skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Assessment of the cloud liquid water from climate models and reanalysis using satellite observations

Abstract

We perform here a model-observation comparison and report on the state-of-the-art cloud liquid water content (CLWC) and path (CLWP) outputs from the present-day global climate models (GCMs) simulations in CMIP3/CMIP5, two other GCMs (UCLA and GEOS5) and two reanalyses (ECMWF Interim and MERRA) in comparison with two satellites observational datasets (CloudSat and MODIS). We use two different liquid water observation products from CloudSat and MODIS, for CLWP and their combined product for LWC with a method to remove the contribution from precipitating and convective core hydrometeors so that more meaningful model-observation comparisons can be made. Considering the CloudSat’s limitations of CLWC retrievals due to contamination from the precipitation and from radar clutter near the surface, an estimate CLWC is synergistically constructed using MODIS CLWP and CloudSat CLWC. The model-observation comparison shows that most of the CMIP3/CMIP5 annual mean CLWP values are overestimated by factors of 2 - 10 compared to observations globally. There are a number of CMIP5 models, including CSIRO, MPI, and the UCLA GCM that perform well compared to the other models. For the vertical structure of CLWC, significant systematic biases are found with many models biased significantly high above the mid-troposphere. In the tropics, systematic high biasesmore » occur at all levels above 700 hPa. Based on the Taylor diagram, the ensemble performance of CMIP5 CLWP simulation shows little or no improvement relative to CMIP3.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2];  [1];  [3]
  1. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States). Jet Propulsion Lab.
  2. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
  3. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States). Jet Propulsion Lab.; Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA (United States). Joint Inst. for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States); California Institute of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
OSTI Identifier:
1498459
Report Number(s):
LLNL-JRNL-765388
Journal ID: ISSN 1017-0839; 955422
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC52-07NA27344
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
TAO: Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 29; Journal Issue: 6; Journal ID: ISSN 1017-0839
Publisher:
The Chinese Geoscience Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Li, Jui-lin F., Lee, Seungwon, Ma, Hsi-Yen, Stephens, G., and Guan, Bin. Assessment of the cloud liquid water from climate models and reanalysis using satellite observations. United States: N. p., 2018. Web. https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2018.07.04.01.
Li, Jui-lin F., Lee, Seungwon, Ma, Hsi-Yen, Stephens, G., & Guan, Bin. Assessment of the cloud liquid water from climate models and reanalysis using satellite observations. United States. https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2018.07.04.01
Li, Jui-lin F., Lee, Seungwon, Ma, Hsi-Yen, Stephens, G., and Guan, Bin. Sat . "Assessment of the cloud liquid water from climate models and reanalysis using satellite observations". United States. https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2018.07.04.01. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1498459.
@article{osti_1498459,
title = {Assessment of the cloud liquid water from climate models and reanalysis using satellite observations},
author = {Li, Jui-lin F. and Lee, Seungwon and Ma, Hsi-Yen and Stephens, G. and Guan, Bin},
abstractNote = {We perform here a model-observation comparison and report on the state-of-the-art cloud liquid water content (CLWC) and path (CLWP) outputs from the present-day global climate models (GCMs) simulations in CMIP3/CMIP5, two other GCMs (UCLA and GEOS5) and two reanalyses (ECMWF Interim and MERRA) in comparison with two satellites observational datasets (CloudSat and MODIS). We use two different liquid water observation products from CloudSat and MODIS, for CLWP and their combined product for LWC with a method to remove the contribution from precipitating and convective core hydrometeors so that more meaningful model-observation comparisons can be made. Considering the CloudSat’s limitations of CLWC retrievals due to contamination from the precipitation and from radar clutter near the surface, an estimate CLWC is synergistically constructed using MODIS CLWP and CloudSat CLWC. The model-observation comparison shows that most of the CMIP3/CMIP5 annual mean CLWP values are overestimated by factors of 2 - 10 compared to observations globally. There are a number of CMIP5 models, including CSIRO, MPI, and the UCLA GCM that perform well compared to the other models. For the vertical structure of CLWC, significant systematic biases are found with many models biased significantly high above the mid-troposphere. In the tropics, systematic high biases occur at all levels above 700 hPa. Based on the Taylor diagram, the ensemble performance of CMIP5 CLWP simulation shows little or no improvement relative to CMIP3.},
doi = {10.3319/TAO.2018.07.04.01},
journal = {TAO: Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences},
number = 6,
volume = 29,
place = {United States},
year = {2018},
month = {12}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Save / Share: