Advanced Search
Article Contents

Vertical Structures of Convective and Stratiform Clouds in Boreal Summer over the Tibetan Plateau and Its Neighboring Regions

Fund Project:

National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 91437219, 91637312 and 91637101), the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. QYZDY-SSW-DQC018)


doi: 10.1007/s00376-019-8229-4

  • Cloud is essential in the atmosphere, condensing water vapor and generating strong convective or large-scale persistent precipitation. In this work, the relationships between cloud vertical macro- or microphysical properties, radiative heating rate, and precipitation for convective and stratiform clouds in boreal summer over the Tibetan Plateau (TP) are analyzed and compared with its neighboring land and tropical oceans based on CloudSat/CALIPSO satellite measurements and TRMM precipitation data. The precipitation intensity caused by convective clouds is twofold stronger than that by stratiform clouds. The vertical macrophysics of both cloud types show similar features over the TP, with the region weakening the precipitation intensity and compressing the cloud vertical expansion and variation in cloud top height, but having an uplift effect on the average cloud top height. The vertical microphysics of both cloud types under conditions of no rain over the TP are characterized by lower-level ice water, ice particles with a relatively larger range of sizes, and a relatively lower occurrence of denser ice particles. The features are similar to other regions when precipitation enhances, but convective clouds gather denser and larger ice particles than stratiform clouds over the TP. The atmospheric shortwave (longwave) heating (cooling) rate strengthens with increased precipitation for both cloud types. The longwave cooling layer is thicker when the rainfall rate is less than 100 mm d−1, but the net heating layer is typically compressed for the profiles of both cloud types over the TP. This study provides insights into the associations between clouds and precipitation, and an observational basis for improving the simulation of convective and stratiform clouds over the TP in climate models.
    摘要: 云通过凝结水汽形成强对流性降水或大范围持续性降水在大气中扮演着重要的角色。本文采用CloudSat/CALIPSO卫星资料和TRMM降水资料,对比研究了夏季青藏高原与其临近陆地和海洋地区对流云和层状云宏、微观垂直结构,云辐射加热和降水的关系。研究发现对流云造成的平均降水强度是层状云的两倍。青藏高原对流云和层状云的宏观垂直结构具有相似的特征,高原大地形的存在削弱了降水强度,压缩了云体垂直扩张范围,但是抬升了平均云顶高度。与其它地区相比,当无降水发生时,青藏高原对流云和层状云的微观垂直结构都具有云中固态水分布高度低、固态粒子尺寸丰富、数浓度较大的固态粒子群更不容易出现等特点。随着降水增强,青藏高原上对流云和层状云的微观垂直结构均表现出与其它地区相似的特征,但是与层状云相比,青藏高原上的对流云具有更密集、更大尺寸的粒子群。两种类型云出现时,大气短波(长波)加热(冷却)率均随着降水增强而增强。当两种类型云的降水强度小于100 mm d-1时,与其它地区相比,高原上的长波辐射冷却层较厚,净辐射加热层被显著压缩。本研究提供了云和降水之间关系的新视角,为气候模式中青藏高原地区对流云和层状云的参数化改进提供了观测基础。
  • 加载中
  • Figure 1.  Monthly mean precipitation intensity of convective clouds, stratiform clouds and convective clouds or stratiform clouds in rain and no-rain conditions over the (a) TP, (b) NIST, and (c) TO. J to D in x-axis stand for calendar month January to December.

    Figure 2.  Joint PDFs of (a−c) convective precipitation intensity and cloud top height and (d−f) stratiform precipitation intensity and total cloud top height, in summer (June−July−August), over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

    Figure 3.  Joint PDFs of (a−c) convective precipitation intensity and total cloud thickness and (d−f) stratiform precipitation intensity and total cloud thickness, in summer (June−July−August), over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST, and (c, f) TO regions.

    Figure 4.  Spatial pattern of averaged (a, c) total cloud thickness and (b, d) cloud top height for (a, b) convective clouds and (c, d) stratiform clouds in summer (June−July−August). The three black boxes from top to bottom represent the TP, NIST and TO regions in each plot. Units: km.

    Figure 5.  Normalized CFADs (color shades) of (a−c) natural logarithm of cloud ice water content (CIW, unit: mg m−3), (d−f) number concentration, and (g−i) effective radius over the (a, d, g) TP, (b, e, h) NIST and (c, f, i) TO regions for convective cloud in no-rain conditions in summer. The x-axis bin for (a−c) is 0.1 (the corresponding value of ice water content is e0.1 mg m−3), for (d−f) it is 8 L−1, and for (g−i) it is 2.5 μm. The y-axis bin for all plots is 240 m. The curve on the right-hand side of each plot is the PDF of different altitudes. The curve at the bottom of each plot is the PDF of different variable values. There are 123 924, 83 276 and 998 349 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively

    Figure 6.  As in Fig. 5 but for stratiform cloud in no-rain conditions. There are 305 398, 240 993 and 2 396 601 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively.

    Figure 7.  As in Fig. 5 but for convective cloud in rainstorm or larger-magnitude rain conditions (> 50 mm d−1). There are 3205, 11 182 and 152 397 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively.

    Figure 8.  As in Fig. 5 but for stratiform cloud in rainstorm or larger-magnitude rain conditions (> 50 mm d−1). There are 2019, 9628 and 83 944 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively.

    Figure 9.  Vertical structure of atmospheric SW radiative heating rate in different precipitation intensities for (a−c) convective and (d−f) stratiform profiles in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions, respectively.

    Figure 10.  Vertical structure of atmospheric LW radiative heating rate in different precipitation intensities for (a−c) convective and (d−f) stratiform profiles in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

    Figure S1.  Seasonally averaged spatial pattern of precipitation intensity by (a−d) convective clouds, (e−h) stratiform clouds, and (i−l) convective or stratiform clouds in rain and no-rain conditions. The red boxes in (i) represent the TP, NIST and TO regions used in this study. Units: mm h−1.

    Figure S2.  Average vertical distribution of cloud amount in different (a−c) convective precipitation intensities and (d−f) stratiform precipitation intensities in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

    Figure S3.  Vertical structure of atmospheric net (SW+LW) radiative heating rate in different precipitation intensities for (a−c) convective and (d−f) stratiform profiles in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

  • Austin, R., 2007: Level 2B radar-only cloud water content (2B-CWC-RO) process description document, version 5.1. CloudSat Project Report, 24 pp. [Available from http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/data-products/level-2b/2b-cwc-ro?term=28.]
    Du, Z. C., R. H. Huang, G. Huang, and J. L. Chen, 2011: The characteristics of spatial and temporal distributions of convective rainfall and stratiform rainfall in the Asian monsoon region and their possible mechanisms. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 35, 993−1008, https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2011.06.01. (in Chinese)
    Duan, A. M., G. X. Wu, and X. Y. Liang, 2008: Influence of the Tibetan Plateau on the summer climate patterns over Asia in the IAP/LASG SAMIL model. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 25, 518−528, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-008-0518-2.
    Dufresne, J. L., and S. Bony, 2008: An assessment of the primary sources of spread of global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere-ocean models. J. Climate, 21, 5135−5144, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2239.1.
    Fu, Y. F., and G. S. Liu, 2007: Possible misidentification of rain type by TRMM PR over Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 46, 667−672, https://doi.org/10.1175/jam2484.1.
    Fu, Y. F., Y. H. Lin, G. S. Liu, and Q. Wang, 2003: Seasonal characteristics of precipitation in 1998 over East Asia as derived from TRMM PR. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 20, 511−529, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02915495.
    Fu, Y. F., A. M. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Y. Zheng, Y. F. Hu, S. Feng, and A. Q. Cao, 2008: Characteristics of seasonal scale convective and stratiform precipitation in Asia based on measurements by TRMM Precipitation Radar. Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 66, 730−746, https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0577-6619.2008.05.007. (in Chinese)
    Fu, Y. F., A. Q. Cao, T. Y. Li, S. Feng, Y. Y. Zheng, Y. Liu, and A. M. Zhang, 2012: Climatic characteristics of the storm top altitude for the convective and stratiform precipitation in summer Asia based on measurements of the TRMM Precipitation Radar. Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 70, 436−451, https://doi.org/10.11676/qxxb2012.037. (in Chinese)
    Fu, Y. F., and Coauthors, 2016: Recent trends of summer convective and stratiform precipitation in mid-Eastern China. Scientific Reports, 6, 33044, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33044.
    Henderson, D., T. L’Ecuyer, D. Vane, G. Stephens, and D. Reinke, 2011: Level 2B fluxes and heating rates and 2B fluxes and heating rates w/Lidar process description and interface control document, version 1.0. CloudSat Project Report, 28 pp. [Available from http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/data-products/level-2b/2b-flxhr-lidar?term=38.]
    Heymsfield, A. J., and Coauthors, 2008: Testing IWC retrieval methods using radar and ancillary measurements with in situ data. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47, 135−163, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAMC1606.1.
    Hong, Y. L., and G. S. Liu, 2015: The characteristics of ice cloud properties derived from CloudSat and CALIPSO measurements. J. Climate, 28, 3880−3901, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00666.1.
    Houze, R. A., 1982: Cloud clusters and large-scale vertical motions in the tropics. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 60, 396−410, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj1965.60.1_396.
    Houze, R. A., D. C. Wilton, and B. F. Smull, 2007: Monsoon convection in the Himalayan region as seen by the TRMM Precipitation Radar. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 133, 1389−1411, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.106.
    Hu, L., S. Yang, and Y. D. Li, 2010: Diurnal and seasonal climatology of precipitation depth over the Tibetan Plateau and its downstream regions. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 34, 387−398, https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2010.02.12. (in Chinese)
    Hu, L., Y. D. Li, S. Yang, and D. F. Deng, 2011: Seasonal variability in tropical and subtropical convective and stratiform precipitation of the East Asian monsoon. Science China Earth Sciences, 54, 1595−1603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-011-4225-y.
    Hu, Z. X., H. C. Lei, X. L. Guo, D. Z. Jin, Y. B. Qi, and X. Q. Zhang, 2007: Studies of the structure of a stratiform cloud and the physical processes of precipitation formation. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 31, 425−439, https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2007.03.06. (in Chinese)
    Huffman, G. J., and Coauthors, 2007: The TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 8, 38−55, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm560.1.
    Jiang, J. X., X. K. Xiang, and M. Z. Fan, 1996: The spatial and temporal distributions of severe mesoscale convective systems over Tibetan Plateau in summer. Quarterly Journal of Applied Meteorology, 7, 473−478. (in Chinese)
    Li. Y. Y., and M. H. Zhang, 2016: Cumulus over the Tibetan Plateau in the summer based on CloudSat-CALIPSO data. J. Climate, 29, 1219−1230, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0492.1.
    Li, Y. Y., R. C. Yu, Y. P. Xu, and X. H. Zhang, 2004: Spatial distribution and seasonal variation of cloud over China based on ISCCP data and surface observations. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 82, 761−773, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2004.761.
    Liu, P., C. Y. Li, Y. Wang, and Y. F. Fu, 2013: Climatic characteristics of convective and stratiform precipitation over the Tropical and Subtropical areas as derived from TRMM PR. Science China Earth Sciences, 56, 375−385, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-012-4474-4.
    Liu, Y. M., Q. Bao, A. M. Duan, Z. A. Qian, and G. X. Wu, 2007: Recent progress in the impact of the Tibetan Plateau on climate in China. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 24, 1060−1076, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-007-1060-3.
    Lu, C. S., Y. G. Liu, S. J. Niu, and S. Endo, 2014: Scale dependence of entrainment-mixing mechanisms in cumulus clouds. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 13 877−13 890, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022265.
    Luo, Y. L., R. H. Zhang, and H. Wang, 2009: Comparing occurrences and vertical structures of hydrometeors between eastern China and the Indian monsoon region using CloudSat/CALIPSO data. J. Climate, 22, 1052−1064, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2606.1.
    Luo, Y. L., R. H. Zhang, and W. M. Qian, 2011: Intercomparison of deep convection over the Tibetan Plateau-Asian monsoon region and subtropical North America in boreal summer using CloudSat/CALIPSO Data. J. Climate, 24, 2164−2177, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010jcli4032.1.
    Mace, G., 2007: Level 2 GEOPROF product: Process description and interface control document algorithm, version 5.3. CloudSat Project Report, 42pp. [Available from http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/data-products/level-2b/2b-geoprof?term=42.]
    Mace, G., D. Vane, G. Stephens, and D. Reinke, 2007: Level 2 radar-lidar GEOPROF product: Process description and interface control document, version 1.0. CloudSat Project Report, 20pp. [Available from http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/data-products/level-2b/2b-geoprof-lidar?term=48.]
    Matrosov, S. Y., 2007: Potential for attenuation-based estimations of rainfall rate from CloudSat. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05817, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL029161.
    Pan, X., and Y. F. Fu, 2015: Analysis on climatological characteristics of deep and shallow precipitation cloud in summer over Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Plateau Meteorology, 34, 1191−1203, https://doi.org/10.7522/j.issn.1000-0534.2014.00112. (in Chinese)
    Peng, J., H. Zhang, and Z. Q. Li, 2014: Temporal and spatial variations of global deep cloud systems based on CloudSat and CALIPSO satellite observations. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 31, 593−603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-013-3055-6.
    Rüthrich, F., B. Thies, C. Reudenbach, and J. Bendix, 2013: Cloud detection and analysis on the Tibetan Plateau using Meteosat and CloudSat. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 10 082−10 099, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50790.
    Sassen, K., and Z. E. Wang, 2008: Classifying clouds around the globe with the CloudSat radar: 1-year of results. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L04805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032591.
    Schumacher, C., and R. A. Houze Jr., 2003: Stratiform rain in the Tropics as seen by the TRMM Precipitation Radar. J. Climate, 16, 1739−1756, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<1739:SRITTA>2.0.CO;2.
    Shimizu, S., K. Ueno, H. Fujii, H. Yamada, R. Shirooka, and L. P. Liu, 2001: Mesoscale characteristics and structures of stratiform precipitation on the Tibetan Plateau. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 79, 435−461, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.79.435.
    Stephens, G. L., and Coauthors, 2002: The Cloudsat mission and the A-Train: A new dimension of space-based observations of clouds and precipitation. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 1771−1790, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-83-12-1771.
    Tao, W. K., S. Lang, X. P. Zeng, S. Shige, and Y. Takayabu, 2010: Relating convective and stratiform rain to latent heating. J. Climate, 23, 1874−1893, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3278.1.
    Uyeda, H., and Coauthors, 2001: Characteristics of convective clouds observed by a Doppler radar at Naqu on Tibetan Plateau during the GAME-Tibet IOP. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 79, 463−474, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.79.463.
    Wang, H., Y. L. Luo, and R. H. Zhang, 2011b: Analyzing seasonal variation of clouds over the Asian monsoon regions and the Tibetan Plateau region using CloudSat/CALIPSO data. Chinese Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 35, 1117−1131, https://doi.org/10.3878/j.issn.1006-9895.2011.06.11. (in Chinese)
    Wang, X. C., Q. Bao, K. Liu, G. X. Wu, and Y. M. Liu, 2011a: Features of rainfall and latent heating structure simulated by two convective parameterization schemes. Science China Earth Sciences, 54, 1779−1788, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-011-4282-2.
    Wang, Z. E., D. Vane, G. Stephens, and D. Reinke, 2012: Level 2 combined radar and lidar cloud scenario classification product: Process description and interface control document, version 1.0. CloudSat Project Report, 61 pp. [Available from http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/data-products/level-2b/2b-cldclass-lidar?term=26]
    Winker, D. M., W. H. Hunt, and M. J. McGill, 2007: Initial performance assessment of CALIOP. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L19803, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030135.
    Wu, G. X., and Y. S. Zhang, 1998: Tibetan Plateau forcing and the timing of the monsoon onset over South Asia and the South China Sea. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 913−927, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<0913:Tpfatt>2.0.Co;2.
    Wu, Y. H., and L. P. Liu, 2017: Statistical characteristics of raindrop size distribution in the Tibetan Plateau and southern China. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 34(6), 727−736, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-016-5235-7.
    Xu, W. X., 2013: Precipitation and convective characteristics of summer deep convection over East Asia observed by TRMM. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 1577−1592, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00177.1.
    Xu, X. D., C. G. Lu, X. H. Shi, and S. T. Gao, 2008: World water tower: An atmospheric perspective. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20815, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035867.
    Yan, Y. F., Y. M. Liu, and J. H. Lu, 2016: Cloud vertical structure, precipitation, and cloud radiative effects over Tibetan Plateau and its neighboring regions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 121, 5864−5877, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024591.
    Yan, Y. F., X. C. Wang, and Y. M. Liu, 2018: Cloud vertical structures associated with precipitation magnitudes over the Tibetan Plateau and its neighboring regions. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 11, 44−53, https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2018.1395680.
    Yu, R. C., B. Wang, and T. J. Zhou, 2004: Climate effects of the deep continental stratus clouds generated by the Tibetan Plateau. J. Climate, 17, 2702−2713, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<2702:CEOTDC>2.0.CO;2.
    Zhang, M. H., and Coauthors, 2005: Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 110, D15S02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005021.
    Zhang, Y., H. M. Chen and R. C. Yu, 2014: Vertical structures and physical properties of the cold-season stratus clouds downstream of the Tibetan Plateau: Differences between daytime and nighttime. J. Climate, 27, 6857−6876, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00063.1.
  • [1] Shuang LUO, Yunfei FU, Shengnan ZHOU, Xiaofeng WANG, Dongyong WANG, 2020: Analysis of the Relationship between the Cloud Water Path and Precipitation Intensity of Mature Typhoons in the Northwest Pacific Ocean, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 37, 359-376.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-020-9204-9
    [2] LIU Ge, WU Renguang, ZHANG Yuanzhi, and NAN Sulan, 2014: The Summer Snow Cover Anomaly over the Tibetan Plateau and Its Association with Simultaneous Precipitation over the Mei-yu-Baiu region, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 31, 755-764.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-013-3183-z
    [3] Yongguang ZHENG, Yanduo GONG, Jiong CHEN, Fuyou TIAN, 2019: Warm-Season Diurnal Variations of Total, Stratiform, Convective, and Extreme Hourly Precipitation over Central and Eastern China, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 36, 143-159.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-018-7307-3
    [4] WANG Chenghai, SHI Hongxia, HU Haolin, WANG Yi, XI Baike, 2015: Properties of Cloud and Precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 32, 1504-1516.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-015-4254-0
    [5] Jing YANG, Sicheng HE, Qing BAO, 2021: Convective/Large-scale Rainfall Partitions of Tropical Heavy Precipitation in CMIP6 Atmospheric Models, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 38, 1020-1027.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-021-0238-4
    [6] Shuo JIA, Jiefan YANG, Hengchi LEI, 2024: Case Studies of the Microphysical and Kinematic Structure of Summer Mesoscale Precipitation Clouds over the Eastern Tibetan Plateau, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 41, 97-114.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-023-2303-7
    [7] Yilun CHEN, Aoqi ZHANG, Yunfei FU, Shumin CHEN, Weibiao LI, 2021: Morphological Characteristics of Precipitation Areas over the Tibetan Plateau Measured by TRMM PR, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 38, 677-689.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-020-0233-1
    [8] Liu Liping, Feng Jinming, Chu Rongzhong, Zhou Yunjun, K. Ueno, 2002: The Diurnal Variation of Precipitation in Monsoon Season in the Tibetan Plateau, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 19, 365-378.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-002-0028-6
    [9] Gudongze LI, Haoming CHEN, Mingyue XU, Chun ZHAO, Lei ZHONG, Rui LI, Yunfei FU, Yanhong GAO, 2022: Impacts of Topographic Complexity on Modeling Moisture Transport and Precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau in Summer, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 39, 1151-1166.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-022-1409-7
    [10] Xiaying ZHU, Mingzhu YANG, Ge LIU, Yanju LIU, Weijing LI, Sulan NAN, Linhai SUN, 2023: A Precursory Signal of June–July Precipitation over the Yangtze River Basin: December–January Tropospheric Temperature over the Tibetan Plateau, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 40, 1986-1997.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-022-2079-1
    [11] GAO Rong, WEI Zhigang, DONG Wenjie, ZHONG Hailing, 2005: Impact of the Anomalous Thawing in the Tibetan Plateau on Summer Precipitation in China and Its Mechanism, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 22, 238-245.  doi: 10.1007/BF02918513
    [12] Yizhe HAN, Dabang JIANG, Dong SI, Yaoming MA, Weiqiang MA, 2024: Time-lagged Effects of the Spring Atmospheric Heat Source over the Tibetan Plateau on Summer Precipitation in Northeast China during 1961–2020: Role of Soil Moisture, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-023-2363-8
    [13] DUAN Anmin, WU Guoxiong, LIU Yimin, MA Yaoming, ZHAO Ping, 2012: Weather and Climate Effects of the Tibetan Plateau, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 29, 978-992.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-012-1220-y
    [14] Li ZHUO, Dexian FANG, Zheng WU, Juan FANG, 2020: Evolution of the Mid-tropospheric Vortex during the Formation of Super Typhoon Megi (2010), ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 37, 751-765.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-020-9178-7
    [15] LIU Yimin, BAO Qing, DUAN Anmin, QIAN Zheng'an, WU Guoxiong, 2007: Recent Progress in the Impact of the Tibetan Plateau on Climate in China, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 24, 1060-1076.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-007-1060-3
    [16] Li Guo ping, Lu Jinghua, Jin Bingling, Bu Nima, 2001: The Effects of Anomalous Snow Cover of the Tibetan Plateau on the Surface Heating, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 18, 1207-1214.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-001-0034-0
    [17] Kequan ZHANG, Jiakang DUAN, Siyi ZHAO, Jiankai ZHANG, James KEEBLE, Hongwen LIU, 2022: Evaluating the Ozone Valley over the Tibetan Plateau in CMIP6 Models, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 39, 1167-1183.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-021-0442-2
    [18] YOU Wei, ZANG Zengliang, PAN Xiaobin, ZHANG Lifeng, LI Yi, 2015: Statistical Analysis of Thunderstorms on the Eastern Tibetan Plateau Based on Modified Thunderstorm Indices, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 32, 515-527.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-014-4039-x
    [19] Yahao WU, Liping LIU, 2017: Statistical Characteristics of Raindrop Size Distribution in the Tibetan Plateau and Southern China, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 34, 727-736.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-016-5235-7
    [20] WANG Leidi, LÜ Daren, HE Qing, 2015: The Impact of Surface Properties on Downward Surface Shortwave Radiation over the Tibetan Plateau, ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 32, 759-771.  doi: 10.1007/s00376-014-4131-2

Get Citation+

Export:  

Share Article

Manuscript History

Manuscript received: 24 October 2018
Manuscript revised: 16 May 2019
Manuscript accepted: 21 May 2019
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Vertical Structures of Convective and Stratiform Clouds in Boreal Summer over the Tibetan Plateau and Its Neighboring Regions

    Corresponding author: Yimin LIU, lym@lasg.iap.ac.cn
  • 1. State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
  • 2. Shanghai Meteorological Bureau, Shanghai 200030, China
  • 3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Abstract: Cloud is essential in the atmosphere, condensing water vapor and generating strong convective or large-scale persistent precipitation. In this work, the relationships between cloud vertical macro- or microphysical properties, radiative heating rate, and precipitation for convective and stratiform clouds in boreal summer over the Tibetan Plateau (TP) are analyzed and compared with its neighboring land and tropical oceans based on CloudSat/CALIPSO satellite measurements and TRMM precipitation data. The precipitation intensity caused by convective clouds is twofold stronger than that by stratiform clouds. The vertical macrophysics of both cloud types show similar features over the TP, with the region weakening the precipitation intensity and compressing the cloud vertical expansion and variation in cloud top height, but having an uplift effect on the average cloud top height. The vertical microphysics of both cloud types under conditions of no rain over the TP are characterized by lower-level ice water, ice particles with a relatively larger range of sizes, and a relatively lower occurrence of denser ice particles. The features are similar to other regions when precipitation enhances, but convective clouds gather denser and larger ice particles than stratiform clouds over the TP. The atmospheric shortwave (longwave) heating (cooling) rate strengthens with increased precipitation for both cloud types. The longwave cooling layer is thicker when the rainfall rate is less than 100 mm d−1, but the net heating layer is typically compressed for the profiles of both cloud types over the TP. This study provides insights into the associations between clouds and precipitation, and an observational basis for improving the simulation of convective and stratiform clouds over the TP in climate models.

摘要: 云通过凝结水汽形成强对流性降水或大范围持续性降水在大气中扮演着重要的角色。本文采用CloudSat/CALIPSO卫星资料和TRMM降水资料,对比研究了夏季青藏高原与其临近陆地和海洋地区对流云和层状云宏、微观垂直结构,云辐射加热和降水的关系。研究发现对流云造成的平均降水强度是层状云的两倍。青藏高原对流云和层状云的宏观垂直结构具有相似的特征,高原大地形的存在削弱了降水强度,压缩了云体垂直扩张范围,但是抬升了平均云顶高度。与其它地区相比,当无降水发生时,青藏高原对流云和层状云的微观垂直结构都具有云中固态水分布高度低、固态粒子尺寸丰富、数浓度较大的固态粒子群更不容易出现等特点。随着降水增强,青藏高原上对流云和层状云的微观垂直结构均表现出与其它地区相似的特征,但是与层状云相比,青藏高原上的对流云具有更密集、更大尺寸的粒子群。两种类型云出现时,大气短波(长波)加热(冷却)率均随着降水增强而增强。当两种类型云的降水强度小于100 mm d-1时,与其它地区相比,高原上的长波辐射冷却层较厚,净辐射加热层被显著压缩。本研究提供了云和降水之间关系的新视角,为气候模式中青藏高原地区对流云和层状云的参数化改进提供了观测基础。

    • Convective cloud is the main reason for the formation of strong convective weather, while stratiform cloud has a direct effect on the duration of precipitation. The microphysical processes of the precipitation of the two cloud types are different. For convective precipitation, raindrops are primarily formed by the collision−coalescence process of cloud water, whereas for stratiform precipitation it takes place mainly through the depositional growth of ice crystals (Hu et al., 2007). In addition, the atmospheric vertical structures of heating rate are apparently different between convective and stratiform precipitation because of their different generation mechanisms (Houze, 1982; Tao et al., 2010; Du et al., 2011). However, a common drawback for current climate models is that convective precipitation is overestimated while stratiform precipitation is underestimated (Hu et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011a), reflecting the shortcomings of the parameterization of clouds in the models (Zhang et al., 2005; Dufresne and Bony, 2008; Lu et al., 2014).

      The Tibetan Plateau (TP) has a significant impact on the atmospheric circulation and Asian climate (Wu and Zhang, 1998; Liu et al., 2007; Duan et al., 2008). Convective precipitation is well known as the dominant rain type in summer over the TP, due to its thermotopographic effect (Jiang et al., 1996; Uyeda et al., 2001). Meanwhile, stratiform cloud over the TP (Shimizu et al., 2001; Li et al., 2004) is very important to local climate because of the associated strong cloud feedback (Yu et al., 2004).

      Analysis of cloud characteristics and precipitation based on observation data is essential for the development of microphysical parameterization schemes in numerical models. The frequency, intensity, depth, as well as storm-top altitude of convective and stratiform precipitation over the TP have been studied using TRMM precipitation radar (PR) data at the seasonal scale (Houze et al., 2007; Fu et al., 2008, 2012) and diurnal scale (Hu et al., 2010; Pan and Fu, 2015). However, the TRMM product misidentifies weak convective rain events over the TP because the freezing level is close to the surface (Fu and Liu, 2007). Furthermore, owing to data limitation for this topographically complex region, knowledge of convective and stratiform cloud vertical characteristics over the TP before NASA’s launch of CloudSat (Stephens et al., 2002) and CALIPSO (Winker et al., 2007) in 2006, remains insufficient. The measurements from the cloud profile radar onboard CloudSat, which operates at 94 GHz, as well as those from the CALIOP instrument onboard CALIPSO, make it possible to explore cloud internal vertical structures based on active sensors, and the CloudSat/CALIPSO products have proven to be valuable for studying rainfall and thick precipitating clouds (Matrosov, 2007; Heymsfield et al., 2008). Based on CloudSat/CALIPSO datasets, cloud characteristics over the TP have been extensively studied (Luo et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011b; Rüthrich et al., 2013; Peng et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014; Hong and Liu, 2015; Yan et al., 2016), but less so the cloud vertical structures and physical properties under convective or stratiform conditions and their relationships with precipitation.

      In this study, based on observational data from CloudSat/CALIPSO and TRMM, we first research the distribution features of convective and stratiform precipitation, before investigating the cloud vertical macro- and microphysical properties, as well as the vertical structures of radiative heating, for convective and stratiform precipitation profiles over the TP by comparison with its neighboring land regions (northern India and south of the TP, which we refer to collectively as NIST) and tropical ocean region (south of the TP, which we refer to as TO), in order to extend our knowledge on the vertical structures and physical properties of convective and stratiform clouds and provide a reference for improving their simulation in numerical models. The definitions of the three areas follows those used in Yan et al. (2016, 2018): TP (27°−40°N, 70°−103°E; altitude: > 3000 m); NIST (20°−27°N, 70°−103°E); TO (20°S−20°N, 60°−150°E; over ocean only).

      The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the data and methods. Section 3 presents the results on the distribution of convective and stratiform precipitation, the cloud vertical macro- and microphysical properties, and the vertical structures of radiative heating. Section 4 summarizes the study’s conclusions and offers some further discussion.

    2.   Data and methods
    • Five datasets representing cloud properties obtained from the CloudSat and CALIPSO satellites flying in a sun-synchronous orbit and overpassing the equator at 1330 or 0130 local time are used in this study, including the 2B-CLDCLASS-LIDAR (Sassen and Wang, 2008; Wang et al., 2012), 2B-GEOPROF-LIDAR (Mace et al., 2007), 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR (Henderson et al., 2011), 2B-GEOPROF (Mace, 2007) and 2B-CWC-RO (Austin, 2007) products. The period of coverage for all these datasets is from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2010. The 2B-CLDCLASS-LIDAR product classifies each cloud profile into one of eight cloud types (cumulus, stratocumulus, stratus, altocumulus, altostratus, nimbostratus, cirrus, and deep convective clouds). The 2B-GEOPROF-LIDAR product provides the cloud fraction, which is defined as the fraction of lidar volumes in a radar resolution volume that contains hydrometeors. The 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR product provides upwelling and downwelling longwave (LW) and shortwave (SW) flux, as well as heating rates at discrete levels of the atmosphere in profiles. The 2B-GEOPROF product provides radar echoes from hydrometeors, and produces an estimate of the radar reflectivity factor and cloud mask. The 2B-CWC-RO product retrieves estimates of cloud water content, particle effective radius, and number concentration in liquid or ice phase. A detailed description of these products can be downloaded from http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/data-products/level-2b.

      Together with the CloudSat/CALIPSO datasets, we also use the same period of three-hourly precipitation data from TRMM 3B42, version 6 (Huffman et al., 2007), which has a horizontal resolution of 0.25° × 0.25°, to calculate the relationships between cloud vertical structures and precipitation.

    • Based on the cloud classification product from 2B-CLDCLASS-LIDAR, we first determine each cloudy profile (the “cloud type” value at any layer is between 2 and 8) as convective or stratiform. The steps are as follows: (1) If any “cloud type” in a profile equals 8, which represents “Deep Convection”, the profile is regarded as convective, and if any “cloud type” value equals 7, which represents “Nimbostratus Cloud”, the profile is regarded as stratiform, since they are the dominant cloud types of convective and stratiform precipitation, respectively. (2) Otherwise, if any “cloud type” is equals to 6, which represents “Cumulus”, it is regarded as convective, and for any “cloud type” between 2 and 5, which represent altostratus, altocumulus, stratus and stratocumulus, respectively, it is regarded as stratiform. This method makes each cloudy profile subordinate to a unique category. Since cirrus is a special cloud type that contributes little to precipitation but does contribute to total cloud thickness and cloud top height, it is not assigned in this study.

      Spatiotemporal matching between the TRMM and CloudSat/CALIPSO data is necessary to study the relationships between precipitation and cloud features. In this study, the sorting method to match the cloud information from the CloudSat/CALIPSO orbital data and the precipitation from the TRMM grid data is similar to that used by Yan et al. (2016, 2018): the seeking of TRMM precipitation in the spatial range of 12.5 km and within 1.5 hours of the location of the cloud profile. In other words, once a cloud profile is identified as convective or stratiform, we seek the matching TRMM 3B42 precipitation grid data that are nearest to the location of the cloudy profile within 1.5 hours, and the cloud and precipitation are regarded as near synchronous. It should be noted that the CloudSat/CALIPSO products used here are all from original orbital profiles and only cloudy profiles (determined as convective or stratiform cloudy profiles no matter whether precipitation happens) are diagnosed.

      The cloud fraction provided by 2B-GEOPROF-LIDAR is defined as the fraction of lidar volumes in a radar range resolution volume (RRV; 1.3 km in the cross-track direction, 1.1 km in the along-track direction, and 0.24 km in the vertical direction) that contains hydrometeors (Mace et al., 2007). The definition of cloud amount for each RRV in this study is as follows: the cloud amount is set to 100% for a cloud mask of 20−40 and reflectivity greater than −30 dBZ. Otherwise, the cloud amount equals the cloud fraction provided by 2B-GEOPROF-LIDAR for a cloud mask of 6−10 or 0 and reflectivity greater than −30 dBZ. It should be noted that the cloud amount in this study is 3D, with horizontal and vertical dimensions, since the CloudSat/CALIPSO satellites have the ability to penetrate thick clouds and provide cloud information in each vertical level, which is different from the traditional 2D cloud amount representing the percentage of clouds occupying the sky in the field of horizontal view and without vertical information.

      Following Yan et al. (2018), 26 precipitation rate bins from 0 mm d−1 to 260 mm d−1 at 10 mm d−1 intervals, and 1 bin greater than 260 mm d−1, are used in this study. Note that the units of mm d−1 do not mean the daily cumulative amount, but an instantaneous intensity converted from mm h−1.

      We also use the joint probability distribution function (PDF) and normalized contoured frequency by altitude diagram (CFAD) to analyze the vertical properties of cloud microphysics, which are methods that have been used in previous studies (Luo et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2014). The heights in this study are all above sea surface.

    3.   Results
    • Figure 1 illustrates the average monthly precipitation intensity of convective and stratiform clouds. It can be seen that convective precipitation is significantly stronger than stratiform precipitation almost all year round over the three regions, with the former being about twofold greater than that of the latter. Similar to the monthly mean precipitation (as shown by dark bars), convective and stratiform precipitation reach a maximum in the warm season over the TP and NIST, while they are strong throughout the year over the TO. However, even in summer when abundant water vapor is transported to the TP with the outbreak of the Asian summer monsoon (Xu et al., 2008; Yan et al., 2016), both the convective and stratiform precipitation rate over the TP are relatively small (< 0.2 mm h−1) compared with the other two regions (> 0.6 mm h−1), which is related to the lack of water supply, lower convective available potential energy (Luo et al., 2011), and larger vertical wind shear over the TP (Xu, 2013).

      Figure 1.  Monthly mean precipitation intensity of convective clouds, stratiform clouds and convective clouds or stratiform clouds in rain and no-rain conditions over the (a) TP, (b) NIST, and (c) TO. J to D in x-axis stand for calendar month January to December.

      The spatial patterns of the seasonal precipitation intensity produced by convective and stratiform clouds [Fig. S1 in electronic supplementary material (ESM)] can provide more insights into the regional variations. Although the climatic characteristics of convective and stratiform precipitation in the tropics and subtropics have been analyzed based on TRMM PR datasets by previous researchers (Fu et al., 2003, 2016; Liu et al., 2013), the results revealed here are more reliable because the cloudy profiles with no corresponding precipitation are included in the diagnosis, based on a combination of CloudSat/CALIPSO and TRMM datasets; depending solely on TRMM data is less reliable because of the minimum sensitivity of the PR (0.4 mm h−1) (Schumacher and Houze, 2003). The average precipitation intensity caused by convective clouds over most tropical and subtropical areas is far larger than that caused by stratiform clouds. Moreover, the average spatial distribution of precipitation caused by convective clouds is very uneven and shows intense seasonal variation. Besides, it is also indicated that the average precipitation intensity caused by both convective and stratiform clouds over the TP and its southern neighboring regions reaches a maximum in boreal summer compared with other regions. Therefore, in the following sections, only the primary rainfall season, boreal summer (June−August), is focused on to investigate the vertical features of both two types of cloud and their corresponding precipitation.

    • The PDFs of cloud top height and precipitation intensity (Fig. 2), as well as the total cloud thickness (with the clear-sky thickness between adjacent cloud layers deducted) and precipitation intensity (Fig. 3) show the cloud vertical expansion range and its occurrence frequency at different precipitation intensities. Over the TO region, the cloud top height of convective precipitation mostly lies below 8 km or between 15 km and 17 km when precipitation is less than 50 mm d−1 (Fig. 2c), corresponding to two prone ranges of total cloud thickness, which are thinner than 6 km or thicker than 14 km but thinner than 16 km (Fig. 3c). Meanwhile, the two prone ranges of cloud top height (Fig. 2b) and total cloud thickness (Fig. 3b) are not separated obviously over NIST. When precipitation enhances (> 50 mm d−1), the precipitation cloud top height and total cloud thickness are more inclined to be 15−17 km (Fig. 2c) and 14−16 km (Fig. 3c) over the TO, respectively. While obviously different features are shown for the stratiform precipitation clouds (Figs. 2f and 3f), the frequency of cloud top height is distributed more evenly below 18 km, and the occurrence of rain rates greater than 30 mm d−1 is less frequent compared with that of convective precipitation clouds.

      Figure 2.  Joint PDFs of (a−c) convective precipitation intensity and cloud top height and (d−f) stratiform precipitation intensity and total cloud top height, in summer (June−July−August), over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

      Figure 3.  Joint PDFs of (a−c) convective precipitation intensity and total cloud thickness and (d−f) stratiform precipitation intensity and total cloud thickness, in summer (June−July−August), over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST, and (c, f) TO regions.

      In contrast to the TO region, the characteristics of cloud top height and total cloud thickness for convective and stratiform precipitation clouds over the TP show similar features. The most prone cloud top height for both two types of precipitation lies between 4 and 17 km (Figs. 2a and d), and the most prone total cloud thickness is less than 10 km (Figs. 3a and d). Compared with other regions, the comparable cloud top height over the TP and the compression effect of the topography on cloud thickness revealed by CloudSat/CALOPSO in this study are consistent with those from TRMM PR measurements (Fu et al., 2008). A precipitation intensity greater than 25 mm d−1 and precipitating clouds with a vertical expansion thicker than 12 km seldom occur for both types of precipitation over the TP (Figs. 3a and d) compared with the other two regions (Figs. 3b, c, e and f), possibly because of the weaker instability, lower level of neutral buoyancy, and drier atmosphere (Luo et al., 2011; Li and Zhang, 2016), besides the high terrain over the TP. The convective and stratiform precipitation clouds over the TP have similarly less vertical expansion, indicating that the TP’s topography has a suppression effect on the precipitation intensity and cloud vertical expansion of both cloud types.

      Figure 4, for both cloud types, shows the spatial pattern of total thickness and cloud top height for all cases with or without precipitation in summer. The cloud top height of both cloud types over the TP (about 10 km) is higher than that of its neighboring regions (around 7 km) (Figs. 4b and d), and is even comparable with that over the eastern of Bay of Bengal, where the highest cloud top height is located over the TO region, illustrating the uplift effect of the TP’s topography on the cloud top height. However, from the spatial distribution of cloud total thickness (Figs. 4a and c), the clouds’ vertical expansion over the TP (about 3.8 km for convective clouds and 2.4 km for stratiform clouds) is obviously thinner than that in the Asian summer monsoon regions (can be thicker than 7 km for convective clouds and 5 km for stratiform clouds). Therefore, in spite of the uplift effect on the cloud top height for both cloud types, their actual vertical ranges are still compressed over the TP. Besides, the convective clouds over the eastern of Bay of Bengal and the western Pacific in the TO region have lower cloud top height (Figs. 4b and d) but thicker vertical expansion (Figs. 4a and c) than stratiform clouds, if the existence of cirrus is not considered. Meanwhile, it is quite different over the TP, with convective clouds having a slightly higher cloud top and thicker vertical expansion than stratiform clouds. In short, compared with other regions, the TP has an obvious uplift effect on cloud top height, but a compression effect on cloud vertical expansion, especially for convective clouds.

      Figure 4.  Spatial pattern of averaged (a, c) total cloud thickness and (b, d) cloud top height for (a, b) convective clouds and (c, d) stratiform clouds in summer (June−July−August). The three black boxes from top to bottom represent the TP, NIST and TO regions in each plot. Units: km.

      Although the convective and stratiform cloud amount in the whole column is large, it increases as precipitation intensity enhances among the three regions (Fig. S2 in the ESM). A notable feature over the TP is that the cloud amount in the whole column, for both cloud types, reaches 100% when the precipitation intensity is greater than 150 mm d−1 (Figs. S2a and d in the ESM), demonstrating that clouds corresponding to extremely heavy convective and stratiform precipitation are denser than in other regions. Although the cloud amount defined in an RRV is closely related to the CloudSat scanning area, the cloud amount revealed in this study can represent the climatic characteristics of the whole TP because of the basically uniform distribution of the samples as plotted by Yan et al. (2016).

    • Taking into account that the presence of precipitation causes large uncertainty in liquid water inversion (Austin, 2007) for the 2B-CWC-RO product, the features of liquid microphysics for convective and stratiform clouds are not given.

      Figure 5 shows the normalized CFAD of cloud ice microphysics for convective clouds in no-rain conditions. The cloud ice water is mainly concentrated within the altitudes of 5−10 km with a larger variational range of cloud ice water content (e2e6 mg m−3) (Fig. 5a) and effective radius (30−140 μm) (Fig. 5g) over the TP; whereas, the maximum probability of cloud ice water content is within 6−14 km (Fig. 5b) over NIST and 10−14 km over the TO (Fig. 5c) with a relatively smaller effective radius (40−80 μm) (Fig. 5i), indicating that the ice water in convective clouds over the TP is distributed at a lower level but contains a larger range of particle sizes, which is related to the thinner cloud thickness over the TP as revealed in section 3.2. In addition, large number concentrations (> 400 L−1) of ice particles are less likely to occur in upper layers of the troposphere (> 10 km) over the TP (Fig. 5d), while moderate values of ice number concentration (< 300 L−1) occur more frequently in the range of 4−14 km compared with the other regions, as shown by the yellow or deeper colors in Figs. 5df. Therefore, for the convective profiles with no precipitation, the TP has obviously different cloud microphysical features compared with its neighboring land and ocean regions, including a lower altitude where ice water is located, a wider range of ice particle sizes, and a lower probability of larger ice number concentrations (> 400 L−1).

      Figure 5.  Normalized CFADs (color shades) of (a−c) natural logarithm of cloud ice water content (CIW, unit: mg m−3), (d−f) number concentration, and (g−i) effective radius over the (a, d, g) TP, (b, e, h) NIST and (c, f, i) TO regions for convective cloud in no-rain conditions in summer. The x-axis bin for (a−c) is 0.1 (the corresponding value of ice water content is e0.1 mg m−3), for (d−f) it is 8 L−1, and for (g−i) it is 2.5 μm. The y-axis bin for all plots is 240 m. The curve on the right-hand side of each plot is the PDF of different altitudes. The curve at the bottom of each plot is the PDF of different variable values. There are 123 924, 83 276 and 998 349 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively

      For stratiform profiles in no-rain conditions (Fig. 6), the maximum frequency of cloud ice water over the TP still lies within 5−10 km (Fig. 6a), which is consistent with that of convective clouds. However, a large ice number concentration in the whole column (Fig. 6d) and large ice particle sizes (> 120 μm) below 8 km (Fig. 6g) over the TP, are not prone to appear for stratiform non-precipitation profiles.

      Figure 6.  As in Fig. 5 but for stratiform cloud in no-rain conditions. There are 305 398, 240 993 and 2 396 601 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively.

      When precipitation occurs, the microphysics values corresponding to the maximum spectral distribution of both two types of cloud are inclined to increase with an increase in rainfall intensity. Taking rainstorms or larger-magnitude precipitation (>50 mm d−1) as an example (Figs. 7 and 8), the order of dominant cloud ice water content is nearly e6 mg m−3 (Fig. 7a) and e4.5 mg m−3 (Fig. 8a) over the TP for convective and stratiform precipitation profiles, respectively, while they are e4 mg m−3 (Fig. 5a) and less than e2 mg m−3 (Fig. 6a) in no-rain conditions, as displayed by the curve’s peak on the bottom-hand side of each plot. The ice number concentrations above 9 km are more prone to be 200 L−1 for convective precipitation profiles over the TP (Fig. 7d), which is much smaller than in the other regions (Figs. 7e and f). In summer, due to high temperatures, precipitation over the TP mainly occurs in the form of rainfall. Even though liquid particles are not considered, the lower ice particle number concentration in convective clouds is consistent with the lower raindrop number concentration for convective precipitation in summer over the TP, as revealed by Wu and Liu (2017). For stratiform precipitation profiles, ice clouds are more inclined to gather at moderate concentrations (< 200 L−1). Compared with wider ranges of ice particle size in no-rain conditions (Figs. 5gi and 6gi), the spectrum of cloud ice effective radius narrows throughout the whole column and displays a remarkable decreasing trend with increased altitude (Figs. 7gi and 8gi) for both cloud types. However, it is quite an apparent feature that there are many more large-sized particles (> 120 μm) in the layer between 5 and 10 km in convective precipitation profiles, as shown by the red or deep-color shades and the curve peaks on the bottom-hand sides of Figs. 7gi, while for stratiform precipitation profiles there are more small-sized ice particles (40−80 μm) located within 10−16 km (Figs. 8gi). The unique features of the vertical microphysics over the TP include a wider spectrum of cloud ice water content, ice number concentration, and ice particle effective radius for both cloud types, in contrast to a relative narrow spectrum over the NIST and the TO (as shown by the red or deep-color shades in each plot).

      Figure 7.  As in Fig. 5 but for convective cloud in rainstorm or larger-magnitude rain conditions (> 50 mm d−1). There are 3205, 11 182 and 152 397 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively.

      Figure 8.  As in Fig. 5 but for stratiform cloud in rainstorm or larger-magnitude rain conditions (> 50 mm d−1). There are 2019, 9628 and 83 944 profiles over the TP, NIST and TO regions, respectively.

    • The vertical macro- and microphysical structures of convective and stratiform clouds result in different vertical distributions of atmospheric radiative heating rate. Figures 9 and 10 show the profiles of atmospheric SW and LW radiative heating rate under different precipitation intensities for both cloud types in the three aforementioned regions.

      Figure 9.  Vertical structure of atmospheric SW radiative heating rate in different precipitation intensities for (a−c) convective and (d−f) stratiform profiles in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions, respectively.

      Figure 10.  Vertical structure of atmospheric LW radiative heating rate in different precipitation intensities for (a−c) convective and (d−f) stratiform profiles in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

      It is a common feature among the three regions that the clouds’ SW radiation heats the atmosphere almost throughout the whole column. The maximum SW heating rate in convective profiles over the NIST and the TO is between 12 km and 18 km (Figs. 9b and c), wherein the cloud top height is located (Figs. 2b and c), while it is mainly between 8 km and 16 km (Fig. 9a) over the TP and lower than those over NIST and the TO. The maximum SW heating rate enhances with increased precipitation intensity and the maximum SW heating in convective profiles is greater than 4 K d−1 among the three regions (Figs. 9ac), which is typically stronger than that in stratiform profiles (Figs. 9df). In contrast to SW radiation, the LW radiation mainly cools the atmosphere, especially in upper layers (> 10 km), as shown in Fig. 10. However, the cooling layer (9−16 km, where cooling rate is > 2.5 K d−1) over the TP is distinctly thicker than that of the other regions (concentrated within 12−17 km) when the rainfall rate of both cloud types is less than 100 mm d−1. The two LW heating layers (due to absorbing energy from the sea surface or clouds), located from the ground to 6 km and 7−9 km, respectively, are divided by a shallow cooling layer near 6 km, wherein the melting layer is located. The LW heating rates of the two LW heating layers are obviously stronger in convective profiles than stratiform profiles. The uplifted surface LW cooling layer due to the high terrain and the comparable height of the melting layer make the two heating layers closer over the TP than in the other regions, reflecting a greater inhomogeneity of the LW vertical radiative heating profiles over the TP. The inhomogeneity of the profiles may have effects on local atmospheric circulation, which needs to be studied further.

      The almost opposite SW and LW radiative heating rates in the two cloud types’ profiles are not cancelled out totally for the net radiative heating rate. Instead, the atmosphere below 16 km over the TO is cooled because of the stronger outwardly LW radiation of both convective and stratiform clouds when there is low precipitation (< 10 mm d−1), as revealed by Figs. S3c and f. As precipitation increases, the heating effects of SW radiation are reflected, making a net warming atmospheric layer below 12 km but a net cooling layer above 14 km owing to the strong LW cooling rate there. It is noted that the clear melting layer near 5−6 km above the sea surface over the TO corresponds to a shallow net cooling layer. Even though these signals are quite noisy over the TP, as revealed by Figs. S3a and d, it is a common feature that the net heating layer is typically compressed over the TP for the profiles of both cloud types, and the net atmospheric radiative heating or cooling rate in convective precipitation profiles is stronger than that of stratiform profiles, which is related to the many more ice particles with large sizes and large number concentrations in convective precipitation profiles.

    4.   Conclusions and discussion
    • Based on five datasets (2B-CLDCLASS-LIDAR, 2B-GEOPROF-LIDAR, 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR, 2B-GEOPROF and 2B-CWC-RO) from CloudSat/CALIPSO and precipitation data from the TRMM 3B42 product, we have analyzed the relationship between cloud vertical macro- or microphysical structures, cloud radiative heating profiles, and precipitation, for convective and stratiform clouds over the TP compared to its neighboring land (NIST) and ocean (TO) regions. The main conclusions are as follows:

      (1) The convective precipitation intensity is twice as strong as that of stratiform precipitation. However, they are smaller over the TP than its neighboring land and ocean regions, even in summer, due to the restrictions placed by the high topography on the water vapor supply.

      (2) Compared with the other regions, the vertical macrophysical structures of convective and stratiform clouds have similar features over the TP. The cloud vertical expansion and the range of cloud top height for both convective and stratiform clouds are compressed over the TP. However, the average cloud top height is uplifted obviously on the TP if taking the precipitation and non-precipitation clouds as a whole.

      (3) For non-precipitation clouds, both convective and stratiform clouds have lower altitudes (5−10 km) where ice water is distributed and a wider range of particle sizes, but a lower probability of a larger ice number concentration over the TP compared with the other regions. When precipitation enhances, the microphysical structures for both clouds over the TP show similar features to the other regions, and convective clouds contain quite more ice water, denser particles, and ice particles larger in size than stratiform clouds.

      (4) The atmospheric SW heating (LW cooling) rate enhances with increased precipitation, and it is stronger in convective profiles than stratiform profiles. When the rainfall rate is less than 100 mm d−1, the LW cooling layer for the precipitation of both cloud types over the TP is thicker and more inhomogeneous than in the other regions. The net heating layer is typically compressed over the TP for the profiles of both cloud types.

      The results revealed in this study enhance our understanding of the relationships between the vertical structures of these two main cloud types (convective and stratiform) and precipitation over the TP, which is useful for improving the simulation of convective and stratiform vertical structures, as well as precipitation, in climate models. However, owing to the limitations of the CloudSat/CALIPSO sampling times (around 0130 and 1330 local time) and the increased uncertainty of cloud radar retrievals with enhanced radar reflectivity, the cloud vertical structures for heavy rain conditions may need to be verified using other datasets.

      Acknowledgments. The authors greatly appreciate the constructive suggestions made by Prof. Jianhua LÜ from the School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, China, which certainly improved the manuscript. The authors are also sincerely grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their professional and careful comments on the manuscript. This work was jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 91437219, 91637312 and 91637101), the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. QYZDY-SSW-DQC018). The CloudSat/CALIPSO data were obtained from the CloudSat Data Processing Center (http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/order-data) funded by NASA’s CloudSat project, and the TRMM data were obtained from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (https://pmm.nasa.gov/data-access/downloads/trmm).

    • Electronic supplementary material. Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-8229-4.

      Figure S1.  Seasonally averaged spatial pattern of precipitation intensity by (a−d) convective clouds, (e−h) stratiform clouds, and (i−l) convective or stratiform clouds in rain and no-rain conditions. The red boxes in (i) represent the TP, NIST and TO regions used in this study. Units: mm h−1.

      Figure S2.  Average vertical distribution of cloud amount in different (a−c) convective precipitation intensities and (d−f) stratiform precipitation intensities in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

      Figure S3.  Vertical structure of atmospheric net (SW+LW) radiative heating rate in different precipitation intensities for (a−c) convective and (d−f) stratiform profiles in summer (June−July−August) over the (a, d) TP, (b, e) NIST and (c, f) TO regions.

    • Electronic Supplementary Material to: Vertical Structures of Convective and Stratiform Clouds in Boreal Summer over the Tibetan Plateau and Its Neighboring Regions*

      Yafei YAN1,2 and Yimin LIU1,3

      1State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China2Shanghai Meteorological Bureau, Shanghai 200030, China3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

      ESM to: Yan, Y. F., and Y. M. Liu, 2019: Vertical structures of convective and stratiform clouds in boreal summer over theTibetan Plateau and its neighboring regions. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 36(10), 1089–1102, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-8229-4.

Reference

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return