A. Kirchgaessner
British Antarctic Survey
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by A. Kirchgaessner.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2015
John C. King; Alan Gadian; A. Kirchgaessner; P. Kuipers Munneke; Tom Lachlan-Cope; Andrew Orr; C. H. Reijmer; M. R. van den Broeke; J. M. van Wessem; Mark Weeks
We compare measurements of the turbulent and radiative surface energy fluxes from an automatic weather station (AWS) on Larsen C Ice Shelf, Antarctica with corresponding fluxes from three high-resolution atmospheric models over a 1 month period during austral summer. All three models produce a reasonable simulation of the (relatively small) turbulent energy fluxes at the AWS site. However, biases in the modeled radiative fluxes, which dominate the surface energy budget, are significant. There is a significant positive bias in net shortwave radiation in all three models, together with a corresponding negative bias in net longwave radiation. In two of the models, the longwave bias only partially offsets the positive shortwave bias, leading to an excessive amount of energy available for heating and melting the surface, while, in the third, the negative longwave bias exceeds the positive shortwave bias, leading to a deficiency in calculated surface melt. Biases in shortwave and longwave radiation are anticorrelated, suggesting that they both result from the models simulating too little cloud (or clouds that are too optically thin). We conclude that, while these models may be able to provide some useful information on surface energy fluxes, absolute values of modeled melt rate are significantly biased and should be used with caution. Efforts to improve model simulation of melt should initially focus on the radiative fluxes and, in particular, on the simulation of the clouds that control these fluxes.
Meteorological Monographs | 2017
P. R. Field; R. P. Lawson; P. R. A. Brown; Gary Lloyd; C. D. Westbrook; Dmitri Moisseev; Annette K. Miltenberger; Athanasios Nenes; Alan M. Blyth; T. W. Choularton; Paul Connolly; J. Buehl; Jonathan Crosier; Zhiqiang Cui; Christopher Dearden; Paul J. DeMott; A. Flossmann; A. Heymsfield; Y. Huang; H. Kalesse; Zamin A. Kanji; A. Korolev; A. Kirchgaessner; Sonia Lasher-Trapp; Thomas Leisner; Greg M. McFarquhar; Vaughan T. J. Phillips; Jeffrey L. Stith; Sylvia C. Sullivan
AbstractMeasured ice crystal concentrations in natural clouds at modest supercooling (temperature ~>−10°C) are often orders of magnitude greater than the number concentration of primary ice nucleating particles. Therefore, it has long been proposed that a secondary ice production process must exist that is able to rapidly enhance the number concentration of the ice population following initial primary ice nucleation events. Secondary ice production is important for the prediction of ice crystal concentration and the subsequent evolution of some types of clouds, but the physical basis of the process is not understood and the production rates are not well constrained. In November 2015 an international workshop was held to discuss the current state of the science and future work to constrain and improve our understanding of secondary ice production processes. Examples and recommendations for in situ observations, remote sensing, laboratory investigations, and modeling approaches are presented.
Meteorological Monographs | 2016
P. R. Field; R. P. Lawson; P. R. A. Brown; Gary Lloyd; C. D. Westbrook; Dmitri Moisseev; Annette K. Miltenberger; Athanasios Nenes; Alan M. Blyth; T. W. Choularton; Paul Connolly; J. Buehl; Jonathan Crosier; Zhiqiang Cui; Christopher Dearden; Paul J. DeMott; A. Flossmann; A. Heymsfield; Y. Huang; H. Kalesse; Zamin A. Kanji; A. Korolev; A. Kirchgaessner; Sonia Lasher-Trapp; Thomas Leisner; Greg M. McFarquhar; Vaughan T. J. Phillips; Jeffrey L. Stith; Sylvia C. Sullivan
AbstractMeasured ice crystal concentrations in natural clouds at modest supercooling (temperature ~>−10°C) are often orders of magnitude greater than the number concentration of primary ice nucleating particles. Therefore, it has long been proposed that a secondary ice production process must exist that is able to rapidly enhance the number concentration of the ice population following initial primary ice nucleation events. Secondary ice production is important for the prediction of ice crystal concentration and the subsequent evolution of some types of clouds, but the physical basis of the process is not understood and the production rates are not well constrained. In November 2015 an international workshop was held to discuss the current state of the science and future work to constrain and improve our understanding of secondary ice production processes. Examples and recommendations for in situ observations, remote sensing, laboratory investigations, and modeling approaches are presented.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2017
John C. King; A. Kirchgaessner; Suzanne Bevan; Andrew D. Elvidge; P. Kuipers Munneke; Adrian Luckman; Andrew Orr; Ian A. Renfrew; M. R. van den Broeke
We use model data from the Antarctic Mesoscale Prediction System (AMPS), measurements from automatic weather stations and satellite observations to investigate the association between surface energy balance (SEB), surface melt, and the occurrence of fohn winds over Larsen C Ice Shelf (Antarctic Peninsula) over the period November 2010 to March 2011. Fohn conditions occurred for over 20% of the time during this period and are associated with increased air temperatures and decreased relative humidity (relative to nonfohn conditions) over the western part of the ice shelf. During fohn conditions, the downward turbulent flux of sensible heat and the downwelling shortwave radiation both increase. However, in AMPS, these warming tendencies are largely balanced by an increase in upward latent heat flux and a decrease in downwelling longwave radiation so the impact of fohn on the modeled net SEB is small. This balance is highly sensitive to the representation of surface energy fluxes in the model, and limited validation data suggest that AMPS may underestimate the sensitivity of SEB and melt to fohn. There is broad agreement on the spatial pattern of melt between the model and satellite observations but disagreement in the frequency with which melt occurs. Satellite observations indicate localized regions of persistent melt along the foot of the Antarctic Peninsula mountains which are not simulated by the model. Furthermore, melt is observed to persist in these regions during extended periods when fohn does not occur, suggesting that other factors may be important in controlling melt in these regions.
Archive | 2017
P. R. Field; R. P. Lawson; P. R. A. Brown; Gary Lloyd; C. D. Westbrook; Dmitri Moisseev; Annette K. Miltenberger; Athanasios Nenes; Alan M. Blyth; T. W. Choularton; Paul Connolly; J. Buehl; Jonathan Crosier; Zhiqiang Cui; Christopher Dearden; Paul J. DeMott; A. Flossmann; A. Heymsfield; Y. Huang; H. Kalesse; Zamin A. Kanji; A. Korolev; A. Kirchgaessner; Sonia Lasher-Trapp; Thomas Leisner; Greg M. McFarquhar; Vaughan T. J. Phillips; Jeffrey L. Stith; Sylvia C. Sullivan
AbstractMeasured ice crystal concentrations in natural clouds at modest supercooling (temperature ~>−10°C) are often orders of magnitude greater than the number concentration of primary ice nucleating particles. Therefore, it has long been proposed that a secondary ice production process must exist that is able to rapidly enhance the number concentration of the ice population following initial primary ice nucleation events. Secondary ice production is important for the prediction of ice crystal concentration and the subsequent evolution of some types of clouds, but the physical basis of the process is not understood and the production rates are not well constrained. In November 2015 an international workshop was held to discuss the current state of the science and future work to constrain and improve our understanding of secondary ice production processes. Examples and recommendations for in situ observations, remote sensing, laboratory investigations, and modeling approaches are presented.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2014
Gary Lloyd; T. W. Choularton; Keith N. Bower; Jonathan Crosier; Hazel Jones; J. R. Dorsey; Martin Gallagher; Paul Connolly; A. Kirchgaessner; Tom Lachlan-Cope
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2009
John Turner; Phil Anderson; Tom Lachlan-Cope; Steve Colwell; Tony Phillips; A. Kirchgaessner; Gareth J. Marshall; John C. King; Tom Bracegirdle; David G. Vaughan; Victor Lagun; Andrew Orr
Weather | 2017
J. V. Turton; A. Kirchgaessner; Andrew N. Ross; John C. King
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society | 2018
Jenny V. Turton; A. Kirchgaessner; Andrew N. Ross; John C. King
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2017
Sebastian O'Shea; T. W. Choularton; M. Flynn; Keith N. Bower; Martin Gallagher; Jonathan Crosier; Paul Williams; Ian Crawford; Zoe L. Fleming; Constantino Listowski; A. Kirchgaessner; Russell S. Ladkin; Tom Lachlan-Cope