions. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(23), 3430–3449, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053<3430:LEFUSS>2.0.CO;2.
Green, B. W., and F. Q. Zhang, 2015: Numerical simulations of Hurricane Katrina (2005) in the turbulent gray zone. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 7, 142–161, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014MS000399.
Gryschka, M., and S. Raasch, 2005: Roll convection during a cold air outbreak: A large eddy simulation with stationary model domain. Geophys. Res. Lett., 2(14), L14805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022872.
Harrington, J. Y., and P. Q. Olsson, 2001: An LES study of ice microphysical influences on roll cloud structure and dynamics during off-ice flow. Proc. 6th Conf. on Polar Meteorology and Oceanography, San Diego, CA, American Meteorological Society.
Hong, S. Y., and J. Dudhia, 2012: Next-generation numerical weather prediction: Bridging parameterization, explicit clouds, and large eddies. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 93(1), ES6–ES9, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3224.1.
Inoue, J., B. Kosovic, and J. A. Curry, 2005: Evolution of a storm-driven cloudy boundary layer in the Arctic. Bound.-Layer Meteorol, 117(2), 213–230, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-004-6003-2.
Inoue, J., J. P. Liu, J. O. Pinto, and J. A. Curry, 2006: Intercompar-ison of Arctic regional climate models: Modeling clouds and radiation for SHEBA in May 1998. J. Climate, 1917, 4167-4178, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3854.1.
Jiang, H. L., W. R. Cotton, J. O. Pinto, J. A. Curry, and M. J. Weissbluth, 2000: Cloud resolving simulations of mixed-phase Arctic stratus observed during BASE: Sensitivity to concentration of ice crystals and large-scale heat and moisture ad-vection. J. Atmos. Sci., 57(13), 2105–2117, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2105:CRSOMP>2.0.CO;2.
Khairoutdinov, M. F., and D. A. Randall, 2003: Cloud resolving modeling of the ARM summer 1997 IOP: Model formulation, results, uncertainties, and sensitivities. J. Atmos. Sci., 60(4), 607–625, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-04692003)060<0607:CRMOTA>2.0.CO;2.
Khanna, S., and J. G. Brasseur, 1998: Three-dimensional buoyancy-and shear-induced local structure of the atmospheric boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci., 55(5), 710–743, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055<0710:TDBASI>2.0.CO;2.
Klein, S. A., and Coauthors, 2009: Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed-phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. I: Single-layer cloud. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135(641), 979–1002, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.416.
Kuettner, J., 1959: The band structure of the atmosphere. Tellus, 11(3), 267–294, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v11i3.9319.
Kuettner, J. P., 1971: Cloud bands in the earth’s atmosphere: Observations and theory. Tellus, 23(4-5), 404-426, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v23i4-5.10519.
Lane, D. E., R. C. J. Somerville, and S. F. Iacobellis, 2000: Sensitivity of cloud and radiation parameterizations to changes in vertical resolution. J. Climate, 13(5), 915–922, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<0915:SOCARP>2.0.CO;2.
Lebo, Z. J., and Coauthors, 2017: Challenges for cloud modeling in the context of aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 98(8), 1749–1755, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0291.1.
Luo, Y., K.-M. Xu, H. Morrison, and G. McFarquhar, 2008: Arctic mixed-phase clouds simulated by a cloud-resolving model: Comparison with ARM observations and sensitivity to microphysics parameterizations. J. Atmos. Sci., 65(4), 1285–1303, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2467.1.
Moeng, C. H., and P. P. Sullivan, 1994: A comparison of shear-and buoyancy-driven planetary boundary layer flows. J. Atmos. Sci., 51(7), 999–1022, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1994)051<0999:ACOSAB>2.0.CO;2.
Oue, M., M. Galletti, J. Verlinde, A. Ryzhkov, and Y. H. Lu, 2016: Use of X-band differential reflectivity measurements to study shallow Arctic mixed-phase clouds. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 55(2), 403–424, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-15-0168.1.
Rao, G. S., and E. M. Agee, 1996: Large eddy simulation of turbulent flow in a marine convective boundary layer with snow. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(1), 86–100, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053<0086:LESOTF>2.0.CO;2.
Roeckner, E., and Coauthors, 2006: Sensitivity of simulated climate to horizontal and vertical resolution in the ECHAM5 atmosphere model. J. Climate, 19(16), 3771–3791, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3824.1.
Salesky, S. T., M. Chamecki, and E. Bou-Zeid, 2017: On the nature of the transition between roll and cellular organization in the convective boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteorol, 163(1), 41–68, https://doi.org/10.1007/s105460160220-3.
Savre, J., and A. M. L. Ekman, 2015: Large-eddy simulation of three mixed-phase cloud events during ISDAC: Conditions for persistent heterogeneous ice formation. J. Geophys. Res., 120(15), 7699–7725, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD023006.
Sikora, T., G. Young, R. Beal, F. Monaldo, and P. Vachon, 2006: Applications of synthetic aperture radar in marine meteorology. Atmosphere Ocean Interactions, 2, 83-105.
Skamarock, W. C, and Coauthors, 2008: A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-475+STR, 113 pp, https://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH.
Solomon, A., M. D. Shupe, O. Persson, H. Morrison, T. Yamagu-chi, P. M. Caldwell, and G. de Boer, 2014: The sensitivity of springtime Arctic mixed-phase stratocumulus clouds to surface-layer and cloud-top inversion-layer moisture sources. J. Atmos. Sci., 71(2), 574–595, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0179.1.
Stevens, D. E., A. S. Ackerman, and C. S. Bretherton, 2002: Effects of domain size and numerical resolution on the simulation of shallow cumulus convection. J. Atmos. Sci., 59(23), 3285–3301, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-04692002)059<3285:EODSAN>2.0.CO;2.
Tallapragada, V., 2017: A11E-0075: Next generation community based unified global modeling system development and operational implementation strategies at NCEP. AGU 2017 Fall Meeting Abstracts, December 11–15, 2017, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Tjernström, M., J. Sedlar, and M. D. Shupe, 2008: How well do regional climate models reproduce radiation and clouds in the Arctic? An evaluation of ARCMIP simulations J. Appl. Met-eorol. Climatol., 47(9), 2405–2422, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAMC1845.1.
Weckwerth, T. M., J. W. Wilson, R. M. Wakimoto, and N. A. Crook, 1997: Horizontal convective rolls: Determining the environmental conditions supporting their existence and characteristics. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125(4), 505–526, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<0505:HCRDTE>2.0.CO;2.
Weckwerth, T. M., T. W. Horst, and J. W. Wilson, 1999: An observational study of the evolution of horizontal convective rolls. Mon. Wea. Rev., 127(9), 2160–2179, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127<2160:AOSOTE>2.0.CO;2.
Wyngaard, J. C, 2004: Toward numerical modeling in the “terra incognita”. J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1816–1826, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1816:TNMITT>2.0.CO;2.
Wyser, K., and Coauthors, 2008: An evaluation of Arctic cloud and radiation processes during the SHEBA year: Simulation results from eight Arctic regional climate models. Climate Dyn., 30(2-3), 203-223, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0286-1.
Young, G. S., D. A. R. Kristovich, M. R. Hjelmfelt, and R. C. Foster, 2002: Rolls, streets, waves, and more: A review of quasi-two-dimensional structures in the atmospheric boundary layer. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83(7), 997–1002, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083<0997:RSWAMA>2.3.CO;2.
Zhang, F. Q., Y. Q. Sun, L. Magnusson, R. Buizza, S. J. Lin, J. H. Chen, and K. Emanuel, 2019: What is the predictability limit of midlatitude weather? J. Atmos. Sci., 76, 1077–1091, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0269.1.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the U.S. DOE ASR (Atmospheric Systems Research) program (Grant No. DE-SC0013953). The measurements used in this study were obtained from the U.S. DOE ARM user facility and NASA LAADS (Level-1 and Atmosphere Archive & Distribution System) DAAC (Distributed Active Archive Center). The computing was performed at the Texas Advanced Computing Center. We would like to thank Dr. Jerry HARRINGTON for fruitful discussions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Article Highlights
• How changes in model resolution affected boundary layer conditions was investigated in a case study of Arctic boundary layer cloud streets.
• Increasing model resolution resulted in a transition from a more buoyant to a more shear-driven turbulent boundary layer.
• A grid spacing of 0.111 km was sufficient to model observed roll clouds with wavelengths of 2.5–2.8 km.
Deceased 19 July 2019
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lai, HW., Zhang, F., Clothiaux, E.E. et al. Modeling Arctic Boundary Layer Cloud Streets at Grey-zone Resolutions. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 37, 42–56 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-9105-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-9105-y