SUMMARYLarge-eddy simulations of the development of shallow cumulus convection over land are presented. Many characteristics of the cumulus layer previously found in simulations of quasi-steady convection over the sea are found to be reproduced in this more strongly forced, unsteady case. Furthermore, the results are shown to be encouragingly robust, with similar results obtained with eight independent models, and also across a range of numerical resolutions. The datasets produced are already being used in the development and evaluation of parametrizations used in numerical weather-prediction and climate models.

ABSTRACT:Results are presented from an intercomparison of single-column and cloud-resolving model simulations of a cold-air outbreak mixed-phase stratocumulus cloud observed during the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) programme's Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. The observed cloud occurred in a well-mixed boundary layer with a cloud-top temperature of −15 • C. The average liquid water path of around 160 g m −2 was about two-thirds of the adiabatic value and far greater than the average mass of ice which when integrated from the surface to cloud top was around 15 g m −2 .Simulations of 17 single-column models (SCMs) and 9 cloud-resolving models (CRMs) are compared. While the simulated ice water path is generally consistent with observed values, the median SCM and CRM liquid water path is a factor-of-three smaller than observed. Results from a sensitivity study in which models removed ice microphysics suggest that in many models the interaction between liquid and ice-phase microphysics is responsible for the large model underestimate of liquid water path.Despite this underestimate, the simulated liquid and ice water paths of several models are consistent with observed values. Furthermore, models with more sophisticated microphysics simulate liquid and ice water paths that are in better agreement with the observed values, although considerable scatter exists. Although no single factor guarantees a good simulation, these results emphasize the need for improvement in the model representation of mixed-phase microphysics.

The fifth intercomparison of the Global Water and Energy Experiment Cloud System Studies Working Group 1 is used as a vehicle for better understanding the dynamics of trade wind cumuli capped by a strong inversion. The basis of the intercomparison is 10 simulations by 7 groups. These simulations are supplemented by many further sensitivity studies, including some with very refined grid meshes. The simulations help illustrate the turbulent dynamics of trade cumuli in such a regime. In many respects the dynamics are similar to those found in many previous simulations of trade cumuli capped by weaker inversions. The principal differences are the extent to which the cloud layer is quasi-steady in the current simulations, evidence of weak countergradient momentum transport within the cloud layer, and the development and influence of an incipient stratiform cloud layer at the top of the cloud layer. Although many elements of the turbulent structure (including the wind profiles, the evolution of cloud-base height, the statistics of the subcloud layer, and the nature of mixing in the lower and middle parts of the cloud layer) are robustly predicted, the representation of the stratiform cloud amount by the different simulations is remarkably sensitive to a number of factors. Chief among these are differences between numerical algorithms. These sensitivities persist even among simulations on relatively refined grid meshes. Part of this sensitivity is attributed to a physically realistic positive radiative feedback, whereby a propensity toward higher cloud fractions in any given simulation is amplified by longwave radiative cooling. The simulations also provide new insight into the dynamics of the transition layer at cloud base. In accord with observations, the simulations predict that this layer is most identifiable in terms of moisture variances and gradients. The simulations help illustrate the highly variable (in both height and thickness) nature of the transition layer, and we speculate that this variability helps regulate convection. Lastly the simulations are used to help evaluate simple models of trade wind boundary layers. In accord with previous studies, mass-flux models well represent the dynamics of the cloud layer, while mixing-length models well represent the subcloud layer. The development of the stratiform cloud layer is not, however, captured by the mass-flux models. The simulations indicate that future theoretical research needs to focus on interface rules, whereby the cloud layer is coupled to the subcloud layer below and the free atmosphere above. Future observational studies of this regime would be of most benefit if they could provide robust cloud statistics as a function of mean environmental conditions.

[1] CGILS-the CFMIP-GASS Intercomparison of Large Eddy Models (LESs) and single column models (SCMs)-investigates the mechanisms of cloud feedback in SCMs and LESs under idealized climate change perturbation. This paper describes the CGILS results from 15 SCMs and 8 LES models. Three cloud regimes over the subtropical oceans are studied: shallow cumulus, cumulus under stratocumulus, and wellmixed coastal stratus/stratocumulus. In the stratocumulus and coastal stratus regimes, SCMs without activated shallow convection generally simulated negative cloud feedbacks, while models with active shallow convection generally simulated positive cloud feedbacks. In the shallow cumulus alone regime, this relationship is less clear, likely due to the changes in cloud depth, lateral mixing, and precipitation or a combination of them. The majority of LES models simulated negative cloud feedback in the wellmixed coastal stratus/stratocumulus regime, and positive feedback in the shallow cumulus and stratocumulus regime. A general framework is provided to interpret SCM results: in a warmer climate, the moistening rate of the cloudy layer associated with the surface-based turbulence parameterization is enhanced; together with weaker VOL. 5, 826-842, doi:10.1002/2013MS000246, 2013 large-scale subsidence, it causes negative cloud feedback. In contrast, in the warmer climate, the drying rate associated with the shallow convection scheme is enhanced. This causes positive cloud feedback. These mechanisms are summarized as the ''NESTS'' negative cloud feedback and the ''SCOPE'' positive cloud feedback (Negative feedback from Surface Turbulence under weaker Subsidence-Shallow Convection PositivE feedback) with the net cloud feedback depending on how the two opposing effects counteract each other. The LES results are consistent with these interpretations.Citation: Zhang, M., et al. (2013), CGILS: Results from the first phase of an international project to understand the physical mechanisms of low cloud feedbacks in single column models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 826-842,

No abstract