All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Publish in OALib Journal
ISSN: 2333-9721
APC: Only $99

ViewsDownloads

Relative Articles

Stratospheric variability and trends in models used for the IPCC AR4

Projection and Evaluation of the Precipitation Extremes Indices over China Based on Seven IPCC AR4 Coupled Climate Models
7个IPCC AR4模式对中国地区极端降水指数模拟能力的评估及其未来情景预估

Emulating IPCC AR4 atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models for projecting global-mean, hemispheric and land/ocean temperatures: MAGICC 6.0

EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION PERFORMANCE AND SCENARIO ANALYSIS FOR TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION BY IPCC AR4 GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS ON YANGTZE RIVER BASIN
IPCC AR4气候模式对长江流域气温和降水的模拟性能评估及未来情景预估

Mudan?as na circula??o atmosférica sobre a América do Sul para cenários futuros de clima projetados pelos modelos globais do IPCC AR4

Cloud Radiative Forcing in Asian Monsoon Region Simulated by IPCC AR4 AMIP Models

WEATHER AND CLIMATE EXTREMES IN LIGHT OF THE IPCC SREX (2011) AND BEYOND

Temperature,Relative Humidity,and Cloud Fraction Predicted by the NCEP Global Forecast System at the ARM SGP Site during 2001-2008:Comparison with ARM Observations
NCEP 全球预报系统在ARM SGP站点预报大气温度、湿度和云量的检验

A Comparison between Two Force-Position Controllers with Gravity Compensation Simulated on a Humanoid Arm

ARM and simulated annealing algorithm based music CAI system
基于ARM与SA算法的音乐辅助教学系统

More...

Evaluation of cloud fraction and its radiative effect simulated by IPCC AR4 global models against ARM surface observations

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Cloud Fraction (CF) is the dominant modulator of radiative fluxes. In this study, we evaluate CF simulated in the IPCC AR4 GCMs against ARM long-term ground-based measurements, with a focus on the vertical structure, total amount of cloud and its effect on cloud shortwave transmissivity. Comparisons are performed for three climate regimes as represented by the Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) sites: Southern Great Plains (SGP), Manus, Papua New Guinea and North Slope of Alaska (NSA). Our intercomparisons of three independent measurements of CF or sky-cover reveal that the relative differences are usually less than 10% (5%) for multi-year monthly (annual) mean values, while daily differences are quite significant. The total sky imager (TSI) produces smaller total cloud fraction (TCF) compared to a radar/lidar dataset for highly cloudy days (CF > 0.8), but produces a larger TCF value than the radar/lidar for less cloudy conditions (CF < 0.3). The compensating errors in lower and higher CF days result in small biases of TCF between the vertically pointing radar/lidar dataset and the hemispheric TSI measurements as multi-year data is averaged. The unique radar/lidar CF measurements enable us to evaluate seasonal variation of cloud vertical structures in the GCMs. Both inter-model deviation and model bias against observation are investigated in this study. Another unique aspect of this study is that we use simultaneous measurements of CF and surface radiative fluxes to diagnose potential discrepancies among the GCMs in representing other cloud optical properties than TCF. The results show that the model-observation and inter-model deviations have similar magnitudes for the TCF and the normalized cloud effect, and these deviations are larger than those in surface downward solar radiation and cloud transmissivity. This implies that other dimensions of cloud in addition to cloud amount, such as cloud optical thickness and/or cloud height, have a similar magnitude of disparity as TCF within the GCMs, and suggests that the better agreement among GCMs in solar radiative fluxes could be a result of compensating effects from errors in cloud vertical structure, overlap assumption, cloud optical depth and/or cloud fraction. The internal variability of CF simulated in ensemble runs with the same model is minimal. Similar deviation patterns between inter-model and model-measurement comparisons suggest that the climate models tend to generate larger biases against observations for those variables with larger inter-model deviation. The GCM performance in simulating the probability distribution, transmissivity and vertical profiles of cloud are comprehensively evaluated over the three ARM sites. The GCMs perform better at SGP than at the other two sites in simulating the seasonal variation and probability distribution of TCF. However, the models remarkably underpredict the TCF at SGP and cloud transmissivity is less susceptible to the cha

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

微信:OALib Journal