Boundary-layer cloud modeling challenges on the North Slope of Alaska
- 1Department of Engineering Physics, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, United States of America (kyle.fitch@afit.edu)
- 2Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States of America (zachary.cleveland@utah.edu)
- 3Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, United States of America (mws2175@columbia.edu)
The accurate modeling and prediction of cloud base heights is critical for energy balance calculations and aviation operations, alike. Low-level (i.e., boundary-layer) Arctic clouds can be difficult to model, making prediction of formation and dissipation challenging. Primarily mixed-phase, these clouds typically contain low quantities of supercooled liquid water and often slowly precipitate relatively small amounts of moderately and heavily rimed snow particles. While this appears to be the predominant cloudy state on the North Slope of Alaska (NSA), the delicate balance of microphysical, dynamical, radiative, surface coupling, and advective processes can rapidly shift to heavy snow (with various degrees of riming) or to a complete dissipation of the cloud layer without any precipitation, depending on the dominant processes. Here we strive to disentangle these various processes. First, we compare the predictive performances of four different numerical weather models in forecasting the presence and base-heights of low-level clouds: the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh - Alaska (HRRR-AK) model, the Polar Weather Research and Forecasting (Polar WRF) model, the Unified Model (UM), and the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) model. Initial results comparing model output at two U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (AMT) NSA sites, during the fall season in 2019 and 2022, show that the UM slightly outperforms the HRRR-AK in terms of accurately forecasting the presence of a low-level cloud layer (89% of the time). All models have a significant bias of 300 to 800 meters in forecasting cloud base height (lower than is observed); however, the UM and ECMWF models have the lowest biases. Finally, a case study for a particularly challenging April 2017 thin-cloud event is presented, wherein we compare the performance of four different bulk microphysical parameterization schemes using a higher-resolution large eddy simulation (LES) model, the WRF-LES. Initial results show that the Thompson scheme was the only one able to reproduce and sustain a substantial supercooled liquid layer, but it was unable to reproduce the transition from a deep, liquid-rich cloud to a thin layer with moderately and heavily rimed precipitation. This is the first step in linking simulated LES-scale riming processes with those parameterized at a coarser mesoscale model scale. This has important implications for forecasting low-level clouds in an operational environment, given the efficiency of the riming process.
How to cite: Fitch, K., Cleveland, Z., Stanford, M., and Dedrickson, L.: Boundary-layer cloud modeling challenges on the North Slope of Alaska, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-11947, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11947, 2024.