TY - JOUR
T1 - Intercomparison of the cloud water phase among global climate models
AU - Komurcu, Muge
AU - Storelvmo, Trude
AU - Tan, Ivy
AU - Lohmann, Ulrike
AU - Yun, Yuxing
AU - Penner, Joyce E.
AU - Wang, Yong
AU - Liu, Xiaohong
AU - Takemura, Toshihiko
N1 - Funding Information:
M. Komurcu would like to acknowledge David M. Winker, Steven Platnick, and Robert Pincus for treasured discussions regarding the uncertainties in satellite retrievals and Eugene E. Clothiaux and Jerry Y. Harrington for providing valuable comments on the influence of crystal habit in retrieval algorithms. This work was supported in part by the facilities and staff of the Yale University Faculty of Arts and Sciences High Performance Computing Center. X. Liu and Y. Wang thank the support by the DOE’s Office of Science/Biological and Environmental Research, through Earth System Modeling Program. PNNL is operated for DOE by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. T. Takemura is supported by the Funding Program for Next Generation World-Leading Researchers of the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (GR079). U. Lohmann would like to acknowledge support from the BACCHUS EU FP7-603445 project. We also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, whose valuable comments helped to clarify and improve the paper. Satellite retrievals used in this study and described in section 2 are available online. CALIOP retrievals can be downloaded from https://eosweb.larc. nasa.gov/order-data. NCEP Reanalysis-2 products are available online at http:// www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/ data.ncep.reanalysis2.pressure.html. MODIS LWP and IWP data products are available online at http://ladsweb.nascom. nasa.gov/data/search.html. CloudSat IWP products are available online at http:// www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu. ISCCP LWP and IWP products are available online from different providers listed in the project description website: http://isccp.giss. nasa.gov/products/obtaining.html
Publisher Copyright:
© 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2014/3/27
Y1 - 2014/3/27
N2 - Mixed-phase clouds (clouds that consist of both cloud droplets and ice crystals) are frequently present in the Earth’s atmosphere and influence the Earth’s energy budget through their radiative properties, which are highly dependent on the cloud water phase. In this study, the phase partitioning of cloud water is compared among six global climate models (GCMs) and with Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization retrievals. It is found that the GCMs predict vastly different distributions of cloud phase for a given temperature, and none of them are capable of reproducing the spatial distribution or magnitude of the observed phase partitioning. While some GCMs produced liquid water paths comparable to satellite observations, they all failed to preserve sufficient liquid water at mixed-phase cloud temperatures. Our results suggest that validating GCMs using only the vertically integrated water contents could lead to amplified differences in cloud radiative feedback. The sensitivity of the simulated cloud phase in GCMs to the choice of heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterization is also investigated. The response to a change in ice nucleation is quite different for each GCM, and the implementation of the same ice nucleation parameterization in all models does not reduce the spread in simulated phase among GCMs. The results suggest that processes subsequent to ice nucleation are at least as important in determining phase and should be the focus of future studies aimed at understanding and reducing differences among the models.
AB - Mixed-phase clouds (clouds that consist of both cloud droplets and ice crystals) are frequently present in the Earth’s atmosphere and influence the Earth’s energy budget through their radiative properties, which are highly dependent on the cloud water phase. In this study, the phase partitioning of cloud water is compared among six global climate models (GCMs) and with Cloud and Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization retrievals. It is found that the GCMs predict vastly different distributions of cloud phase for a given temperature, and none of them are capable of reproducing the spatial distribution or magnitude of the observed phase partitioning. While some GCMs produced liquid water paths comparable to satellite observations, they all failed to preserve sufficient liquid water at mixed-phase cloud temperatures. Our results suggest that validating GCMs using only the vertically integrated water contents could lead to amplified differences in cloud radiative feedback. The sensitivity of the simulated cloud phase in GCMs to the choice of heterogeneous ice nucleation parameterization is also investigated. The response to a change in ice nucleation is quite different for each GCM, and the implementation of the same ice nucleation parameterization in all models does not reduce the spread in simulated phase among GCMs. The results suggest that processes subsequent to ice nucleation are at least as important in determining phase and should be the focus of future studies aimed at understanding and reducing differences among the models.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898805462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898805462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/2013JD021119
DO - 10.1002/2013JD021119
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84898805462
SN - 0148-0227
VL - 119
SP - 3372
EP - 3400
JO - Journal of Geophysical Research
JF - Journal of Geophysical Research
IS - 6
ER -