Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 27, Issue 2–3, pp 261–279 | Cite as

A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity

  • Matthew C. WyantEmail author
  • Christopher S. Bretherton
  • Julio T. Bacmeister
  • Jeffrey T. Kiehl
  • Isaac M. Held
  • Ming Zhao
  • Stephen A. Klein
  • Brian J. Soden
Article

Abstract

Low-latitude cloud distributions and cloud responses to climate perturbations are compared in near-current versions of three leading U.S. AGCMs, the NCAR CAM 3.0, the GFDL AM2.12b, and the NASA GMAO NSIPP-2 model. The analysis technique of Bony et al. (Clim Dyn 22:71–86, 2004) is used to sort cloud variables by dynamical regime using the monthly mean pressure velocity ω at 500 hPa from 30S to 30N. All models simulate the climatological monthly mean top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF) adequately in all ω-regimes. However, they disagree with each other and with ISCCP satellite observations in regime-sorted cloud fraction, condensate amount, and cloud-top height. All models have too little cloud with tops in the middle troposphere and too much thin cirrus in ascent regimes. In subsidence regimes one model simulates cloud condensate to be too near the surface, while another generates condensate over an excessively deep layer of the lower troposphere. Standardized climate perturbation experiments of the three models are also compared, including uniform SST increase, patterned SST increase, and doubled CO2 over a mixed layer ocean. The regime-sorted cloud and CRF perturbations are very different between models, and show lesser, but still significant, differences between the same model simulating different types of imposed climate perturbation. There is a negative correlation across all general circulation models (GCMs) and climate perturbations between changes in tropical low cloud cover and changes in net CRF, suggesting a dominant role for boundary layer cloud in these changes. For some of the cases presented, upper-level clouds in deep convection regimes are also important, and changes in such regimes can either reinforce or partially cancel the net CRF response from the boundary layer cloud in subsidence regimes. This study highlights the continuing uncertainty in both low and high cloud feedbacks simulated by GCMs.

Keywords

Cloud Fraction Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Cloud Radiative Force Liquid Water Path TRMM Microwave Imager 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper grew out of a multi-institution Climate Process Team whose goal is to reduce the uncertainty in representing low-latitude cloud feedbacks on climate change by improving the representation of cloud processes in GCMs (Bretherton et al. 2004). The authors would like to thank Cecile Hannay, Jim Mccaa, Christine Shields at NCAR for their assistance with CAM and the CAM simulations, Paul Kushner, Rich Gudgel, and Tom Knutson for producing some of the GFDL simulations. Also thanks to Mark Stevens at NCAR for gridding the NCEP, SSMI, and ERBE data. Thanks to Rob Wood for the providing processed monthly TMI data, Peter Blossey for helpful discussions, and Marc Michelson for computer support. The authors thank Edwin Schneider and several anonymous reviewers who helped improve this paper. SSMI data are produced by Remote Sensing Systems and sponsored by the NASA Earth Science REASoN DISCOVER Project. Data are available at http://www.remss.com. ERA-40 data were provided by ECMWF. Funding for this work was provided by NSF grant 0336703 and NOAA by the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) under NOAA Cooperative Agreement No. NA17RJ1232, Contribution, #1153.

References

  1. Bony S, Dufresne J-L, Le Treut H, Morcrette J-J, Senior C (2004) On dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes. Clim Dyn 22:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bretherton CS, Ferrari R, Legg S (2004) Climate process teams: a new approach to improving climate models. US CLIVAR Variations 2(1):1–6Google Scholar
  3. Cess RD et al (1989) Interpretation of cloud-climate feedback as produced by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. Science 245:513–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cess RD et al (1996) Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: an update. J Geophys Res 101:12791–12794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlock TP, Ramanathan V (1985) The albedo field and cloud radiative forcing produced by a general circulation model with internally generated cloud optics. J Atmos Sci 42:1408–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen C, Cotton WR (1987) The physics of the marine stratocumulus-capped mixed layer. J Atmos Sci 44:2951–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins WD, Rasch PJ, Boville BA, Hack JJ, McCaa JR, Williamson DL, Kiehl JT, Briegleb B, Bitz C, Lin S-J, Zhang M, Dai Y (2004) Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0). NCAR Technical Note, NCAR/TN-464+STR, 226 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Del Genio AD, Yao MS, Kovari W, Lo K-W (1996) A prognostic cloud water parameterization for global climate models. J Clim 9:270–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. The GFDL Global Atmospheric Model Development Team (2004) The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2–LM2: evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. J Clim 17:4641–4673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hack JJ (1994) Parameterization of moist convection in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model (CCM2). J Geophys Res 99:5551–5568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrison EF, Minnis P, Barkstrom BR, Ramanathan V, Cess RD, Gibson GG (1990) Seasonal variation of cloud radiative forcing derived from the earth radiation budget experiment. J Geophys Res 95:18687–18703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holtslag AAM, Boville BA (1993) Local versus nonlocal boundary-layer diffusion in a global climate model. J Clim 6:1825–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalnay E et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kiehl KT, Ramanathan V (1990) Comparison of cloud forcing derived from the earth radiation budget experiment with that simulated by the NCAR community climate model. J Geophys Res 95:11679–11698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein SA, Hartmann DL (1993) The seasonal cycle of low stratiform clouds. J Clim 6:1587–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein SA, Jakob C (1999) Validation and sensitivities of frontal clouds simulated by the ECMWF model. Mon Weather Rev 125:2514–2531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin WY, Zhang MH (2004) Evaluation of clouds and their radiative effects simulated by the NCAR community atmospheric model CAM2 against satellite observations. J Clim 17:3302–3318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin YL, Farley RR, Orville HD (1983) Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. J Clim Appl Meteorol 22:1065–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lock AP, Brown AR, Bush MR, Martin GM, Smith RNB (2000) A new boundary layer mixing scheme. Part I. Scheme description and single-column model tests. Mon Weather Rev 128:3187–3199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Louis JM, Tiedtke M, Geleyn J (1982) A short history of the PBL parameterization at ECMWF. In: Proceedings of ECMWF workshop on planetary boundary layer parameterization, Reading, UK, pp 59–80Google Scholar
  21. Meehl GA, Boer GJ, Covey C, Latif M, Stouffer RJ (2000) The coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 81:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moorthi S, Suarez MJ (1992) Relaxed Arakawa–Schubert: a parameterization of moist convection for general circulation models. Mon Weather Rev 120:978–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rasch PJ, Kristjansson JE (1998) A comparison of the CCM3 model climate using diagnosed and predicted condensate parameterizations. J Clim 11:1587–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rayner NA, Parker DE, Horton EB, Folland CK, Alexander LV, Rowell DP, Kent EC, Kaplan A (2003) Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J Geophys Res 108(D14):4407. DOI 10.1029/2002JD002670Google Scholar
  25. Reynolds RW, Smith TM (1994) Improved global sea surface temperature analyses using optimum interpolation. J Clim 7:929–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rossow WB, Schiffer RA (1999) Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP. Bull Am Meteor Soc 80:2261–2287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rotstayn LD (1997) A physically based scheme for the treatment of stratiform clouds and precipitation in large-scale models. I. Description and evaluation of microphysical processes. Q J R Meteorol Soc 123:1227–1282Google Scholar
  28. Rotstayn LD, Ryan BF, Katzfey J (2000) A scheme for calculation of the liquid fraction in mixed-phase clouds in large-scale models. Mon Weather Rev 128:1070–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Senior CA, Mitchell JFB (1996) Carbon dioxide and climate: the impact of cloud parameterization. J Clim 6:393–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith GL, Wielicki BA, Barkstrom BA, Lee RB, Priestley KJ, Charlock TP, Minnis P, Kratz DP, Loeb N, Young DF (2004) Clouds and earth radiant energy system: an overview. Adv Space Res 33:1125–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Soden B, Broccoli AJ, Hemmler RS (2004) On the use of cloud forcing to estimate cloud feedback. J Clim Lett 17:3661–3665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sud YC, Walker GK (1999) Microphysics of clouds with the relaxed Arakawa–Schubert scheme (McRAS). Part I. Design and evaluation with GATE Phase III data. J Atmos Sci 56:3196–3220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tiedtke M (1993) Representation of clouds in large-scale models. Mon Weather Rev 121:3040–3061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tokioka T, Yamazaki K, Kitoh A, Ose T (1988) The equatorial 30–60 day oscillation and the Arakawa–Schubert penetrative cumulus parameterization. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 66:883–901Google Scholar
  35. Trenberth KE, Caron JM (2001) Estimates of meridional atmosphere and ocean heat transports. J Clim 14:3433–3434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Uppala SM et al (2005) The ERA-40 re-analysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:2961–3012. DOI 10.1256/qj.04.176Google Scholar
  37. Vogelezang DHP, Holtslag AAM (1996) Evaluation and model impacts of alternative boundary-layer height formulations. Bound Layer Meteorol 81:245–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Webb M, Senior C, Bony S, Morcrette J-J (2001) Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models. Clim Dyn 17:905–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wentz FJ (1997) A well calibrated ocean algorithm for special sensor microwave/imager. J Geophys Res 102:8703–8718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams KD, Ringer MA, Senior CA (2003) Evaluating the cloud response to climate change and current climate variability. Clim Dyn 20:705–721Google Scholar
  41. Wood R, Bretherton CS, Hartmann DL (2002) Diurnal cycle of liquid water path over the subtropical and tropical oceans. Geophys Res Lett 29(23):2093. DOI 10.1029/2002GL015371Google Scholar
  42. Zhang GJ, McFarlane NA (1995) Sensitivity of climate simulations to the parameterization of cumulus convection in the Canadian Climate Center general circulation model. Atmos Ocean 33:407–446Google Scholar
  43. Zhang MH, Lin W, Bretherton CS, Hack JJ, Rasch PJ (2003) A modified formulation of fractional stratiform condensation rate in the NCAR community atmospheric model CAM2. J Geophys Res 108(D1):4035. DOI 10.1029/2002JD002523Google Scholar
  44. Zhang MH et al (2005) Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. J Geophys Res D15S02. DOI 10.1029/2004JD005021Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew C. Wyant
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher S. Bretherton
    • 1
  • Julio T. Bacmeister
    • 2
  • Jeffrey T. Kiehl
    • 3
  • Isaac M. Held
    • 4
  • Ming Zhao
    • 4
  • Stephen A. Klein
    • 4
    • 5
  • Brian J. Soden
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation OfficeGoddard Spaceflight CenterGreenbeltUSA
  3. 3.National Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA
  4. 4.NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics LaboratoryPrincetonUSA
  5. 5.The Atmospheric Science DivisionLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA
  6. 6.Division of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric ScienceUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations