Evaluation of midlatitude cloud properties in a weather and a climate model: Dependence on dynamic regime and spatial resolution
- 24 December 2002
- journal article
- Published by American Geophysical Union (AGU) in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Vol. 107 (D24) , AAC 14-1-AAC 14-10
- https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002259
Abstract
In this study, the midlatitude cloud fields produced by a climate (GISS) and a weather (ECMWF) model are evaluated against satellite observations. Monthly ensembles of model cloud property distributions for the four seasons are compared with similar ensembles from satellite retrievals. The weather model is run in both forecast and “climate” mode in order to evaluate the importance of the exact representation of the atmospheric conditions in these ensemble comparisons. The weather and climate models are evaluated at different resolutions that cover the range used in today's climate and weather prediction simulations. Cloud property evaluations are separated into broadly defined dynamic regimes that cover the range of large‐scale midlatitude motions. Quantitative evaluation tables are produced that rank the performance of the different model versions used in the study. The evaluation analysis reveals several common features between the two models. Those are the overestimation of cloud optical depth in all dynamic regimes, the underestimation of cloud cover in the large‐scale descent regime and the underestimation of cloud top height in the large‐scale descent regime. It is also shown that, in the radiative balance calculations, the models compensate for the overestimation of cloud optical depth through the underprediction of cloud cover. The comparison of the forecast and “climate” runs of the ECMWF model shows remarkably similar statistical properties of the clouds in the two runs. The analysis of runs with different resolutions reveals large improvement when going from a 4° × 5° 9‐layer to a 2° × 2.5° 32‐layer run with the GISS GCM, much of which is caused by the increase in vertical resolution. A comparison of a T42 and a T106 run of the same vertical resolution with the ECMWF GCM does not show considerable differences between the two model versions.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Revision of convection, radiation and cloud schemes in the ECMWF integrated forecasting systemQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 2000
- Validation and Sensitivities of Frontal Clouds Simulated by the ECMWF ModelMonthly Weather Review, 1999
- The role of vertically varying cloud fraction in the parametrization of microphysical processes in the ECMWF modelQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 1999
- Clouds, precipitation and temperature rangeNature, 1997
- A Prognostic Cloud Water Parameterization for Global Climate ModelsJournal of Climate, 1996
- Land surface temperature and radiative fluxes response of the NCAR CCM2/Biosphere‐Atmosphere Transfer Scheme to modifications in the optical properties of cloudsJournal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 1995
- Cloud‐radiative effects on implied oceanic energy transports as simulated by Atmospheric General Circulation ModelsGeophysical Research Letters, 1995
- The Seasonal Cycle of Low Stratiform CloudsJournal of Climate, 1993
- Regional Greenhouse Climate EffectsPublished by Elsevier ,1991
- Efficient Three-Dimensional Global Models for Climate Studies: Models I and IIMonthly Weather Review, 1983