edu.ucar.opensky::articles:26327 UCAR/NCAR - Library OpenSky Support PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307-3000 opensky@ucar.edu http://opensky.ucar.edu/ homepage pointOfContact 2025-12-24T19:33:01.867314 ISO 19115-2 Geographic Information - Metadata - Part 2: Extensions for Imagery and Gridded Data ISO 19115-2:2009(E) https://n2t.org/ark:/85065/d7f193qk https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7758774 https Related Dataset #1 Data files for the Kinematic Driver-Aerosol intercomparison https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.01161 https Related Preprint #1 Python bindings for libcloudph++ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5196234 https Related Software #1 igfuw/kid-libcloud: KiD-A paper Toward a numerical benchmark for warm rain processes 2023-05-01T00:00:00Z publication https://n2t.org/ark:/85065/d7f193qk https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0275.1 Hill, A. A. author Lebo, Z. J. author Andrejczuk, M. author Arabas, S. author Dziekan, P. author Field, P. author Gettelman, Andrew author Hoffmann, F. author Pawlowska, H. author Onishi, R. author Vié, B. author UCAR/NCAR - Library publisher 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 physi-cal behaviors and good interscheme agreement, with the volume mean diameter (Dvol) 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 cli-mate prediction, is within the spread of precipitation from the detailed schemes (LCMs and bin). Overall, this intercom-parison identifies the need for focused effort on the comparison of collision-coalescence methods and sedimentation in detailed microphysics schemes, especially LCMs. UCAR/NCAR - Library OpenSky Support PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307-3000 opensky@ucar.edu http://opensky.ucar.edu/ homepage pointOfContact PDF Text theme Resource Type 2016-01-01T00:00:00Z publication Copyright 2023 American Meteorological Society (AMS). None eng geoscientificInformation