The ‘too few, too bright’ tropical low‐cloud problem in CMIP5 models

Previous generations of climate models have been shown to under‐estimate the occurrence of tropical low‐level clouds and to over‐estimate their radiative effects. This study analyzes outputs from multiple climate models participating in the Fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) using the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observations Simulator Package (COSP), and compares them with different satellite data sets. Those include CALIPSO lidar observations, PARASOL mono‐directional reflectances and CERES radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that current state‐of‐the‐art climate models predict overly bright low‐clouds, even for a correct low‐cloud cover. The impact of these biases on the Earth' radiation budget, however, is reduced by compensating errors. Those include the tendency of models to under‐estimate the low‐cloud cover and to over‐estimate the occurrence of mid‐ and high‐clouds above low‐clouds. Finally, we show that models poorly represent the dependence of the vertical structure of low‐clouds on large‐scale environmental conditions. The implications of this ‘too few, too bright low‐cloud problem’ for climate sensitivity and model development are discussed.

[1]  S. Bony,et al.  LMDZ5B: the atmospheric component of the IPSL climate model with revisited parameterizations for clouds and convection , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[2]  S. Bony,et al.  How may low‐cloud radiative properties simulated in the current climate influence low‐cloud feedbacks under global warming? , 2012 .

[3]  Thijs Heus,et al.  CONTINUOUS SINGLE-COLUMN MODEL EVALUATION AT A PERMANENT METEOROLOGICAL SUPERSITE , 2012 .

[4]  Robert Pincus,et al.  Exposing Global Cloud Biases in the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) Using Satellite Observations and Their Corresponding Instrument Simulators , 2012 .

[5]  J. Quaas,et al.  Evaluation of Clouds and Precipitation in the ECHAM5 General Circulation Model Using CALIPSO and CloudSat Satellite Data , 2012 .

[6]  K. Taylor,et al.  Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere‐ocean climate models , 2012 .

[7]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[8]  D. Klocke,et al.  Tuning the climate of a global model , 2012 .

[9]  John M. Haynes,et al.  COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment , 2011 .

[10]  K. Salzen,et al.  Assessing Simulated Clouds and Radiative Fluxes Using Properties of Clouds Whose Tops are Exposed to Space , 2011 .

[11]  V. Masson,et al.  Evaluation of Statistical Distributions for the Parametrization of Subgrid Boundary-Layer Clouds , 2011 .

[12]  J. Thepaut,et al.  The ERA‐Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system , 2011 .

[13]  B. Stevens,et al.  Revealing differences in GCM representations of low clouds , 2011 .

[14]  Uang,et al.  The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis , 2010 .

[15]  Gerald G. Mace,et al.  Effect of improving representation of horizontal and vertical cloud structure on the Earth's global radiation budget. Part I: Review and parametrization , 2010 .

[16]  Catherine Rio,et al.  Resolved Versus Parametrized Boundary-Layer Plumes. Part I: A Parametrization-Oriented Conditional Sampling in Large-Eddy Simulations , 2010 .

[17]  S. Bony,et al.  The GCM‐Oriented CALIPSO Cloud Product (CALIPSO‐GOCCP) , 2010 .

[18]  A. Lock.  Factors influencing cloud area at the capping inversion for shallow cumulus clouds , 2009 .

[19]  F. Hourdin,et al.  Resolved versus parametrized boundary-layer plumes , 2009 .

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

[21]  S. Bony,et al.  Use of CALIPSO lidar observations to evaluate the cloudiness simulated by a climate model , 2008 .

[22]  Johannes Karlsson,et al.  Cloud radiative forcing of subtropical low level clouds in global models , 2008 .

[23]  S. Solomon.  The Physical Science Basis : Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[24]  S. Bony,et al.  How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes , 2006 .

[25]  Christopher S. Bretherton,et al.  Climate sensitivity and cloud response of a GCM with a superparameterization , 2006 .

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

[27]  Xin-Zhong Liang,et al.  Radiative Effects of Cloud Horizontal Inhomogeneity and Vertical Overlap Identified from a Monthlong Cloud-Resolving Model Simulation , 2005 .

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

[29]  S. Bony,et al.  Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements , 2005 .

[30]  B. Weare.  A comparison of AMIP II model cloud layer properties with ISCCP D2 estimates , 2004 .

[31]  E. Clothiaux,et al.  Assessing 1D atmospheric solar radiative transfer models: Interpretation and handling of unresolved clouds , 2003 .

[32]  Vincent E. Larson,et al.  A PDF-Based Model for Boundary Layer Clouds. Part II: Model Results , 2002 .

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

[34]  K. Taylor.  Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram , 2001 .

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