1 / 18

Quantifying sub-grid cloud structure and representing it GCMs

Quantifying sub-grid cloud structure and representing it GCMs. Robin Hogan Anthony Illingworth, Sarah Kew, Jean-Jacques Morcrette, Itumeleng Kgololo, Joe Daron, Anna Townsend. Overview. Cloud overlap from radar Maximum-random overlap underestimates cloud radiative effect

bailey
Download Presentation

Quantifying sub-grid cloud structure and representing it GCMs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Quantifying sub-grid cloud structure and representing it GCMs Robin Hogan Anthony Illingworth, Sarah Kew, Jean-Jacques Morcrette, Itumeleng Kgololo, Joe Daron, Anna Townsend

  2. Overview • Cloud overlap from radar • Maximum-random overlap underestimates cloud radiative effect • Inhomogeneity scaling factors from MODIS • Homogeneous clouds overestimate cloud radiative effect • Dependence on gridbox size, cloud type, spectral region etc. • Vertical structure of inhomogeneity from radar • Overlap of inhomogeneities in ice clouds • Experiments with a 3D stochastic cirrus model • Trade-off between overlap and inhomogeneity errors • Representing the heating-rate profile • Priorities for radiation schemes

  3. Cloud overlap assumption in models • Cloud fraction and mean ice water content alone not sufficient to constrain the radiation budget • Assumptions generate very different cloud covers • Most models now use “maximum-random” overlap, but there has been very little validation of this assumption

  4. Cloud overlap from radar: example • Radar can observe the actual overlap of clouds • We next quantify the overlap from 3 months of data

  5. “Exponential-random” overlap • Overlap of vertically continuous clouds becomes random with increasing thickness as an inverse exponential • Vertically isolated clouds are randomly overlapped • Higher total cloud cover than maximum-random overlap Hogan and Illingworth (QJ 2000), Mace and Benson-Troth (2002)

  6. Exponential-random: global impact New overlap scheme is easy to implement and has a significant effect on the radiation budget in the tropics Difference in OLR between “maximum-random” overlap and “exponential-random” overlap ~5 Wm-2 globally ECMWF model, Jean-Jacques Morcrette

  7. Over black surface Cloud structure in the shortwave and longwave Clear air Cloud Inhomogeneous cloud Non-uniform clouds have lower emissivity & albedo for same mean optical depth due to curvature in the relationships Can we simply scale the optical depth/water content?

  8. Results from MODIS • Reduction factor depends strongly on: • Cloud type & variability • Gridbox size • Solar zenith angle • Shortwave/longwave • Mean optical depth itself • ECMWF use 0.7 • All clouds, SW and LW • Value derived from around a month of Sc data: equivalent to a huge gridbox! • Not appropriate for model with 40-km resolution MODIS Sc/Cu 1-km resolution, 100-km boxes Itumeleng Kgololo

  9. Shortwave albedo Stratocumulus cases Ice-cloud cases Cumulus cases True Plane-parallel model Modified model Longwave emissivity Stratocumulus cases Ice-cloud cases Cumulus cases Emissivity True Plane-parallel model Modified model Joe Daron

  10. Solar zenith angle Asymmetry factor Anna Townsend

  11. Vertical structure of inhomogeneity Decorrelation length ~700m Low shear High shear We estimate IWC from radar reflectivity IWC PDFs are approximately lognormal: Characterize width by the fractional variance Lower emissivity and albedo Higher emissivity and albedo

  12. Results from 18 months of radar data Fractional variance of IWC Vertical decorrelation length • Variance and decorrelation increase with gridbox size • Shear makes overlap of inhomogeneities more random, thereby reducing the vertical decorrelation length • Shear increases mixing, reducing variance of ice water content • Best-fit relationship: log10fIWC = 0.3log10d - 0.04s - 0.93 Increasing shear Hogan and Illingworth (JAS 2003)

  13. 3D stochastic cirrus model Radar data Slice through simulation • “Generalizes” 2D observations to 3D • A tool for studying the effect of cloud structure on radiative transfer Hogan & Kew (QJ 2005)

  14. Thin cirrus example • Independent column calculation: • SW radiative effect at TOA: 40 W m-2 • LW radiative effect at TOA: -21 W m-2 • GCM with exact overlap • SW change: +50 W m-2 (+125%) • LW change: -31 W m-2 (+148%) • Large inhomogeneity error • GCM, maximum-random overlap • SW change: +9 W m-2 (+23%) • LW change: -9 W m-2 (+43%) • Substantial compensation of errors

  15. Thin case: heating rate • GCM scheme with max-rand overlap outperforms GCM with true overlap due to compensation of errors • Maximum-random overlap -> underestimate cloud radiative effect • Horizontal homogeneity -> overestimate cloud radiative effect Shortwave Longwave

  16. Thick ice cloud example • Independent column: • SW radiative effect: 290 W m-2 • LW radiative effect: -105 W m-2 • GCM with exact overlap • SW change: +14 W m-2 (+5%) • LW change: -10 W m-2 (+10%) • Near-saturation in both SW and LW • GCM, maximum-random overlap • SW change: +12 W m-2 (+4%) • LW change: -9 W m-2 (+9%) • Overlap virtually irrelevant

  17. Thick case: heating rate • Large error in GCM heating rate profile • Inhomogeneity important to allow radiation to penetrate to (or escape from) the correct depth, even though TOA error is small • Cloud fraction near 1 at all heights: overlap irrelevant • More important to represent inhomogeneity than overlap Shortwave Longwave

  18. Summary • Cloud overlap: GCMs underestimate radiative effect • Exponential-random overlap easy to add • Important mainly in partially cloudy skies: 40 W m-2 OLR bias in deep tropics but only around 5 W m-2 elsewhere • Inhomogeneity: GCMs overestimate radiative effect • Affects all clouds, can double the TOA radiative effect • Scaling factor too crude: depends on gridbox size, cloud type, solar zenith angle, spectral region; and heating rate still wrong! • Need more sophisticated method: McICA, triple-region etc. • What about other errors? • In climate mode, radiation schemes typically run every 3 hours: introduces random error and possibly bias via errors in diurnal cycle. How does this error compare with inhomogeneity? • Is spectral resolution over-specified, given large biases in other areas? Why not relax the spectral resolution and use the computational time to treat the clouds better?

More Related