A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity
Low-latitude cloud distributions and cloud responses to climate perturbations are compared in near-current versions of three leading U.S. AGCMs, the NCAR CAM 3.0, the GFDL AM2.12b, and the NASA GMAO NSIPP-2 model. The analysis technique of Bony et al. (Clim Dyn 22:71-86, 2004) is used to sort cloud...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Climate dynamics 2006-08, Vol.27 (2-3), p.261-279 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 279 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2-3 |
container_start_page | 261 |
container_title | Climate dynamics |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | WYANT, Matthew C BRETHERTON, Christopher S BACMEISTER, Julio T KIEHL, Jeffrey T HELD, Isaac M MING ZHAO KLEIN, Stephen A SODEN, Brian J |
description | Low-latitude cloud distributions and cloud responses to climate perturbations are compared in near-current versions of three leading U.S. AGCMs, the NCAR CAM 3.0, the GFDL AM2.12b, and the NASA GMAO NSIPP-2 model. The analysis technique of Bony et al. (Clim Dyn 22:71-86, 2004) is used to sort cloud variables by dynamical regime using the monthly mean pressure velocity ω at 500 hPa from 30S to 30N. All models simulate the climatological monthly mean top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF) adequately in all ω-regimes. However, they disagree with each other and with ISCCP satellite observations in regime-sorted cloud fraction, condensate amount, and cloud-top height. All models have too little cloud with tops in the middle troposphere and too much thin cirrus in ascent regimes. In subsidence regimes one model simulates cloud condensate to be too near the surface, while another generates condensate over an excessively deep layer of the lower troposphere. Standardized climate perturbation experiments of the three models are also compared, including uniform SST increase, patterned SST increase, and doubled CO^sub 2^ over a mixed layer ocean. The regime-sorted cloud and CRF perturbations are very different between models, and show lesser, but still significant, differences between the same model simulating different types of imposed climate perturbation. There is a negative correlation across all general circulation models (GCMs) and climate perturbations between changes in tropical low cloud cover and changes in net CRF, suggesting a dominant role for boundary layer cloud in these changes. For some of the cases presented, upper-level clouds in deep convection regimes are also important, and changes in such regimes can either reinforce or partially cancel the net CRF response from the boundary layer cloud in subsidence regimes. This study highlights the continuing uncertainty in both low and high cloud feedbacks simulated by GCMs.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00382-006-0138-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_754565223</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2083793711</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-7069f36871f0c91a40a6ba9cb5e19655563dbac2e0b16f90f90d3a8f1238bd483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kVGL1DAQx4MouJ5-AN-CoD71nDRN2jwui57CHb7oc0jT6W6OtqlJqtyX8bM6yx4IPgiBhOE3vzDzZ-y1gGsB0H7IALKrKwBdgZBd1TxhO9FIqnSmecp2YCRUrWrVc_Yi53sA0ei23rHfe-7jvLoUclx4HPkUf1WTK6FsA3I_xW3ga4orphIwc7cMvJwwJJ4wr3HJyEskLMyuEH5yyxF5WIhJiHx_c7jLPMdUcKAqkQmPYSbPlsNy5HMYqkLymNcTpuD5z_M33k30mKIP5eEleza6KeOrx_uKff_08dvhc3X79ebLYX9bealVqVrQZpS6a8UI3gjXgNO9M75XKIxWSmk59M7XCL3QowE6g3TdKGrZ9UPTySv2_uKlWX9smIudQ_Y4TW7BuGXbqkZpVdeSyHf_JYWRppNwVr75B7yPW1poCquFlAooAILEBfIp5pxwtGuiXaYHK8Ceg7WXYC0Fa8_B2oZ63j6KXaZdjcktPuS_ja2pVVuD_AMF3aVa</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>613350467</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>WYANT, Matthew C ; BRETHERTON, Christopher S ; BACMEISTER, Julio T ; KIEHL, Jeffrey T ; HELD, Isaac M ; MING ZHAO ; KLEIN, Stephen A ; SODEN, Brian J</creator><creatorcontrib>WYANT, Matthew C ; BRETHERTON, Christopher S ; BACMEISTER, Julio T ; KIEHL, Jeffrey T ; HELD, Isaac M ; MING ZHAO ; KLEIN, Stephen A ; SODEN, Brian J</creatorcontrib><description>Low-latitude cloud distributions and cloud responses to climate perturbations are compared in near-current versions of three leading U.S. AGCMs, the NCAR CAM 3.0, the GFDL AM2.12b, and the NASA GMAO NSIPP-2 model. The analysis technique of Bony et al. (Clim Dyn 22:71-86, 2004) is used to sort cloud variables by dynamical regime using the monthly mean pressure velocity ω at 500 hPa from 30S to 30N. All models simulate the climatological monthly mean top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF) adequately in all ω-regimes. However, they disagree with each other and with ISCCP satellite observations in regime-sorted cloud fraction, condensate amount, and cloud-top height. All models have too little cloud with tops in the middle troposphere and too much thin cirrus in ascent regimes. In subsidence regimes one model simulates cloud condensate to be too near the surface, while another generates condensate over an excessively deep layer of the lower troposphere. Standardized climate perturbation experiments of the three models are also compared, including uniform SST increase, patterned SST increase, and doubled CO^sub 2^ over a mixed layer ocean. The regime-sorted cloud and CRF perturbations are very different between models, and show lesser, but still significant, differences between the same model simulating different types of imposed climate perturbation. There is a negative correlation across all general circulation models (GCMs) and climate perturbations between changes in tropical low cloud cover and changes in net CRF, suggesting a dominant role for boundary layer cloud in these changes. For some of the cases presented, upper-level clouds in deep convection regimes are also important, and changes in such regimes can either reinforce or partially cancel the net CRF response from the boundary layer cloud in subsidence regimes. This study highlights the continuing uncertainty in both low and high cloud feedbacks simulated by GCMs.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-7575</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0894</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00382-006-0138-4</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CLDYEM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Boundary layers ; Climate change ; Climatology. Bioclimatology. Climate change ; Cloud cover ; Cloud physics ; Clouds ; Earth, ocean, space ; Exact sciences and technology ; External geophysics ; General circulation models ; Latitude ; Meteorology ; Subsidence ; Troposphere</subject><ispartof>Climate dynamics, 2006-08, Vol.27 (2-3), p.261-279</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-7069f36871f0c91a40a6ba9cb5e19655563dbac2e0b16f90f90d3a8f1238bd483</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-7069f36871f0c91a40a6ba9cb5e19655563dbac2e0b16f90f90d3a8f1238bd483</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17925720$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>WYANT, Matthew C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BRETHERTON, Christopher S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BACMEISTER, Julio T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIEHL, Jeffrey T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HELD, Isaac M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MING ZHAO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KLEIN, Stephen A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SODEN, Brian J</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity</title><title>Climate dynamics</title><description>Low-latitude cloud distributions and cloud responses to climate perturbations are compared in near-current versions of three leading U.S. AGCMs, the NCAR CAM 3.0, the GFDL AM2.12b, and the NASA GMAO NSIPP-2 model. The analysis technique of Bony et al. (Clim Dyn 22:71-86, 2004) is used to sort cloud variables by dynamical regime using the monthly mean pressure velocity ω at 500 hPa from 30S to 30N. All models simulate the climatological monthly mean top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF) adequately in all ω-regimes. However, they disagree with each other and with ISCCP satellite observations in regime-sorted cloud fraction, condensate amount, and cloud-top height. All models have too little cloud with tops in the middle troposphere and too much thin cirrus in ascent regimes. In subsidence regimes one model simulates cloud condensate to be too near the surface, while another generates condensate over an excessively deep layer of the lower troposphere. Standardized climate perturbation experiments of the three models are also compared, including uniform SST increase, patterned SST increase, and doubled CO^sub 2^ over a mixed layer ocean. The regime-sorted cloud and CRF perturbations are very different between models, and show lesser, but still significant, differences between the same model simulating different types of imposed climate perturbation. There is a negative correlation across all general circulation models (GCMs) and climate perturbations between changes in tropical low cloud cover and changes in net CRF, suggesting a dominant role for boundary layer cloud in these changes. For some of the cases presented, upper-level clouds in deep convection regimes are also important, and changes in such regimes can either reinforce or partially cancel the net CRF response from the boundary layer cloud in subsidence regimes. This study highlights the continuing uncertainty in both low and high cloud feedbacks simulated by GCMs.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Boundary layers</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Climatology. Bioclimatology. Climate change</subject><subject>Cloud cover</subject><subject>Cloud physics</subject><subject>Clouds</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>External geophysics</subject><subject>General circulation models</subject><subject>Latitude</subject><subject>Meteorology</subject><subject>Subsidence</subject><subject>Troposphere</subject><issn>0930-7575</issn><issn>1432-0894</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kVGL1DAQx4MouJ5-AN-CoD71nDRN2jwui57CHb7oc0jT6W6OtqlJqtyX8bM6yx4IPgiBhOE3vzDzZ-y1gGsB0H7IALKrKwBdgZBd1TxhO9FIqnSmecp2YCRUrWrVc_Yi53sA0ei23rHfe-7jvLoUclx4HPkUf1WTK6FsA3I_xW3ga4orphIwc7cMvJwwJJ4wr3HJyEskLMyuEH5yyxF5WIhJiHx_c7jLPMdUcKAqkQmPYSbPlsNy5HMYqkLymNcTpuD5z_M33k30mKIP5eEleza6KeOrx_uKff_08dvhc3X79ebLYX9bealVqVrQZpS6a8UI3gjXgNO9M75XKIxWSmk59M7XCL3QowE6g3TdKGrZ9UPTySv2_uKlWX9smIudQ_Y4TW7BuGXbqkZpVdeSyHf_JYWRppNwVr75B7yPW1poCquFlAooAILEBfIp5pxwtGuiXaYHK8Ceg7WXYC0Fa8_B2oZ63j6KXaZdjcktPuS_ja2pVVuD_AMF3aVa</recordid><startdate>20060801</startdate><enddate>20060801</enddate><creator>WYANT, Matthew C</creator><creator>BRETHERTON, Christopher S</creator><creator>BACMEISTER, Julio T</creator><creator>KIEHL, Jeffrey T</creator><creator>HELD, Isaac M</creator><creator>MING ZHAO</creator><creator>KLEIN, Stephen A</creator><creator>SODEN, Brian J</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060801</creationdate><title>A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity</title><author>WYANT, Matthew C ; BRETHERTON, Christopher S ; BACMEISTER, Julio T ; KIEHL, Jeffrey T ; HELD, Isaac M ; MING ZHAO ; KLEIN, Stephen A ; SODEN, Brian J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-7069f36871f0c91a40a6ba9cb5e19655563dbac2e0b16f90f90d3a8f1238bd483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Boundary layers</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Climatology. Bioclimatology. Climate change</topic><topic>Cloud cover</topic><topic>Cloud physics</topic><topic>Clouds</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>External geophysics</topic><topic>General circulation models</topic><topic>Latitude</topic><topic>Meteorology</topic><topic>Subsidence</topic><topic>Troposphere</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>WYANT, Matthew C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BRETHERTON, Christopher S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BACMEISTER, Julio T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIEHL, Jeffrey T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HELD, Isaac M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MING ZHAO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KLEIN, Stephen A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SODEN, Brian J</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Climate dynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>WYANT, Matthew C</au><au>BRETHERTON, Christopher S</au><au>BACMEISTER, Julio T</au><au>KIEHL, Jeffrey T</au><au>HELD, Isaac M</au><au>MING ZHAO</au><au>KLEIN, Stephen A</au><au>SODEN, Brian J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity</atitle><jtitle>Climate dynamics</jtitle><date>2006-08-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>2-3</issue><spage>261</spage><epage>279</epage><pages>261-279</pages><issn>0930-7575</issn><eissn>1432-0894</eissn><coden>CLDYEM</coden><abstract>Low-latitude cloud distributions and cloud responses to climate perturbations are compared in near-current versions of three leading U.S. AGCMs, the NCAR CAM 3.0, the GFDL AM2.12b, and the NASA GMAO NSIPP-2 model. The analysis technique of Bony et al. (Clim Dyn 22:71-86, 2004) is used to sort cloud variables by dynamical regime using the monthly mean pressure velocity ω at 500 hPa from 30S to 30N. All models simulate the climatological monthly mean top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF) adequately in all ω-regimes. However, they disagree with each other and with ISCCP satellite observations in regime-sorted cloud fraction, condensate amount, and cloud-top height. All models have too little cloud with tops in the middle troposphere and too much thin cirrus in ascent regimes. In subsidence regimes one model simulates cloud condensate to be too near the surface, while another generates condensate over an excessively deep layer of the lower troposphere. Standardized climate perturbation experiments of the three models are also compared, including uniform SST increase, patterned SST increase, and doubled CO^sub 2^ over a mixed layer ocean. The regime-sorted cloud and CRF perturbations are very different between models, and show lesser, but still significant, differences between the same model simulating different types of imposed climate perturbation. There is a negative correlation across all general circulation models (GCMs) and climate perturbations between changes in tropical low cloud cover and changes in net CRF, suggesting a dominant role for boundary layer cloud in these changes. For some of the cases presented, upper-level clouds in deep convection regimes are also important, and changes in such regimes can either reinforce or partially cancel the net CRF response from the boundary layer cloud in subsidence regimes. This study highlights the continuing uncertainty in both low and high cloud feedbacks simulated by GCMs.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1007/s00382-006-0138-4</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0930-7575 |
ispartof | Climate dynamics, 2006-08, Vol.27 (2-3), p.261-279 |
issn | 0930-7575 1432-0894 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_754565223 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Boundary layers Climate change Climatology. Bioclimatology. Climate change Cloud cover Cloud physics Clouds Earth, ocean, space Exact sciences and technology External geophysics General circulation models Latitude Meteorology Subsidence Troposphere |
title | A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T14%3A23%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20low-latitude%20cloud%20properties%20and%20their%20response%20to%20climate%20change%20in%20three%20AGCMs%20sorted%20into%20regimes%20using%20mid-tropospheric%20vertical%20velocity&rft.jtitle=Climate%20dynamics&rft.au=WYANT,%20Matthew%20C&rft.date=2006-08-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=261&rft.epage=279&rft.pages=261-279&rft.issn=0930-7575&rft.eissn=1432-0894&rft.coden=CLDYEM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00382-006-0138-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2083793711%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=613350467&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |