Modeling a Stratocumulus-Topped PBL: Intercomparison among Different One-Dimensional Codes and with Large Eddy Simulation

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society rameterization schemes for use in general circulation models (GCMs) and (ii) to develop new parameterization schemes based on numerical data generated from large eddy simulations (LESs) or cloud resolving models (CRMs) (Browning 1993). While 3D LESs can explicitly resolve most of the turbulent eddies, CRMs, which resolve only large cloud elements, are generally utilized for studies on larger domains using lower horizontal resolutions and, therefore, require more sophisticated subgrid turbulence parameterization. To have a high degree of confidence in data generated from LESs or CRMs, we have to validate these models against each other or against observations. The long-term strategy of the boundary layer working group of GCSS is to gradually model all the different types of cloud-topped boundary layers (stratocumulus, shallow cumulus, cloudiness transition). The first workshop focused on a simple idealized stratocumulus-topped boundary layer. Ten LES and four 2D CRM groups, as well as six one-dimensional (1D) cloud modeling groups, participated in this workshop. Moeng et al. (1996) report the setup of the intercomparison experiment, present an intercompariModeling a Stratocumulus-Topped PBL: Intercomparison among Different One-Dimensional Codes and with Large Eddy Simulation