PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Evaluation of Global Climate and Storm-Resolving Model Representations of Mixed-Phase Clouds and Their Hemispheric Contrasts

View Full Paper
OBOlimpia BrunoJSJonah ShawTSTrude Storelvmo

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate how well climate and storm-resolving models represent mixed-phase clouds and their contrasts globally.
  • Compared satellite observations from AVHRR and MODIS with climate and storm-resolving models.
  • Assessed the Community Atmosphere Model version 6, Oslo configuration (CAM6-Oslo).
  • Evaluated additional models including ICON, SCREAM, and GEOS.
  • Analyzed geographic distribution of mixed-phase clouds and their properties.
  • All models replicate mixed-phase cloud distribution, but details vary significantly.
  • CAM6-Oslo showed the best agreement regarding hemispheric contrasts of supercooled liquid fraction.
  • Model performance was influenced by aerosol–cloud interactions and microphysics schemes.
  • Storm-resolving models did not fully resolve global mixed-phase cloud challenges.

Abstract

Mixed-phase clouds, in which liquid droplets and ice crystals coexist at temperatures between −38∘C and 0∘C, play a critical role in Earth’s radiation budget. Here, we assess the ability of climate and storm-resolving models to represent mixed-phase cloud properties and their hemispheric contrasts as inferred from satellite observations. We compare observations from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) with one global climate model, the Community Atmosphere Model version 6, Oslo configuration (CAM6-Oslo), and three storm-resolving models: the ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic model (ICON), the Simple Cloud-Resolving E3SM Atmosphere Model (SCREAM), and the Goddard Earth Observing System model (GEOS). Our results show that all models reproduce the geographic distribution of mixed-phase clouds but differ significantly in detail. CAM6-Oslo yields the closest agreement in hemispheric contrasts of supercooled liquid fraction and its relationship with the liquid effective radius. Our results highlight the role of aerosol–cloud interactions and microphysics schemes in determining model performance and demonstrate that storm-resolving models still do not overcome the challenge of representing mixed-phase clouds at global scales.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bruno et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980ffe7c1c9540dea812cc4https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos17020156
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Evaluation of Global Climate and Storm-Resolving Model Representations of Mixed-Phase Clouds and Their Hemispheric Contrasts2026
  2. 2Exposing and Reducing Biases of Simulating Mixed‐Phase Clouds in the Convection‐Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model: Lessons From an Arctic Cold‐Air Outbreak2026 · 1 citations
  3. 3Hemispheric Asymmetry of Phase Partition in Mixed‐Phase Clouds Based on Near Global‐Scale Airborne Observations2025 · 2 citations
  4. 4Large discrepancies in dominant microphysical processes governing mixed-phase clouds across climate models2026
  5. 5Realistic representation of mixed-phase clouds increases projected climate warming2024 · 29 citations