A quantitative performance assessment of cloud regimes in climate models

Differences in the radiative feedback from clouds account for much of the variation in climate sensitivity amongst General Circulation Models (GCMs). Therefore metrics of model performance which are demonstrated to be relevant to the cloud response to climate change form an important contribution to the overall evaluation of GCMs. In this paper we demonstrate an alternative method for assigning model data to observed cloud regimes obtained from clustering histograms of cloud amount in joint cloud optical depth—cloud top pressure classes. The method removes some of the subjectivity that exists in previous GCM cloud clustering studies. We apply the method to ten GCMs submitted to the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP), evaluate the simulated cloud regimes and analyse the climate change response in the context of these regimes. We also propose two cloud regime metrics, one of which is specifically targeted at assessing GCMs for the purpose of obtaining the global cloud radiative response to climate change. Most of the global variance in the cloud radiative response between GCMs is due to low clouds, with 47% arising from the stratocumulus regime and 18% due to the regime characterised by clouds undergoing transition from stratocumulus to cumulus. This result is found to be dominated by two structurally similar GCMs. The shallow cumulus regime, though widespread, has a smaller contribution and reduces the variance. For the stratocumulus and transition regimes, part of the variance results from a large model spread in the radiative properties of the regime in the control simulation. Comparison with observations reveals a systematic bias for both the stratocumulus and transition regimes to be overly reflective. If this bias was corrected with all other aspects of the response unchanged, the variance in the low cloud response would reduce. The response of some regimes with high cloud tops differ between the GCMs. These regimes are simulated too infrequently in a few of the models. If the frequency in the control simulation were more realistic and changes within the regimes were unaltered, the variance in the cloud radiative response from high-top clouds would increase. As a result, use of observations of the mean present-day cloud regimes suggests that whilst improvements in the simulation of the cloud regimes would impact the climate sensitivity, the inter-model variance may not reduce. When the cloud regime metric is calculated for the GCMs analysed here, only one model is on average consistent with observations within their uncertainty (and even this model is not consistent with the observations for all regimes), indicating scope for improvement in the simulation of cloud regimes.

[1]  Michael R. Anderberg,et al.  Cluster Analysis for Applications , 1973 .

[2]  Edwin F. Harrison,et al.  Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) archival and April 1985 results , 1989 .

[3]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models , 1990 .

[4]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  Carbon Dioxide and Climate. The Impact of Cloud Parameterization , 1993 .

[5]  W. Rossow,et al.  Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP , 1999 .

[6]  S. Klein,et al.  Validation and Sensitivities of Frontal Clouds Simulated by the ECMWF Model , 1999 .

[7]  Taneil Uttal,et al.  Variability of Cloud Vertical Structure during ASTEX Observed from a Combination of Rawinsonde, Radar, Ceilometer, and Satellite , 1999 .

[8]  G. Tselioudis,et al.  Cloud and Radiation Variations Associated with Northern Midlatitude Low and High Sea Level Pressure Regimes , 2000 .

[9]  V. Pope,et al.  The impact of new physical parametrizations in the Hadley Centre climate model: HadAM3 , 2000 .

[10]  Christopher P. Weaver,et al.  Improved Techniques for Evaluating GCM Cloudiness Applied to the NCAR CCM3 , 2001 .

[11]  S. Bony,et al.  Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre, ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models , 2001 .

[12]  Luca Bonaventura,et al.  The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM 5. PART I: Model description , 2003 .

[13]  W. Paul Menzel,et al.  Cloud and aerosol properties, precipitable water, and profiles of temperature and water vapor from MODIS , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[14]  G. Tselioudis,et al.  Objective identification of cloud regimes in the Tropical Western Pacific , 2003 .

[15]  G. Boer,et al.  Climate sensitivity and response , 2003 .

[16]  A. Lacis,et al.  Calculation of radiative fluxes from the surface to top of atmosphere based on ISCCP and other global data sets: Refinements of the radiative transfer model and the input data , 2004 .

[17]  Anthony J. Broccoli,et al.  On the Use of Cloud Forcing to Estimate Cloud Feedback , 2004 .

[18]  S. Bony,et al.  On dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes , 2004 .

[19]  M. Webb,et al.  Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations , 2004, Nature.

[20]  William B. Rossow,et al.  Tropical climate described as a distribution of weather states indicated by distinct mesoscale cloud property mixtures , 2005 .

[21]  S. Bony,et al.  Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of tropical cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models , 2005 .

[22]  S. Klein,et al.  Cluster analysis of cloud regimes and characteristic dynamics of midlatitude synoptic systems in observations and a model , 2005 .

[23]  N. McFarlane,et al.  The role of shallow convection in the water and energy cycles of the atmosphere , 2005 .

[24]  W. Collins,et al.  The Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3) , 2006 .

[25]  I. Musat,et al.  Evaluation of a component of the cloud response to climate change in an intercomparison of climate models , 2006 .

[26]  G. Martin,et al.  The Physical Properties of the Atmosphere in the New Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model (HadGEM1). Part I: Model Description and Global Climatology , 2006 .

[27]  I. Musat,et al.  On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles , 2006 .

[28]  Patrick Minnis,et al.  Cloud radiative forcing at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program Climate Research Facility: 1. Technique, validation, and comparison to satellite‐derived diagnostic quantities , 2006 .

[29]  S. Klein,et al.  GFDL's CM2 Global Coupled Climate Models. Part I: Formulation and Simulation Characteristics , 2006 .

[30]  Johannes Quaas,et al.  Global mean cloud feedbacks in idealized climate change experiments , 2006 .

[31]  B. Soden,et al.  An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models , 2006 .

[32]  G. Tselioudis,et al.  GCM intercomparison of global cloud regimes: present-day evaluation and climate change response , 2007 .

[33]  L. Bengtsson,et al.  Origin of climate sensitivity differences: role of selected radiative processes in two GCMs , 2007 .

[34]  D. Winker,et al.  Initial performance assessment of CALIOP , 2007 .

[35]  Gerald G. Mace,et al.  Cluster analysis of tropical clouds using CloudSat data , 2007 .

[36]  Charles Doutriaux,et al.  Performance metrics for climate models , 2008 .

[37]  K. Taylor,et al.  Evaluating the present‐day simulation of clouds, precipitation, and radiation in climate models , 2008 .

[38]  T. Reichler,et al.  How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate? , 2008 .

[39]  M. Webb,et al.  Towards Understanding Cloud Response in Atmospheric GCMs : The Use of Tendency Diagnostics , 2008 .

[40]  C. Bretherton,et al.  Aquaplanets, Climate Sensitivity, and Low Clouds , 2008 .