Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 153, Issue 2, pp 165–193 | Cite as

Evolution of Stratocumulus Over Land: Comparison of Ground and Aircraft Observations with Numerical Weather Prediction Simulations

  • Simon R. Osborne
  • Steven J. Abel
  • Ian A. Boutle
  • Franco Marenco
Article

Abstract

Forecasting of low cloud continues to challenge numerical weather prediction. With this in mind, surface and airborne observations were made over East Anglia, UK, during March 2011 to investigate stratus and stratocumulus advecting from the sea over land. Four surface sites were deployed at various distances inland aligned approximately along the flow. In situ data include cloud-droplet measurements from an aircraft operating off the coast and a tethered balloon 100 km inland. Comparisons of thermodynamic and cloud properties are made with Met Office operational model simulations at horizontal resolutions of 4 and 1.5 km. The clouds contained droplet concentrations up to 600 cm\(^{-3}\) within polluted outflow off Europe. These measurements were compared to three different model schemes for predicting droplet concentration: two of them perform well at low to moderate concentrations but asymptote to 375 cm\(^{-3}\). Microwave radiometers at the ground sites retrieved liquid water paths that reduced with distance inland and were generally below 200 g m\(^{-2}\). The modelled water path performs well upstream but more erratically far inland. Comparisons of thermodynamic profiles are made within both Lagrangian and Eulerian frameworks and show the model predicted changes in equivalent potential temperature generally within 1 K, with occasional errors of 2 K or more. The modelled cloud-top temperatures were in good agreement with the observations down to \(-\)\(^{\circ }\)C, but the magnitude of the temperature inversion, although good at times, was too small by on average 1.6 K. The different simulations produced different cloud-top water contents due to a combination of resolution and scientific upgrades to the model, but they generally underestimate the amount of cloud water. Major changes, such as the mesoscale temporary cloud breaks on 2 March 2011 and the complete clearance on 4 March, were seemingly predicted by the model for the correct reasons.

Keywords

Cloud break-up Cloud-droplet diagnostic In situ measurements Liquid water content Liquid water path Operational forecast Temperature inversion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to: University of Leeds (Barbara Brooks) for deploying the microwave radiometer at Weybourne; University of East Anglia (Brian Bandy) for allowing us to use the Weybourne Atmospheric Observatory; Chilbolton Facility for Atmospheric and Radio Research (funded by the Science and Technology Facilities Council) for provision of their remote sensing data. FAAM is jointly funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Met Office.

References

  1. Abel SJ, Shipway BJ (2007) A comparison of cloud resolving model simulations of trade wind cumulus with aircraft observations taken during RICO. Q J R Meteorol Soc 133:781–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abel SJ, Walters DN, Allen G (2010) Evaluation of stratocumulus cloud prediction in the Met Office forecast model during VOCALS-REx. Atmos Chem Phys 10:10541–10559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackerman A, Toon OW, Taylor JP, Johnson DW, Hobbs PV, Ferek RJ (2000) Effects of aerosols on cloud albedo: evaluation of Twomey’s parameterization of cloud susceptibility using measurements of ship tracks. J Atmos Sci 57:2684–2695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellouin N, Rae J, Jones A, Johnson C, Haywood J, Boucher O (2011) Aerosol forcing in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations by HadGEM2-ES and the role of ammonium nitrate. J Geophys Res 116:D20206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boutle IA, Eyre JEJ, Lock AP (2014) Seamless stratocumulus simulation across the Turbulent Grey Zone. Mon Weather Rev 142:1655–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boutle IA, Abel SJ (2012) Microphysical controls on the stratocumulus topped boundary-layer structure during VOCALS-REx. Atmos Chem Phys 12:2849–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark PA, Harcourt SA, Macpherson B, Mathison CT, Cusack S, Naylor M (2008) Prediction of visibility and aerosol within the operational Met Office Unified Model I: model formulation and variational assimilation. Q J R Meteorol Soc 134:1801–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Driedonks AGM, Duynkerke PG (1989) Current problems in the stratocumulus-topped atmospheric boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 46:275–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordon CT, Rosati A, Gudgel R (2000) Tropical sensitivity of a coupled model to specified ISCCP low clouds. J Clim 13:2239–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hahn CJ, Warren SG (2007) A gridded climatology of clouds over land (1971–96) and ocean (1954–97) from surface observations worldwide. NDP-026E, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 71 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Hannay C, Williamson DL, Hack JJ, Kiehl JT, Olson JG, Klein SA, Bretherton CS, Köhler M (2009) Evaluation of forecasted southeast pacific stratocumulus in the NCAR, GFDL and ECMWF models. J Clim 22:2871–2889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haywood J, Bush M, Abel S, Claxton B, Coe H, Crosier J, Harrison M, Macpherson B, Naylor M, Osborne S (2008) Prediction of visibility and aerosol within the operational Met Office Unified Model II: validation of model performance using observational data. Q J R Meteorol Soc 134:1817–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones A, Roberts DL, Slingo A (1994) A climate model study of indirect radiative forcing by anthropogenic sulphate aerosols. Nature 370:450–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korolev AV, Strapp JW, Isaac GA (1998) The Nevzorov airborne hot-wire LWC—TWC probe: principle of operation and performance characteristics. J Atmos Oceanic Technol 15:1495–1510Google Scholar
  15. Kristiansen J, Bjorge D, Edwards JM, Rooney GG (2012) Soil field model interoperability: challenges and impact on screen temperature forecast skill during the Nordic winter. J Hydrometeorol 13:1215–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lance S, Brock CA, Rogers D, Gordon JA (2010) Water droplet calibration of the Cloud Droplet Probe (CDP) and in-flight performance in liquid, ice and mixed-phase clouds during ARCPAC. Atmos Meas Tech 3:1683–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lapworth AJ, Mason PJ (1988) The New Cardington Balloon-Borne turbulence probe system. J Atmos Oceanic Technol 5:699–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marenco F, Johnson B, Turnbull K, Newman S, Haywood J, Webster H, Ricketts H (2011) Airborne lidar observations of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash plume. J Geophys Res 116:D00U05Google Scholar
  19. Mittermaier M (2012) A critical assessment of surface cloud observations and their use for verifying cloud forecasts. Q J R Meteorol Soc 138:1794–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morcrette CJ, O’Connor EJ, Petch JC (2012) Evaluation of two cloud parametrization schemes using ARM and Cloud-Net observations. Q J R Meteorol Soc 138:964–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Price J (2003) Operation of a radiometrics WVR-1100 passive microwave radiometer at the Met Office Research Unit, Cardington. Cardington Technical Note No. 61, 18 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Price J (2011) Radiation Fog. Part I: observations of stability and drop size distributions. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 139:167–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Price JD, Vosper S, Brown A, Ross A, Clark P, Davies F, Horlacher V, Claxton B, McGregor J, Hoare J, Jemmett-Smith B, Sheridan P (2011) COLPEX: field and numerical studies over a region of small hills. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 92:1636–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Randall DA, Wood RA, Bony S, Colman R, Fichefet T, Fyfe J, Kattsov V, Pitman A, Shukla J, Srinivasan J, Stouffer RJ, Sumi A, Taylor KE (2007) Climate models and their evaluation. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis MC, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, NY, 996 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts NM, Cole SJ, Forbes RM, Moore RJ, Boswell D (2009) Use of high-resolution NWP rainfall and river flow forecasts for advance warning of the Carlisle flood, north-west England. Met Apps 16:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tang YM, Capon R, Forbes R, Clark P (2009) Fog prediction using a very high resolution numerical weather prediction model forced with a single profile. Met Apps 16:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walters DN, Best MJ, Bushell AC, Copsey D, Edwards JM, Falloon PD, Harris CM, Lock AP, Manners JC, Morcrette CJ, Roberts MJ, Stratton RA, Webster S, Wilkinson JM, Willett MR, Boutle IA, Earnshaw PD, Hill PG, MacLachlan C, Martin GM, Moufouma-Okia W, Palmer MD, Petch JC, Rooney GG, Scaife AA, Williams KD (2011) The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 3.0/3.1 and JULES Global Land 3.0/3.1 configurations. Geosci Model Dev 4:919–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilkinson JM, Porson ANF, Bornemann FJ, Weeks M, Field PR, Lock AP (2013) Improved microphysical parametrization of drizzle and fog for operational forecasting using the Met Office Unified Model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 139:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson DR, Bushell AC, Kerr-Munslow AM, Price JD, Morcrette CJ (2008) PC2: a prognostic cloud fraction and condensation scheme I: scheme description. Q J R Meteorol Soc 134:2093–2107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wood R (2005) Drizzle in stratiform boundary layer clouds. Part I: vertical and horizontal structure. J Atmos Sci 6:3011–3033. doi: 10.1175/JAS3529.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wood R (2012) REVIEW: stratocumulus clouds. Mon Weather Rev 140:2373–2423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zingerle C, Nurmi P (2008) Monitoring and verifying cloud forecasts originating from operational numerical models. Met Apps 15:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright  2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon R. Osborne
    • 1
  • Steven J. Abel
    • 2
  • Ian A. Boutle
    • 2
  • Franco Marenco
    • 2
  1. 1.Met Office Field SiteCardington AirfieldShortstownUK
  2. 2.Met OfficeFitzRoy WayExeterUK

Personalised recommendations