This website's content is no longer actively maintained, but the material has been kept on-line for historical purposes.
The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.

GCSS-DIME Homepage

GEWEX Cloud System Study: Working Group 3

Report and Recommendations from the 4th GCSS Working Group 3 Workshop

Held in Geesthacht, Germany from 2 June to 5 June 1998,

to the
7th Session of the GCSS Science Panel

Hawaii, USA
30 November - 4 December 1998.

Brian Ryan
CSIRO Atmospheric Research

(MS Word97 version)

Executive Summary

The fourth workshop of the GCSS Working Group 3 was hosted by GKSS and held in Geesthacht, Germany from 2-5 June 1998. The objectives and outcomes of the workshop were as follows:

Workshop outcome: Draft paper for the 1998 GCSS Science Panel.

Workshop Outcome: A report to the GCSS Chair.

Workshop Outcome: A report to all GCSS Working Group Chairs.

Workshop Outcome: A report to the 1998 GCSS Science Panel meeting.

The scientific viewpoints in Working Group 3 have matured with the model/model and model/observation intercomparisons leading to the conclusions and recommendations coming from the workshop. However, Working Group 3 is still under represented by the GCM modeling community.

The workshop concluded that the generation of middle-level and high-level cloud is a serious problem for mesoscale models. The mesoscale models underestimate the middle-level cloud generated by frontal systems and the models probably overestimate the amount of high cloud associated with the frontal system.

The model intercomparison identified the importance of the feedback between the diabatic effects from sublimation, melting and evaporation and the prefrontal circulation. In particular, the intercomparison pointed to evidence suggesting that the sublimating cirrus in the model is a trigger for the prefrontal descent that suppresses the middle-level cloud.

The workshop identified the feedback of cirrus on the frontal circulation as a model problem and a process reality.

The workshop addressed the problem of transferring the knowledge gained from case studies of cloud systems to the cloud climatologies generated by NWP climate models. The linking of satellite and large-scale datasets were seen as an integral part of the strategy for the model validation and an essential part of the solution to the problem of parameterizing the climatology of cloud properties and processes in GCMs. The workshop demonstrated the importance of diagnosing model fields that are comparable with satellite products.

The workshop saw SCMs as an important tool for identifying strengths and weaknesses of current GCM packages. However, the limitations on the application of SCMs to middle-level cloud systems are still unclear.

The workshop has made recommendations for future studies (e.g. NEWBALTIC and BRIDGE). Working Group 3 is now better situated to advise on requirements for cloud satellite missions, i.e. WG3 is better able to articulate the arguments for the ground truthing of clouds by using observational (cloud radars) and modeling techniques.

The workshop recommends that a suitable case from FASTEX for Working Groups 2 (cirrus) and 3 (extra-tropical layer cloud) is IOP 16. It was decided that there were no highly recommended cases from FASTEX for Working Groups 1and 4.

The workshop made no firm conclusions regarding a GCSS orographic cloud strategy, although recommendations were made to pursue the development of such a strategy.

2. Introduction

The fourth workshop of the GCSS Working Group 3 was hosted by GKSS and held in Geesthacht, Germany from 2-5 June 1998. The objectives and outcomes of the workshop were as follows:

Workshop outcome: Draft paper for the 1998 GCSS Science Panel.

Workshop Outcome: A report to the GCSS Chair.

Workshop Outcome: A report to all GCSS Working Group Chairs.

Workshop Outcome: A report to the 1998 GCSS Science Panel meeting.

The first day of the workshop (Tuesday 2 June) was spent discussing the draft paper based on the Echuca meeting. At the end of Day 1 a number of writing tasks were assigned so that a final decision on the structure of the paper could be made on Thursday. The second day was devoted to the consideration of the other cases under study by the Working Group, namely CASP II and BASE. This was followed by presentations on NEW BALTEX and FASTEX. The third day of the meeting was structured into three segments, a discussion of the selection of a case study from FASTEX, a presentation on the application of the ISCCP satellite analyses as a methodology for generalizing the case studies undertaken by Working Group 3, and finalizing of the material to be included in the draft Working Group 3 methodology paper. On the final day of the meeting there was a discussion on the development of a GCSS strategy on the treatment of orographic clouds in GCMs. The meeting concluded with the preparation of a draft summary that forms the basis of this report and the identification of a number of action items.

3. Outcomes from Model Intercomparison Methodology

The first step in developing the methodology for mid-latitude cloud systems was to validate the cloud distributions simulated by the state-of-the-art mesoscale models and to identify any significant deficiencies in these models using a combination of high resolution cloud-resolving models and observations. The second step of the methodology was to use 300km averaged distribution to provide guidance on improving the parameterization of clouds in GCMs. Part of this methodology was to investigate the validity of using SCMs for this purpose. The principal results are given below.

Validation of the LAMs against observations and CRMs
The LAMs for the CFRP case generally gave similar cloud amounts although there were significant differences in the optical properties. The ISCCP/model comparisons showed that the correct generation of cloud fraction is not a sufficient condition to produce radiatively correct cloud fields in a GCM. Those comparisons and model simulations showed that the correct prediction of the cloud type is also critical. When the large-scale forcing was strong the LAM simulations of both cloud cover and cloud type were very good. However, this was not the case for the LAM simulations when the forcing was weak.

All the LAM simulations developed mesoscale structures and captured the basic dynamic and thermodynamic structure of the front. However, all of the LAMs failed to capture some important facets of the cloud structure. In particular, while they all captured the upper level cirrus cloud, none of the LAMs developed any significant middle-level cloud ahead of the front. This feature is evident in both the station points and box average representations for the cloud water. At 20km resolution the mesoscale motions determine the extent of the cloud ice or water mixing ratios. A major deficiency in the LAMs is the excessive development of cirrus cloud and the absence of middle-level cloud. There is strong evidence to suggest that sublimation by the cirrus triggers the mesoscale descent that suppresses the development of middle-level cloud.

The deficiency in the LAMs is supported by both the ISCPP analyses and the surface observations and results in part from the descending air generated by the sublimating cirrus layer. The diabatic effects arising from the sublimation, melting and evaporation are a feature of this case. The 20km LAM simulation demonstrated that these diabatic processes represent both a physical reality and a model problem. The evaporation between 700hPa and the surface is real and confirmed by observation. It is an important thermodynamic feature of the front. However, the sublimation of ice crystals from the cirrus well ahead of the front is too strong and is responsible for suppressing the middle-level cloud. GCMs run in weather prediction mode are approaching this resolution and are likely to experience the same problem.

The CRM simulations show that the increased horizontal resolution and the use of explicit cloud schemes assist in the generation of the middle-level cloud ahead of the front. The CRM simulations show that the evaporative cooling ahead of the front produced circulations not resolved by the LAMS. Furthermore, the MC2 CRM started to develop the observed rainband structure. It is likely that even better simulations would be achieved with increased vertical resolution.

The diagnosis of satellite compatible model outputs produced model fields that could be directly compared to satellite retrievals in the ISCCP data sets. Some of the deficiencies in the model cloud simulations revealed by the model-satellite comparisons were similar to the ones found when the models were compared to the field observations. The satellite retrievals, however, provided the tool to extend the spatial coverage of the comparisons and to validate the model runs over the whole domain covered by the storm system. For example, the low cloud deck upstream of the front in the early stages of its development, and the cirrus cloud deck at the northern tail of the storms during its mature stage, were features that were outside the CFRP observational network. Model-satellite comparisons should be further tuned to produce model fields that are quantitatively equivalent to the satellite retrievals and should be extended to include other satellite retrieved fields such as rain amounts and cloud particle phase and sizes.

Extension of the methodology to improve cloud parameterization in GCMs
The second step in the methodology was to investigate how the results from the LAM and CRM simulations can be applied to improve the parameterization of cloud processes in GCMs. Two methodologies were explored and some preliminary conclusions drawn. The first technique was to run the GCM at GCM resolution in forecast mode and then to compare the GCM simulation with the LAM or CRM simulation average back onto the GCM grid.

The second technique was to use SCMs. The present set of SCM studies shows that great care has to be taken with specifying the forcing given to the SCM. A comparison between the DARLAM simulation and the two SCMs showed that the amount of cloud condensate differs substantially between the three simulations.

The validation of the SCM approach has not been resolved by this paper. However, a strategy is proposed in the paper to resolve the uncertainties.

4. Synthesis of Model Intercomparisons for CFRP, CASP II and BASE

The analysis of this typical Australian case has led, therefore, to a number of critical advances towards realizing the overall goal of properly accounting for frontal systems within larger scale models. The methodology is currently being applied by the GCSS WG3 to two additional case studies from the BASE and CASP II data sets. The combination of the CFRP, BASE and CASP II cases represents three very different types of storms that occur in three different storm tracks. All three cases have been modeled by a combination of the following modeling systems. The LAMs used were DARLAM, MC2, REMO, RAMS and UKMO. The CRMS used were MC2, RAMS and GESIMA, and the SCMs were CCCma, ECHAM and ECMWF.

The synthesizing of the results from all three cases raises the following issues that are being addressed by the Working Group and will be put in the form of a draft paper at the 5th Workshop planned for Reading, UK in 1999. The first issue relates to how we transfer the knowledge from the CRMs to the LAM scales for NWP forecasting and to GCMs for climate forecasting. The second relates to how we can overcome the problems with SCMs identified in the methodology paper.

The synthesis of the three cases showed that these cloud systems can be simulated by state-of-the-art mesoscale and cloud resolving model. There is also evidence to suggest that the CRMs perform better in the three case studies. It is not yet clear how well the climate scale GCMs are able to capture these systems. The cloud survey technique provides the methodology to complete this task. The issue of how SCMs should be forced to parameterize the grid average dynamics and physics in a CRM or LAM is as yet unresolved.

5. Outcomes from Cloud Survey initiative

George Tselioudis reported on a completed study to develop a methodology to construct survey cloud datasets for climate model validations by Tselioudis, Jacob and Lohmann. A copy of the paper accompanies this report. The methodology uses climatological cloud and meteorology datasets to survey the properties of mid-latitude layered clouds and the variation of those properties with dynamic regime. They concluded that the proposed cloud survey datasets provided a large-scale framework for field study/cloud resolving model investigations and a benchmark for climate model validation and improvement.

6. GCSS FASTEX case study

Eleven systems were studied with both dropsondes and simultaneous airborne Doppler radar measurements in the Fronts and Atlantic Storm Tracks Experiment (FASTEX) to produce a unique collection of datasets. Initial problems were encountered because of the very new observing systems used, particularly GPS dropsondes, and the complex coordination over the large ocean area, but these were solved in time for the second month of the experiment, February 1997, which included a particularly vigorous set of weather systems. Meteo France is maintaining a central database, while several participant web sites have relevant information; the JCMM site has brief overview documentation of all cases.

The five most relevant cases were reviewed in terms of both the Working Group 3 objectives and the possibility of joint study with the other working groups. The most appropriate cases for process studies were expected to result from the systematic survey flight plan using a set of parallel system-relative flight tracks of all three aircraft. In practice the best case is that from Intensive Observing Period (IOP) 16, observations with dropsondes and one Doppler radar aircraft of the early development of a secondary frontal wave. The soundings show substantial mesoscale dynamical structure in mid-troposphere which are thought to be indicative of sublimation effects. Despite a good simulation of the surface pressure evolution the internal precipitation and frontal structure is proving to be a demanding subject for model studies, and so is currently being studied at UKMO as a suitable case for comparisons, given an improved initial analysis.

A second event, IOP 11, was also highlighted. It was a large primary cyclone very thoroughly observed with dropsondes and both Doppler and radar aircraft, and showed a range of interesting internal structures in both warm and cold frontal zones. It will be investigated as a possible example of a mature end of a storm-track system.

Some problems of suspected bias in sonde humidity measurements are currently being investigated, but it is expected that definitive observations will be available within 3-6 months.

The possibility of study by the other GCSS working groups was discussed. Overall it was felt that a FASTEX study for Working Groups 1 and 4 was not practical because study of each type of cloud system requires its own characteristic type of observational configuration and validation information. These were simply not possible in the circumstances of the experiment, which had very different objectives, equipment and expertise. For example, active convection was not a feature of most of the systems observed. It was encountered in rather cold airmasses studied in IOPs 12 and 18, but cirrus tops were normally above the highest aircraft while because of practical difficulties the distribution of observations was unsuitable to obtain the high quality diagnostic information needed for good stratiform cloud system studies.

If any case were to be studied by all groups a reduced set of standards would have to be defined, which would probably render the study much less useful than the individual groups' studies.

7. GCSS orographic strategy

The starting point for the development of an orographic strategy was the paper prepared by David Wratt following the Working Group 3 workshop in Australia in 1997. The paper is attached as an appendix to the Echuca workshop report presented to the 6th GCSS Science Panel in Boulder Colorado. The paper identified the following major issues that needed to be addressed.

To properly account for clouds associated with frontal systems in climate models, a number of actions are being initiated within the working group. First of all, orography can alter the cloud fields in many different ways and the key scientific concerns are first of all being identified. To help accomplish this, arrangements are being made to discuss the overall issue at several upcoming meetings (for example, the Mountains & Climate Conference in June/July 1998 and IUGG'99). Second, specific cases are being identified. One case is being assembled from TREX by Prof. Fujiyoshi to allow for model intercomparison and topographic sensitivity studies. As well, researchers associated with the recent Arizona cloud experiment are being encouraged to participate in the effort. Third, there are still plans to utilize the ISCCP information to better document the occurrence and nature of orographic clouds. In summary, the working group is moving ahead with its orographic clouds initiative.

8. Recommendations for the design of future field studies

Cloud layering/Cloud radars
It is becoming more apparent through the activities of the working group that several critical components of frontal systems need to be observed simultaneously. The dynamic, thermodynamic, water vapor and precipitation fields are, of course, all critical. In addition, the cloud fields through, for example, their layering structure and associated diabatic heating and cooling, also play a fundamental role in the determination of the structure and evolution of the systems. The clouds do not just exist as a consequence of the first four fields and so the overall frontal system cannot be adequately understood otherwise.

The working group therefore recommends that future experimental plans include a strong cloud layering component to their observational strategy. One example of an upcoming experiment is BRIDGE, a major effort within BALTEX, that will measure very well all of the first four fields mentioned above. If feasible, more attention should be paid to the improved measurement of the layering and cloud structure of frontal systems to be observed within this experiment. This might be accomplished, for example, through the use of more cloud radar observations.

For the same reasons, the group is highly supportive of proposed satellite-borne cloud radars. Such instruments will map out the critical cloud layering fields within a range of frontal systems.

One part of the EU funded project NEWBALTIC II is a greater in depth study of LAM simulations for selected cyclones that occurred during the period of August to November 1995 over the Baltic Sea catchment area. The LAMs HIRLAM (from SMHI, Sweden), RACMO (from KNMI, Netherlands), REMO-MPI (Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Germany), and REMO-GKSS (GKSS, Germany) took part in this study. This project can take advantage of the experiences and methods of the Australian CFRP case study.

9. Workshop 1999

The 5th Working Group 3 workshop is planned to be held in Reading in July 1999 and will be hosted by JCMM. The first aim of the workshop is to complete the generalization of the results from the CFRP, BASE and CASP II model/model and model/observations intercomparison case. The second aim of the workshop is to undertake a FASTEX intercomparison case taking into account the requirements of Working Groups 2 and 3. The final aim is examine a Japanese orographic case study as part of the development of a strategy to determine the impact of orography on cloud parameterizations in GCMs.

10. Archiving of model data sets

The working group is developing a consistent archiving system for its work. Last year, two CDs were produced for the CASP II and BASE cases and these were distributed to a number of researchers. Based upon feedback from these individuals, version 2 CDs will be produced of these two cases in the summer of 1998. In addition, a CD will also be produced in the summer of 1998 of the appropriate model data for the CASP II case. This information will also be distributed to other researchers for their use and suggestions for improvements. Once finalized, a model CD will be produced for the BASE case as well. It is expected that all of the working group cases will eventually have CDs (or an equivalent medium) as one legacy of its activities.

11. Workshop Conclusions

The scientific viewpoints in Working Group 3 have matured with the model/model and model/observation intercomparisons with firm conclusions and recommendations coming from the workshop. However, Working Group 3 is still under-represented by the GCM modeling community.

The workshop concluded that the generation of middle-level and high level cloud is a serious problem for mesoscale models. The mesoscale models underestimate the middle-level cloud generated by frontal systems and the models probably overestimate the amount high cloud associated with the frontal system.

The model intercomparison identified the importance of the feedback between the diabatic effects from sublimation, melting and evaporation and the prefrontal circulation. In particular the intercomparison pointed to evidence suggesting that the sublimating cirrus in the model triggers the prefrontal descent that suppresses the middle-level cloud.

The workshop identified the feedback of cirrus on the frontal circulation as both a model problem and a process reality.

The workshop addressed the problem of transferring the knowledge of cloud systems gained from case studies of cloud systems to the cloud climatologies generated by NWP and climate models. The linking of satellite and large-scale datasets were seen as an integral part of the strategy for the model validation and an essential part of the solution to the problem of parameterizing the climatology of cloud properties and processes in GCMs. The workshop demonstrated the importance of models diagnosing fields that are comparable with satellite products.

The workshop saw SCMs as an important tool for identifying strengths and weaknesses of current GCM cloud packages. However, the limitations on the application of SCMs to extra-tropical layer cloud systems are still unclear.

The workshop made recommendations for future observational studies (e.g. NEWBALTEX and BRIDGE). Working Group 3 is now better situated to advise on requirements for cloud satellite missions, i.e. Working Group 3 is better able to articulate the arguments for ground truthing clouds by using observational techniques (cloud radars) and modeling techniques.

The workshop recommends that a suitable case from FASTEX for Working Groups 2 (cirrus) and 3 (middle-level cloud) is IOP 16. It was considered that there were no highly recommended cases from FASTEX for Working Groups 1 and 2.

The workshop made no firm conclusions regarding a GCSS orographic cloud strategy, although recommendations were made to pursue the development of such a strategy.

12. Action Items

November 1998

July 1999

13. Workshop Participants

Sid Clough
JCMM
University of Reading
PO Box 243
Earley Gate, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2BB
UNITED KINGDOM

Yasushi Fujiyoshi
Inst. Low Temperature Sciences
Hokkaido University
N-19, W-8 Sapparo 060
Japan 

Jack Katzfey
CSIRO Atmospheric Research
Private Bag 1 
Aspendale, Victoria, 3195
Australia

Elke Keup-Thiel 
GKSS Forschungszentrum
Max-Plank-Strasse
D-21502 Geesthacht
Germany

Humphrey Lean
JCMM
University of Reading
PO Box 243
Earley Gate,Reading, Berkshire RG6 2BB
UNITED KINGDOM

Lubomir Levkov
GKSS Forschungszentrum 
Max-Plank-Strasse
D-21502 Geesthacht
Germany

John McBride
Bureau of Meteorology
150 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne, Victoria 3000
Australia

Burkhardt Rockel
GKSS Forschungszentrum
Max-Plank-Strasse
D-21502 Geesthacht
Germany

Brian Ryan
CSIRO Atmospheric Research
Private Bag 1 
Aspendale, Victoria, 3195
Australia

Ron Stewart
Climate Processes and Earth Observing Division
Atmospheric Environment Service
Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4
CANADA

Kit Szeto
Climate Processes and Earth Observing Division
Atmospheric Environment Service
Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4
CANADA

George Tselioudis
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
USA

Peter Yau
Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences
McGill University
Montreal, QC
Canada H3A 2K6


Ying Zhang 
GKSS Forschungszentrum
Max-Plank-Strasse
D-21502 Geesthacht
Germany

14. Acronyms

BALTEX Baltic Sea Experiment
BASE Beaufort and Arctic Storms Experiment
BRIDGE Baltic Sea Experiment 1999-2001
CASP II Canadian Atlantic Storms Program II
CCCma Canadian Centre for Climate for Modeling and Analysis
CFRP Cold Fronts Research Program
CRM Cloud Resolving Model
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
CSU Colorado State University
DARLAM CSIRO Limited Area Model
ECMWF European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting
ECHAM European Centre/Hamburg Model
EU European Union
FASTEX Fronts and Atlantic Storm-Track Experiment
GCM General Circulation Model
GCSS GEWEX Cloud System Study
GKSS Research CentreGeesthacht
GISS Goddard Institute of Space Science
GESIMA Geesthacht Simulation Model of the Atmosphere
ISCCP International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project
IOP Intensive Observing Period
JCMM Joint Centre for Mesoscale Meteorology
LAM Limited Area Model
MC2 Canadian Mesoscale Compressible Community model
NEWBALTIC II Numerical Studies of the Energy and Water Cycle of the Baltic Region
NWP Numerical Weather Prediction
RAMS Regional Atmospheric Modeling System
REMO Regional scale Model used by GKSS
SCM Single Column Model
TREX Torrential Rainfall Experiment
UKMO United Kingdom Meteorological Office

← Back to GCSS Working Group 3 homepage