Search NASASearch

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “subcolumn generation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

The Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2) v1.1: An Open-Source Ground-Based Lidar and Radar Instrument Simulator and Subcolumn Generator for Large-Scale Models

Climate models are essential for our comprehensive understanding of Earth's atmosphere and can provide critical insights on future changes decades ahead. Because of these critical roles, today's climate models are continuously being developed and evaluated using constraining observations and measurements obtained by satellites, airborne, and ground-based instruments. Instrument simulators can provide a bridge between the measured or retrieved quantities and their sampling in models and field observations while considering instrument sensitivity limitations. Here we present the Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2), an open-source ground-based lidar and radar instrument simulator and subcolumn generator, specifically designed for large-scale models, in particular climate models, but also applicable to high-resolution model output. EMC2 provides a flexible framework enabling direct comparison of model output with ground-based observations, including generation of subcolumns that may statistically represent finer model spatial resolutions. In addition, EMC2 emulates ground-based (and air- or space-borne) measurements while remaining faithful to large-scale models' physical assumptions implemented in their cloud or radiation schemes. The simulator uses either single particle or bulk particle size distribution lookup tables, depending on the selected scheme approach, to perform the forward calculations. To facilitate model evaluation, EMC2 also includes three hydrometeor classification methods, namely, radar- and sounding-based cloud and precipitation detection and classification, lidar-based phase classification, and a Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observational Simulator Package (COSP) lidar simulator emulator. The software is written in Python, is easy to use, and can be straightforwardly customized for different models, radars, and lidars. Following the description of the logic, functionality, features, and software structure of EMC2, we present a case study of highly supercooled mixed-phase cloud based on measurements from the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) West Antarctic Radiation Experiment (AWARE). We compare observations with the application of EMC2 to outputs from four configurations of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climate model (ModelE3) in single-column model (SCM) mode and from a large-eddy simulation (LES) model. We show that two of the four ModelE3 configurations can form and maintain highly supercooled precipitating cloud for several hours, consistent with observations and LES. While our focus is on one of these ModelE3 configurations, which performed slightly better in this case study, both of these configurations and the LES results post-processed with EMC2 generally provide reasonable agreement with observed lidar and radar variables. As briefly demonstrated here, EMC2 can provide a lightweight and flexible framework for comparing the results of both large-scale and high-resolution models directly with observations, with relatively little overhead and multiple options for achieving consistency with model microphysical or radiation scheme physics.

Earth Model Column Collaboratory

Assessment of Two Stochastic Cloud Subcolumn Generators Using Observed Fields of Vertically Resolved Cloud Extinction

We evaluate two stochastic subcolumn generators used in GCMs to emulate subgrid cloud variability enabling comparisons with satellite observations and simulations of certain physical processes. Our evaluation necessitated the creation of a reference observational dataset that resolves horizontal and vertical cloud variability. The dataset combines two CloudSat cloud products that resolve two-dimensional cloud optical depth variability of liquid, ice, and mixed phase clouds when blended at ~200 m vertical and ~ 2 km horizontal scales. Upon segmenting the dataset to individual “scenes”, mean profiles of the cloud fields are passed as input to generators that produce scene-level cloud subgrid variability. The assessment of generator performance at the scale of individual scenes and in a mean sense is largely based on inferred joint histograms that partition cloud fraction within predetermined combinations of cloud top pressure –cloud optical thickness ranges. Our main finding is that both generators tend to underestimate optically thin clouds, while one of them also tends to overestimate some cloud types of moderate and high optical thickness. Associated radiative flux errors are also calculated by applying a simple transformation to the cloud fraction histogram errors, and are found to approach values almost as high as 3 Wm-2 for the cloud radiative effect in the shortwave part of the spectrum.

cloud variability

Reconstructing Subgrid Cloud Variability Guided by CloudSat/CALIPSO Observations

Predicting realistic cloud subgrid variability remains a challenge for Global Climate Models (GCMs) even though it can play an important role for proper representation of processes pertaining to cloud microphysics, precipitation, and radiation, but also for comparisons with satellite observations which are of much higher resolution than model grids. The diagnostic approach of subgrid cloud variability is commonly handled by subcolumn cloud generators. For a specific GCM, one ideally wants the subgrid variability used for comparisons with satellite observations to be created by the same generator and with the same rules as the one used for model integration. With this in mind, we have embarked in an effort to test and improve cloud subcolumn generators appropriate for GCMs. For this purpose, we use cloud (hydrometeor) products from active observations by the CloudSat radar (CPR) and the CALIPSO lidar (CALIOP). Cloud products from active sensors while suffering significant sampling and coverage drawbacks have the advantage of resolving both horizontal and vertical variability. The main question is: given a profile of cloud condensate mean and variance, can we create a subgrid cloud field that is statistically similar to the observed subgrid cloud field? By “statistically”, we suggest that we do not aspire to reproduce “well” each individual subgrid cloud field of a GCM-scale region, but that our generator performs well for a large ensemble of cases. We simulate radar, passive imager, and radiation flux fields from the observed 2D cloud fields and create one-point statistics; we use the profiles of cloud condensate mean and variance as input to the generator to create subgrid cloud fields; we compare the statistics; we adjust the rules of the generator to create the best possible agreement between the radar, imager and radiation field statistics. In this process, the active observations have actually a dual role: they provide the actual subgrid cloud field which can be reduced to a profile of mean and variance used by the subcolumn generator, but they also provide the rules needed by the generator, such as measures (e.g, decorrelation length) of the vertical overlap of cloud fraction and of the condensate horizontal variability. This presentation will show our progress using Cloudsat and CALIPSO products in this dual fashion.

cloud

Reconstructing Subgrid Cloud Variability Guided by CloudSat/CALIPSO Observations

Predicting realistic cloud subgrid variability remains a challenge for Global Climate Models (GCMs) even though it can play an important role for proper representation of processes pertaining to cloud microphysics, precipitation, and radiation, but also for comparisons with satellite observations which are of much higher resolution than model grids. The diagnostic approach of subgrid cloud variability is commonly handled by subcolumn cloud generators. For a specific GCM, one ideally wants the subgrid variability used for comparisons with satellite observations to be created by the same generator and with the same rules as the one used for model integration. With this in mind, we have embarked in an effort to test and improve cloud subcolumn generators appropriate for GCMs. For this purpose, we use cloud (hydrometeor) products from active observations by the CloudSat radar (CPR) and the CALIPSO lidar (CALIOP). Cloud products from active sensors while suffering signi􀂦cant sampling and coverage drawbacks have the advantage of resolving both horizontal and vertical variability. The main question is: given a profile of cloud condensate mean and variance, can we create a subgrid cloud field that is statistically similar to the observed subgrid cloud field? By “statistically”, we suggest that we do not aspire to reproduce “well” each individual subgrid cloud field of a GCM-scale region, but that our generator performs well for a large ensemble of cases. We simulate radar, passive imager, and radiation flux fields from the observed 2D cloud fields and create one-point statistics; we use the profiles of cloud condensate mean and variance as input to the generator to create subgrid cloud fields; we compare the statistics; we adjust the rules of the generator to create the best possible agreement between the radar, imager and radiation field statistics. In this process, the active observations have actually a dual role: they provide the actual subgrid cloud field which can be reduced to a profile of mean and variance used by the subcolumn generator, but they also provide the rules needed by the generator, such as measures (e.g, decorrelation length) of the vertical overlap of cloud fraction and of the condensate horizontal variability. This presentation will show our progress using Cloudsat and CALIPSO products in this dual fashion.

clouds