Inconsistencies between monthly mean longwave cloud forcing and dynamical fields from reanalyses Richard Allan ESSC, Reading University Mark Ringer Hadley Centre, Met Office
INTRODUCTION Clouds and Climate Advances: Clear-sky fluxes from satellite (e.g. Ramanathan et al. 1989, Science) “Cloud Forcing” LWCF=OLRc-OLR Sub-sampling by “dynamical regime” (e.g. Bony et al. 1995, Climate Dynamics) This Study: see Allan and Ringer (2003) GRL 30(9)
HadAM3 minus ERBS (1985-89) Clear-sky OLR differences > LWCF differences in some regions
Illustration of clear-sky sampling bias using HadAM3 3-hourly data
+ve w (mb/day) -ve OMEGA (mb/day) OLRc Higher SST OMEGA (mb/day) Clear-sky OLR Composite with OMEGA and SST OMEGA (mb/day) More POSITIVE=more stable=drier/cloud-free=higher OLRc +ve w (mb/day) -ve More LW emission OLRc Higher SST More moisture OMEGA (mb/day) More NEGATIVE=less stable=moister=lower OLRc
OLRc (Wm-2)
DOLRc (Wm-2)
Using ERA-40 Daily data to illustrate clear-sky sampling bias of CERES data
Using ERA40 clear-sky OLR to evaluate dynamical regimes ERA40-CERES similar ERA40 < CERES ERA40 minus CERES clear-sky OLR (January-August 1998)
dLWCF/dSWCF CERES only: -1.20 CERES/ERA40 -1.33
CONCLUSIONS Model Evaluation using satellite data Sub-sampling of dynamical regimes Clear-sky radiation Clear-sky radiation measurements preferentially sample more stable, drier atmospheric profiles Subsampling by vertical motion exagerates clear-sky sampling bias (~15 Wm-2) Use of reanalysis data (ERA40) may improve interpretation of cloud radiative effect Satellite LWCF may overestimate degree of cancellation between LWCF and SWCF