How Difficult is it to Reduce Low-Level Cloud Biases With the Higher-Order Turbulence Closure Approach in Climate Models?

Abstract

Low-level clouds cover nearly half of the Earth and play a critical role in regulating the energy and hydrological cycle. Despite the fact that a great effort has been put to advance the modeling and observational capability in recent years, low-level clouds remains one of the largest uncertainties in the projection of future climate change. Low-level cloud feedbacks dominate the uncertainty in the total cloud feedback in climate sensitivity and projection studies. These clouds are notoriously difficult to simulate in climate models due to its complicated interactions with aerosols, cloud microphysics, boundary-layer turbulence and cloud dynamics. The biases in both low cloud coverage/water content and cloud radiative effects (CREs) remain large. A simultaneous reduction in both cloud and CRE biases remains elusive. This presentation first reviews the effort of implementing the higher-order turbulence closure (HOC) approach to representing subgrid-scale turbulence and low-level cloud processes in climate models. There are two HOCs that have been implemented in climate models. They differ in how many three-order moments are used. The CLUBB are implemented in both CAM5 and GDFL models, which are compared with IPHOC that is implemented in CAM5 by our group. IPHOC uses three third-order moments while CLUBB only uses one third-order moment while both use a joint double-Gaussian distribution to represent the subgrid-scale variability. Despite that HOC is more physically consistent and produces more realistic low-cloud geographic distributions and transitions between cumulus and stratocumulus regimes, GCMs with traditional cloud parameterizations outperform in CREs because tuning of this type of models is more extensively performed than those with HOCs. We perform several tuning experiments with CAM5 implemented with IPHOC in an attempt to produce the nearly balanced global radiative budgets without deteriorating the low-cloud simulation. One of the issues in CAM5-IPHOC is that cloud water content is much higher than in CAM5, which is combined with higher low-cloud coverage to produce larger shortwave CREs in some low-cloud prevailing regions. Thus, the cloud-radiative feedbacks are exaggerated there. The turning exercise is focused on microphysical parameters, which are also commonly used for tuning in climate models. The results will be discussed in this presentation