Search

The Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs) was initiated in 2010 to facilitate the use of observations in climate model evaluation and research, with a particular target being the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), a major initiative of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). To this end, Obs4MIPs (1) targets observed variables that can be compared to CMIP model variables; (2) utilizes dataset formatting specifications and metadata requirements closely aligned with CMIP model output; (3) provides brief technical documentation for each dataset, designed for nonexperts and tailored towards relevance for model evaluation, including information on uncertainty, dataset merits, and limitations; and (4) disseminates the data through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) platforms, making the observations searchable and accessible via the same portals as the model output. Taken together, these characteristics of the organization and structure of obs4MIPs should entice a more diverse community of researchers to engage in the comparison of model output with observations and to contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation of the climate models. At present, the number of obs4MIPs datasets has grown to about 80; many are undergoing updates, with another 20 or so in preparation, and more than 100 are proposed and under consideration. A partial list of current global satellite-based datasets includes humidity and temperature profiles; a wide range of cloud and aerosol observations; ocean surface wind, temperature, height, and sea ice fraction; surface and top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave radiation; and ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) products. A partial list of proposed products expected to be useful in analyzing CMIP6 results includes the following: alternative products for the above quantities, additional products for ocean surface flux and chlorophyll products, a number of vegetation products (e.g., FAPAR, LAI, burned area fraction), ice sheet mass and height, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). While most existing obs4MIPs datasets consist of monthly-mean gridded data over the global domain, products with higher time resolution (e.g., daily) and/or regional products are now receiving more attention. Along with an increasing number of datasets, obs4MIPs has implemented a number of capability upgrades including (1) an updated obs4MIPs data specifications document that provides additional search facets and generally improves congruence with CMIP6 specifications for model datasets, (2) a set of six easily understood indicators that help guide users as to a dataset's maturity and suitability for application, and (3) an option to supply supplemental information about a dataset beyond what can be found in the standard metadata. With the maturation of the obs4MIPs framework, the dataset inclusion process, and the dataset formatting guidelines and resources, the scope of the observations being considered is expected to grow to include gridded in situ datasets as well as datasets with a regional focus, and the ultimate intent is to judiciously expand this scope to any observation dataset that has applicability for evaluation of the types of Earth system models used in CMIP.

Longwave (LW) spectral flux and cloud radiative effect (CRE) are important for understanding the earth’s radiation budget and cloud–radiation interaction. Here, the authors extend their previous algorithms to collocated Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) and Cloud and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) observations over the entire globe and show that the algorithms yield consistently good performances for measurements over both land and ocean. As a result, the authors are able to derive spectral flux and CRE at 10-cm−1 intervals over the entire LW spectrum from all currently available collocated AIRS and CERES observations. Using this multiyear dataset, they delineate the climatology of spectral CRE, including the far IR, over the entire globe as well as in different climate zones. Furthermore, the authors define two quantities, IR-effective cloud-top height (CTHeff) and cloud amount (CAeff), based on the monthly-mean spectral (or band by band) CRE. Comparisons with cloud fields retrieved by the CERES–Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) algorithm indicate that, under many circumstances, the CTHeff and CAeff can be related to the physical retrievals of CTH and CA and thus can enhance understandings of model deficiencies in LW radiation budgets and cloud fields. Using simulations from the GFDL global atmosphere model, version 2 (AM2); NASA’s Goddard Earth Observing System, version 5 (GEOS-5); and Environment Canada’s Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) Fourth Generation Canadian Atmospheric General Circulation Model (CanAM4) as case studies, the authors further demonstrate the merits of the CTHeff and CAeff concepts in providing insights on global climate model evaluations that cannot be obtained solely from broadband LW flux and CRE comparisons.

The objective of the Observations for Model Intercomparison Projects (Obs4MIPs) is to provide observational data to the climate science community, which is analogous (in terms of variables, temporal and spatial frequency, and periods) to output from the 5th phase of the World Climate Research Programme's (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) climate model simulations. The essential aspect of the Obs4MIPs methodology is that it strictly follows the CMIP5 protocol document when selecting the observational datasets. Obs4MIPs also provides documentation that describes aspects of the observational data (e.g., data origin, instrument overview, uncertainty estimates) that are of particular relevance to scientists involved in climate model evaluation and analysis. In this paper, we focus on the activities related to the initial set of satellite observations, which are being carried out in close coordination with CMIP5 and directly engage NASA's observational (e.g., mission and instrument) science teams. Having launched Obs4MIPs with these datasets, a broader effort is also briefly discussed, striving to engage other agencies and experts who maintain datasets, including reanalysis, which can be directly used to evaluate climate models. Different strategies for using satellite observations to evaluate climate models are also briefly summarized.

The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Application (MERRA) is a reanalysis designed to produce an improved representation of the Earth’s hydrologic cycle. This study examines the representation of deep convective clouds in MERRA, comparing analyzed liquid and ice clouds with deep convective cloud objects observed by instruments on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite. Results show that MERRA contains deep convective cloud in 98.1% of the observed cases. MERRA-derived probability density functions (PDFs) of cloud properties have a similar form as the observed PDFs and exhibit a similar trend with changes in object size. Total water path, optical depth, and outgoing shortwave radiation (OSR) in MERRA are found to match the cloud object observations quite well; however, there appears to be a bias toward higher-than-observed cloud tops in the MERRA. The reanalysis fits the observations most closely for the largest class of convective systems, with performance generally decreasing with a transition to smaller convective systems. Comparisons of simulated total water path, optical depth, and OSR are found to be highly sensitive to the assumed subgrid distribution of condensate and indicate the need for caution when interpreting model-data comparisons that require disaggregation of grid-scale cloud to satellite pixel scales.

To significantly improve the simulation of climate by general circulation models (GCMs), systematic errors in representations of relevant processes must first be identified, and then reduced. This endeavor demands that the GCM parameterizations of unresolved processes, in particular, should be tested over a wide range of time scales, not just in climate simulations. Thus, a numerical weather prediction (NWP) methodology for evaluating model parameterizations and gaining insights into their behavior may prove useful, provided that suitable adaptations are made for implementation in climate GCMs. This method entails the generation of short-range weather forecasts by a realistically initialized climate GCM, and the application of six hourly NWP analyses and observations of parameterized variables to evaluate these forecasts. The behavior of the parameterizations in such a weather-forecasting framework can provide insights on how these schemes might be improved, and modified parameterizations then can be tested in the same framework. To further this method for evaluating and analyzing parameterizations in climate GCMs, the U.S. Department of Energy is funding a joint venture of its Climate Change Prediction Program (CCPP) and Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program: the CCPP-ARM Parameterization Testbed (CAPT). This article elaborates the scientific rationale for CAPT, discusses technical aspects of its methodology, and presents examples of its implementation in a representative climate GCM.

The NCEP–DOE Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP-II) reanalysis is a follow-on project to the “50-year” (1948–present) NCEP–NCAR Reanalysis Project. NCEP–DOE AMIP-II re-analysis covers the “20-year” satellite period of 1979 to the present and uses an updated forecast model, updated data assimilation system, improved diagnostic outputs, and fixes for the known processing problems of the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis. Only minor differences are found in the primary analysis variables such as free atmospheric geopotential height and winds in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, while significant improvements upon NCEP–NCAR reanalysis are made in land surface parameters and land–ocean fluxes. This analysis can be used as a supplement to the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis especially where the original analysis has problems. The differences between the two analyses also provide a measure of uncertainty in current analyses.

What: to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of PCmDi and to honor its founder, w. lawrence gates, more than 100 specialists and leaders in climate modeling met to discuss PCmDi’s history and the future of climate modeling When: 6 april 2009 Where: bethesda, maryland T wenty years ago, W. Lawrence (Larry) Gates approached the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science) with a plan to coordinate the comparison and documentation of climate model differences. This effort would help improve our understanding of climate change through a systematic approach to model intercomparison. Early attempts at comparing results showed a surprisingly large range in control climate from such parameters as cloud cover, precipitation, and even atmospheric temperature. The DOE agreed to fund the effort at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in part because of the existing computing environment and because of a preexisting atmospheric science group that contained a wide variety of expertise. The project was named the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), and it has changed the international landscape of climate modeling over the past 20 years. In spring 2009 the DOE hosted a 1-day symposium to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of PCMDI and to honor its founder, Larry Gates. Through their personal experiences, the morning presenters painted an image of climate science in the 1970s and 1980s, that generated early support from the international community for model intercomparison, thereby bringing PCMDI into existence. Four talks covered Gates’s early contributions to climate research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the RAND Corporation, and Oregon State University through the founding of PCMDI to coordinate the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP). The speakers were, in order of presentation, Warren Washington [National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)], Kelly Redmond (Western Regional Climate Center), George Boer (Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis), and Lennart Bengtsson [University of Reading, former director of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)]. The afternoon session emphasized the scientific ideas that are the basis of PCMDI’s success, summarizing their AFFILIATIONS: Potter—University of California Davis, Davis, California; bader—oak ridge national laboratory, oak ridge, tennessee; riChes and josePh—office of biological and environmental research, U.s. Department of energy, washington, D.C.; baMzai—Climate and large-scale Dynamics Program, national science foundation, arlington, Virginia CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: gerald l. Potter, Department of geology, University of California, Davis, one shields avenue, Davis, Ca 95616 e-mail: jpotter@ucdavis.edu

The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), initiated in 1989 under the auspices of the World Climate Research Programme, undertook the systematic validation, diagnosis, and intercomparison of the performance of atmospheric general circulation models. For this purpose all models were required to simulate the evolution of the climate during the decade 1979—88, subject to the observed monthly average temperature and sea ice and a common prescribed atmospheric CO2 concentration and solar constant. By 1995, 31 modeling groups, representing virtually the entire international atmospheric modeling community, had contributed the required standard output of the monthly means of selected statistics. These data have been analyzed by the participating modeling groups, by the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, and by the more than two dozen AMIP diagnostic subprojects that have been established to examine specific aspects of the models' performance. Here the analysis and valida...

There has been a long history of unexplained anomalous absorption of solar radiation by clouds. Collocated satellite and surface measurements of solar radiation at five geographically diverse locations showed significant solar absorption by clouds, resulting in about 25 watts per square meter more global-mean absorption by the cloudy atmosphere than predicted by theoretical models. It has often been suggested that tropospheric aerosols could increase cloud absorption. But these aerosols are temporally and spatially heterogeneous, whereas the observed cloud absorption is remarkably invariant with respect to season and location. Although its physical cause is unknown, enhanced cloud absorption substantially alters our understanding of the atmosphere's energy budget.

Cloud radiative forcing constitutes the radiative impact of clouds upon the earth's present climate, while cloud radiative feedback is the change in this forcing associated with climatic change. The present study addresses two issues concerning cloud radiative forcing. The first is that an intercomparison of cloud radiative forcing, as predicted by six different general circulation models, shows a considerable lack of agreement, underscoring the need for an improved understanding of cloud/radiation interactions within such models. The second issue pertains to an examination of strategies by which model-predicted cloud/radiation interactions should be compared with satellite-derived data sets. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0870.1987.tb00321.x

Twenty years ago, W. Lawrence (Larry) Gates approached the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science) with a plan to coordinate the comparison and documentation of climate model differences. This effort would help improve our understanding of climate change through a systematic approach to model intercomparison. Early attempts at comparing results showed a surprisingly large range in control climate from such parameters as cloud cover, precipitation, and even atmospheric temperature. The DOE agreed to fund the effort at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in part because of the existing computing environment and because of a preexisting atmospheric science group that contained a wide variety of expertise. The project was named the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), and it has changed the international landscape of climate modeling over the past 20 years. In spring 2009 the DOE hosted a 1-day symposium to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of PCMDI and to honor its founder, Larry Gates. Through their personal experiences, the morning presenters painted an image of climate science in the 1970s and 1980s, that generated early support from the international community for model intercomparison, thereby bringing PCMDI into existence. Four talks covered more » GatesAƒÂƒA‚¢AƒÂ‚A‚€AƒÂ‚A‚™s early contributions to climate research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the RAND Corporation, and Oregon State University through the founding of PCMDI to coordinate the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP). The speakers were, in order of presentation, Warren Washington [National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)], Kelly Redmond (Western Regional Climate Center), George Boer (Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis), and Lennart Bengtsson [University of Reading, former director of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)]. The afternoon session emphasized the scientific ideas that are the basis of PCMDIAƒÂƒA‚¢AƒÂ‚A‚€AƒÂ‚A‚™s success, summarizing their evolution and impact. Four speakers followed the various PCMDI-supported climate model intercomparison projects, beginning with early work on cloud representations in models, presented by Robert D. Cess (Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Stony Brook University), and then the latest Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Projects (CFMIPs) led by Sandrine Bony (Laboratoire de MAƒÂƒA‚ƒAƒÂ‚A‚©tAƒÂƒA‚ƒAƒÂ‚A‚©orologie Dynamique). Benjamin Santer (LLNL) presented a review of the climate change detection and attribution (D & A) work pioneered at PCMDI, and Gerald A. Meehl (NCAR) ended the day with a look toward the future of climate change research. « less

Two datasets have been combined to demonstrate how the availability of more comprehensive datasets could serve to elucidate the shortwave radiative impact of clouds on both the atmospheric column and the surface. These datasets consist of two measurements of net downward shortwave radiation: one of near-surface measurements made at the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory tower, and the other of collocated top-of-the-atmosphere measurements from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. Output from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts General Circulation Model also has been used as an aid in interpreting the data, while the data have in turn been employed to validate the model's shortwave radiation code as it pertains to cloud radiation properties. Combined, the datasets and model demonstrate a strategy for determining under what conditions the shortwave radiative impact of clouds leads to a heating or cooling of the atmospheric column. The datasets also show, in terms of a linear slope-offset algorithm for retrieving the net downward shortwave radiation at the surface from satellite measurements, that the clouds present during this study produced a modest negative bias in the retrieved surface flux relative to that inferred from a clear-sky algorithm.

[1] We compare the balance of terms in moisture and temperature prediction equations during short forecasts by the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM2) with observed estimates at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains site for two intensive observing periods (IOPs). The goal is to provide insight into parameterization errors which ultimately should lead to model improvements. The atmospheric initial conditions are obtained from high-resolution numerical weather prediction (NWP) analyses. The land initial conditions are spun up to be consistent with those analyses. Three cases are considered: (1) June/July 1997 when the atmosphere is relatively moist and surface evaporation corresponds to 90% of the precipitation with advection accounting for the remainder; (2) rainy days in April 1997 when the atmosphere is less moist and horizontal advection accounts for much of the precipitation with a small contribution from surface evaporation and the balance being derived from the water already present in the column; and (3) nonrainy days of the April 1997 when the moist process parameterizations are inactive and the planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterization is dominant. For the first case the Zhang-McFarlane deep convective parameterization drives the model to a wrong state. For the second the Hack shallow convective parameterization appears to be not acting deep enough. During both periods inconsistencies between CAM2 and ARM surface fluxes, land surface conditions and the net surface radiative fluxes indicate that the exchange parameterizations should be examined further. For the third case the PBL parameterization does not appear to create the correct vertical structure. In addition, the individual components of the dynamical tendency are very different between CAM2 and ARM, although the total dynamical tendency is similar in the two. Although these observations do not imply that those components are themselves wrong since they may be responding to other errors, each of these components should be examined further to determine the cause of their behaviors.

[1] The Community Atmospheric Model 2 (CAM2) is run as a short-term (1–5 days) forecast model initialized with reanalysis data. The intent is to reveal model deficiencies before complex interactions obscure the root error sources. Integrations are carried out for three Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program intensive operational periods (IOPs): June/July 1997, April 1997, and March 2000. The ARM data are used to validate the model in detail for the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site for all the periods and in the tropical west Pacific for the March 2000 period. The model errors establish themselves quickly, and within 3 days the model has evolved into a state distinctly different from the ARM observations. The summer forecasts evince a systematic error in convective rainfall. This error manifests itself in the temperature and moisture profiles after a single diurnal cycle. The same error characteristics are seen in the March 2000 tropical west Pacific forecasts. The model performs well in the spring cases at the SGP. Most of the error is manifested during rainy periods. The ARM cloud radar comparison to the model reveals cloud errors which are consistent with the relative humidity profile errors. The cloud errors are similar to those seen in climatological integrations, but the state variable errors are different. Thus there is the possibility that the some basic parameterization errors are obscured in the climatological integrations. The approach described here will facilitate parameterization experimentation, diagnoses, and validation. One way of reducing cloud feedback uncertainty is to make the physical processes behave in the most realistic manner possible. Paradoxically, perhaps the best way to reduce uncertainty in cloud feedback mechanisms is to evaluate the model processes with realistic forcing before such feedbacks have any significant affect.

[1] This study implements a revised convective triggering condition in the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Atmosphere Model, Version 2 (CAM2), model to reduce its excessive warm season daytime precipitation over land. The new triggering mechanism introduces a simple dynamic constraint on the initiation of convection that emulates the collective effects of lower level moistening and upward motion of the large-scale circulation. It requires a positive contribution from the large-scale advection of temperature and moisture to the existing positive convective available potential energy (CAPE) for model convection to start. In contrast, the original convection triggering function in CAM2 assumes that convection is triggered whenever there is positive CAPE, which results in too frequent warm season convection over land arising from strong diurnal variation of solar radiation. We examine the impact of the new trigger on CAM2 simulations by running the climate model in numerical weather prediction (NWP) mode so that more available observations and high-frequency NWP analysis data can be used to evaluate model performance. We show that the modified triggering mechanism has led to considerable improvements in the simulation of precipitation, temperature, moisture, clouds, radiations, surface temperature, and surface sensible and latent heat fluxes when compared to the data collected from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program at its Southern Great Plains (SGP) site. Similar improvements are also seen over other parts of the globe. In particular, the surface precipitation simulation has been significantly improved over both the continental United States and around the globe; the overestimation of high clouds in the equatorial tropics has been substantially reduced; and the temperature, moisture, and zonal wind are more realistically simulated. Results from this study also show that some systematic errors in the CAM2 climate simulations can be detected in the early stage of model integration. Examples are the extremely overestimated high clouds in the tropics in the vicinity of Intertropical Convergence Zone and the spurious precipitation maximum to the east of the Rockies. This has important implications in studies of these model errors since running the climate model in NWP mode allows us to perform a more in-depth analysis during a short time period where more observations are available and different model errors from various processes have not compensated for the systematic errors.

Model output from a selected set of AMIP models shows that the tropical shortwave cloud radiative forcing is systematically too strong when compared to satellite observations. The models also produce a negative systematic error in cloud amount when compared to ISCCP in the extratropics. The cloud amount error accounts for much of the error in short-wave cloud forcing because short-wave cloud forcing has a linear dependence on cloud amount. Some of the errors in short-wave cloud radiative forcing cannot be explained by errors in cloud amount and may be due to errors in cloud optical properties.

A clear-sky flux computation method is described which is representative of the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment data processing, while at the same time being enough straightforward for implementation in a general circulation model (GCM). The method is a hybrid version of Cess and Potter (1987) Method I and Method II clear-sky top-of-the-atmosphere flux computations for GCMs. The procedure is demonstrated using the ECMWF GCM.

Radiation fields from a perpetual July integration of a T106 version of the ECMWF operational model are used to identify the most appropriate way to diagnose cloud radiative forcing in a general circulation model, for the purposes of intercomparison between models. Differences between the methods 1 and 2 of Cess and Potter (1987) and a variant method are addressed. Method 1 is shown to be the least robust of all methods, due to the potential uncertainties related to persistent cloudiness, length of the sampling period, and biases in retrieved clear sky quantities due to insufficient sampling of the diurnal cycle. Method 2 is proposed as an unambiguous way to produce consistent radiative diagnostics for intercomparing model results. The impact of the three methods on the derived sensitivites and cloud feedbacks following an imposed change in sea surface temperature is discussed. The sensitivity of the results to horizontal resolution is considered by using the diagnostics from parallel integrations with T21 version of the model. 20 refs., 2 figs., 1 tab.

A method is described for analyzing the feedback and synergistic contributions of temperature, water vapor, cloud cover, surface albedo and CO2 to the change in the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere due to a perturbation in an annual-averaged zonal atmospheric climate model. The method is illustrated through analysis of a doubled CO2 experiment with the Lawrence Livermore. National Laboratory Statistical Dynamical Model (LLNL SDM). The method provides insight into the sensitivity of the model to feedback changes in individual parameters and how each parameter influences the effects of the others.

In this paper we examine and clarify several arguments that have been put forth by Dr. S. B. Idso in an article appearing within this issue of Climatic Change.

Understanding the cause of differences among general circulation model projections of carbon dioxide-induced climatic change is a necessary step toward improving the models. An intercomparison of 14 atmospheric general circulation models, for which sea surface temperature perturbations were used as a surrogate climate change, showed that there was a roughly threefold variation in global climate sensitivity. Most of this variation is attributable to differences in the models' depictions of cloud-climate feedback, a result that emphasizes the need for improvements in the treatment of clouds in these models if they are ultimately to be used as climatic predictors.

The present study provides an intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. This intercomparison uses sea surface temperature change as a surrogate for climate change. The interpretation of cloud-climate interactions is given special attention. A roughly threefold variation in one measure of global climate sensitivity is found among the 19 models. The important conclusion is that most of this variation is attributable to differences in the models' depiction of cloud feedback, a result that emphasizes the need for improvements in the treatment of clouds in these models if they are ultimately to be used as reliable climate predictors. It is further emphazied that cloud feedback is the consequence of all interacting physical and dynamical processes in a general circulation model. The result of these processes is to produce changes in temperature, moisture distribution, and clouds which are integrated into the radiative response termed cloud feedback.

Based upon the need to understand differences between general circulation model projections of climatic change due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, the present study first categorizes reasons for these differences and presents suggestions for the design of future climate model simulations, so that these specific categories may directly be addressed and understood. Following this, and based upon tutorial use of a radiative-convective model, it is suggested that sea surface temperature perturbations may be used, in conjunction with separation of clear and overcast regions within a model, as a surrogate climatic change for the purpose of understanding and intercomparing atmospheric climate feedback processes. This approach is illustrated through use of the Oregon State University/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory general circulation model, with particular attention being paid to interpreting cloud/climate interactions within the model.