Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Parameterizing the Difference in Cloud Fraction Defined by Area and by Volume as Observed with Radar and Lidar

Malcolm E. Brooks Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Malcolm E. Brooks in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Robin J. Hogan Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Robin J. Hogan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Anthony J. Illingworth Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Anthony J. Illingworth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jul 2005
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3467.1
Page(s):
2248–2260
Restricted access

Abstract

Most current general circulation models (GCMs) calculate radiative fluxes through partially cloudy grid boxes by weighting clear and cloudy fluxes by the fractional area of cloud cover (Ca), but most GCM cloud schemes calculate cloud fraction as the volume of the grid box that is filled with cloud (Cυ). In this paper, 1 yr of cloud radar and lidar observations from Chilbolton in southern England, are used to examine this discrepancy. With a vertical resolution of 300 m it is found that, on average, Ca is 20% greater than Cυ, and with a vertical resolution of 1 km, Ca is greater than Cυ by a factor of 2. The difference is around a factor of 2 larger for liquid water clouds than for ice clouds, and also increases with wind shear. Using Ca rather than Cυ, calculated on an operational model grid, increases the mean total cloud cover from 53% to 63%, and so is of similar importance to the cloud overlap assumption.

A simple parameterization, Ca = [1 + e(−f )(C−1υ − 1)]−1, is proposed to correct for this underestimate based on the observation that the observed relationship between the mean Ca and Cυ is symmetric about the line Ca = 1 − Cυ. The parameter f is a simple function of the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) grid-box dimensions, where for ice clouds f = 0.0880 V 0.7696 H−0.2254 and for liquid clouds f = 0.1635 V 0.6694 H−0.1882.

Implementing this simple parameterization, which excludes the effect of wind shear, on an independent 6-month dataset of cloud radar and lidar observations, accounts for the mean underestimate of Ca for all horizontal and vertical resolutions considered to within 3% of the observed Ca, and reduces the rms error for each individual box from typically 100% to approximately 30%. Small biases remain for both weakly and strongly sheared cases, but this is significantly reduced by incorporating a simple shear dependence in the calculation of the parameter f, which also slightly improves the overall performance of the parameterization for all of the resolutions considered.

* Current affiliation: Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Corresponding author address: Malcolm E. Brooks, Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom. Email: Malcolm.E.Brooks@metoffice.com

Abstract

Most current general circulation models (GCMs) calculate radiative fluxes through partially cloudy grid boxes by weighting clear and cloudy fluxes by the fractional area of cloud cover (Ca), but most GCM cloud schemes calculate cloud fraction as the volume of the grid box that is filled with cloud (Cυ). In this paper, 1 yr of cloud radar and lidar observations from Chilbolton in southern England, are used to examine this discrepancy. With a vertical resolution of 300 m it is found that, on average, Ca is 20% greater than Cυ, and with a vertical resolution of 1 km, Ca is greater than Cυ by a factor of 2. The difference is around a factor of 2 larger for liquid water clouds than for ice clouds, and also increases with wind shear. Using Ca rather than Cυ, calculated on an operational model grid, increases the mean total cloud cover from 53% to 63%, and so is of similar importance to the cloud overlap assumption.

A simple parameterization, Ca = [1 + e(−f )(C−1υ − 1)]−1, is proposed to correct for this underestimate based on the observation that the observed relationship between the mean Ca and Cυ is symmetric about the line Ca = 1 − Cυ. The parameter f is a simple function of the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) grid-box dimensions, where for ice clouds f = 0.0880 V 0.7696 H−0.2254 and for liquid clouds f = 0.1635 V 0.6694 H−0.1882.

Implementing this simple parameterization, which excludes the effect of wind shear, on an independent 6-month dataset of cloud radar and lidar observations, accounts for the mean underestimate of Ca for all horizontal and vertical resolutions considered to within 3% of the observed Ca, and reduces the rms error for each individual box from typically 100% to approximately 30%. Small biases remain for both weakly and strongly sheared cases, but this is significantly reduced by incorporating a simple shear dependence in the calculation of the parameter f, which also slightly improves the overall performance of the parameterization for all of the resolutions considered.

* Current affiliation: Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Corresponding author address: Malcolm E. Brooks, Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, United Kingdom. Email: Malcolm.E.Brooks@metoffice.com

Save
Cover Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

  • Clothiaux, E. E., T. P. Ackerman, G. G. Mace, K. P. Moran, R. T. Marchand, M. A. Miller, and B. E. Martner, 2000: Objective determination of cloud heights and radar reflectivities using a combination of active remote sensors at the ARM CART sites. J. Appl. Meteor., 39 , 645–665.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Del Genio, A. D., M-S. Yao, W. Kovari, and K. K. Lo, 1996: A prognostic cloud water parameterization for global climate models. J. Climate, 9 , 270–304.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Edwards, J. M., and A. Slingo, 1996: Studies with a flexible new radiation code. I: Choosing a configuration for a large scale model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 122 , 689–719.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Geleyn, J. F., and A. Hollingsworth, 1979: An economical analytical method for the computation of the interaction between scattering and line absorption of radiation. Contrib. Atmos. Phys., 52 , 1–16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Goddard, J. W. F., J. Tan, and M. Thurai, 1994: Technique for calibration of meteorological radars using differential phase. Electron. Lett., 31 , 166–167.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hogan, R. J., and A. J. Illingworth, 2000: Deriving cloud overlap statistics from radar observations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126 , 2903–2909.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hogan, R. J., and A. J. Illingworth, 2003: Parameterizing ice cloud inhomogeneities using cloud radar data. J. Atmos. Sci., 60 , 756–767.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hogan, R. J., C. Jakob, and A. J. Illingworth, 2001: Comparison of ECMWF winter season cloud fraction with radar derived values. J. Appl. Meteor., 40 , 513–525.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hogan, R. J., D. Bouniol, D. N. Ladd, E. J. O’Connor, and A. J. Illingworth, 2003a: Absolute calibration of 94/95-GHz radars using rain. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 20 , 572–580.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hogan, R. J., A. J. Illingworth, J. P. V. Poiares Baptista, and E. J. O’Connor, 2003b: Characteristics of mixed-phase clouds: Part II: A climatology from ground-based lidar. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 129 , 2117–2134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hogan, R. J., M. D. Behera, E. J. O’Connor, and A. J. Illingworth, 2004: Estimating the global distribution of supercooled liquid water clouds using spaceborne lidar. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32 .L05106, doi:10.1029/2003GL018977.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jakob, C., and S. A. Klein, 1999: The role of varying cloud fraction in the parameterization of microphysical processes in the ECMWF model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125 , 941–965.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mace, G. G., T. P. Ackerman, E. E. Clothiaux, and B. A. Albrecht, 1997: A study of composite cirrus morphology using data from a 94-GHz radar and correlations with temperature and large-scale vertical motion. J. Geophys. Res., 102 , 13581–13593.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mace, G. G., C. Jakob, and K. P. Moran, 1998: Validation of hydrometeor occurrence predicted by the ECMWF model using millimeter wave radar data. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25 , 1645–1648.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Martin, G. M., M. R. Bush, A. R. Brown, A. P. Lock, and R N B. Smith, 2000: A new boundary layer mixing scheme. Part II: Tests in climate and mesoscale models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128 , 3200–3217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mitchell, J. F. B., 2000: Modelling cloud-climate feedbacks in predictions of human-induced climate change. World Climate Research Program Workshop on Cloud Processes and Cloud Feedbacks in Large-Scale Models, WCRP-110, WMO/TD 993.

  • Mittermaier, M. P., and A. J. Illingworth, 2003: Comparison of model-derived and radar-observed freezing level heights: Implications for vertical reflectivity profile correction schemes. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 129 , 83–96.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Morcrette, J-J., and Y. Fouquart, 1986: The overlapping of cloud layers in a shortwave radiation parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci., 43 , 321–328.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Morcrette, J-J., and C. Jakob, 2000: The response of the ECMWF model to changes in the cloud overlap assumption. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128 , 1707–1732.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Smith, R. N. B., 1990: A scheme for predicting layer clouds and their water content in a general circulation model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 116 , 435–460.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stephens, G. L., 1984: Review: The parameterization of radiation for numerical weather prediction and climate models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 112 , 826–867.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stocker, T. F., 2001: Physical climate processes and feedbacks. . Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 944 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tian, L., and J. A. Curry, 1989: Cloud overlap statistics. J. Geophys. Res., 94 , 9925–9935.

  • Tiedtke, M., 1993: Representation of clouds in large-scale models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 121 , 3040–3061.

  • Webb, M., C. Senior, S. Bony, and J. Morcrette, 2001: Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre, ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models. Climate Dyn., 17 , 905–922.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilson, D. R., and S. P. Ballard, 1999: A microphysically based precipitation scheme for the UK Meteorological Office Unified Model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125 , 1607–1636.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 786 348 17
PDF Downloads 336 65 1