Evaluating cloud tuning in a climate model with satellite observations

Geophysical Research Letters

Volumn 40, Issue 16, 2013, Pages 4464-4468

  Suzuki, Kentaroh ^a   Golaz, Jean Christophe ^b   Stephens, Graeme L ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

aerosol indirect effect; cloud microphysics; model evaluation

Indexed keywords

AEROSOL INDIRECT EFFECT; CLOUD MICROPHYSICS; CLOUD PARAMETERS; COMPENSATING ERRORS; MICROPHYSICAL PROCESS; MODEL EVALUATION; SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS; TEMPERATURE TRENDS;

AEROSOLS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ERRORS; RAIN;

CLIMATE MODELS;

AEROSOL; CLIMATE MODELING; CLOUD; CLOUD MICROPHYSICS; SATELLITE DATA; TEMPERATURE ANOMALY;

EID: 84883197442     PISSN: 00948276     EISSN: 19448007     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/grl.50874     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bodas-Salcedo, A., et al. (2011), COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment, Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023-1043, doi: 10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1.
2. Golaz, J. -C., et al. (2011), Sensitivity of the aerosol indirect effect to subgrid variability in the cloud parameterization of the GFDL Atmosphere General Circulation Model AM3, J. Clim., 24, 3145-3160, doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3945.1.
3. Golaz, J. -C., L. W. Horowitz, and, H. Levy II, (2013), Cloud tuning in a coupled climate model: Impact on 20th century warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2246-2251, doi: 10.1002/grl.50232.
4. Kessler, E., (1969), On the Distribution and Continuity of Water Substance in Atmospheric Circulations. Meteor. Monogr., no. 32, 84 pp., Amer. Meteor. Soc.
5. Marchand, R. T., G. G. Mace, T. Ackerman, and, G. Stephens, (2008), Hydrometeor detection using CloudSat-An Earth-orbiting 94-GHz cloud radar, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 25, 519-533, doi: 10.1175/2007JTECHA1006.1.
6. Di Michele, S., et al. (2012), Interpretating an evaluation of the ECMWF global model with CloudSat observations: Ambiguities due to radar reflectivity forward operator uncertainties, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 138, 2047-2065, doi: 10.1002/qj.1936.
7. Nam, C., S. Bony, J. -L. Dufresne, and, H. Chepfer, (2012), The'too few, too bright' tropical low-cloud problem in CMIP5 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L21801, doi: 10.1029/2012GL053421.
8. Platnick, S., et al. (2003), The MODIS cloud products: Algorithms and examples from Terra, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens., 41, 459-473.
9. Pawlowska, H., and, J. -L. Brenguier, (2003), An observational study of drizzle formation in stratocumulus clouds for general circulation model (GCM) parameterizations, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D15), 8630, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002679.
10. Rotstayn, L. D., (2000), On the cloud "tuning" of autoconversion parameterizations in climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 105 (D12), 15,495-15,507, doi: 10.1029/2000JD900129.
11. Suzuki, K., T. Y. Nakajima, and, G. L. Stephens, (2010), Particle growth and drop collection efficiency of warm clouds as inferred from joint CloudSat and MODIS observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 3019-3032, doi: 10.1175/2010JAS3463. 1.
12. Suzuki, K., G. L. Stephens, S. C. van den Heever, and, T. Y. Nakajima, (2011), Diagnosis of the warm rain process in cloud-resolving models using joint CloudSat and MODIS observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 2655-2670, doi: 10.1175/JAS-D-10-05026.1.
13. Suzuki, K., G. L. Stephens, and, M. D. Lebsock, (2013), Aerosol effect on the warm rain formation process: Satellite observations and modeling, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 170-184, doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50043.
14. Tripoli, G. J., and, W. R. Cotton, (1980), A numerical investigation of several factors contributing to the observed variable intensity of deep convection over south Florida, J. Appl. Meteorol., 19, 1037-1063.