Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Toward a Numerical Benchmark for Warm Rain Processes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Toward a Numerical Benchmark for Warm Rain Processes
Do you wish to request the book?
Toward a Numerical Benchmark for Warm Rain Processes
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Toward a Numerical Benchmark for Warm Rain Processes
2023
Overview
The Kinematic Driver-Aerosol (KiD-A) intercomparison was established to test the hypothesis that detailed warm microphysical schemes provide a benchmark for lower-complexity bulk microphysics schemes. KiD-A is the first intercomparison to compare multiple Lagrangian cloud models (LCMs), size bin-resolved schemes, and double-moment bulk microphysics schemes in a consistent 1D dynamic framework and box cases. In the absence of sedimentation and collision–coalescence, the drop size distributions (DSDs) from the LCMs exhibit similar evolution with expected physical behaviors and good interscheme agreement, with the volume mean diameter ( D vol ) from the LCMs within 1%–5% of each other. In contrast, the bin schemes exhibit nonphysical broadening with condensational growth. These results further strengthen the case that LCMs are an appropriate numerical benchmark for DSD evolution under condensational growth. When precipitation processes are included, however, the simulated liquid water path, precipitation rates, and response to modified cloud drop/aerosol number concentrations from the LCMs vary substantially, while the bin and bulk schemes are relatively more consistent with each other. The lack of consistency in the LCM results stems from both the collision–coalescence process and the sedimentation process, limiting their application as a numerical benchmark for precipitation processes. Reassuringly, however, precipitation from bulk schemes, which are the basis for cloud microphysics in weather and climate prediction, is within the spread of precipitation from the detailed schemes (LCMs and bin). Overall, this intercomparison identifies the need for focused effort on the comparison of collision–coalescence methods and sedimentation in detailed microphysics schemes, especially LCMs.
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Subject
