Advertisement

Long-term cloud fraction biases in CMIP5 GCMs over India during monsoon season

  • Kapil Dev SindhuEmail author
  • Sandeep Sahany
Original Paper

Abstract

Using 24 years of cloud fraction (CF) data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations and their corresponding simulators in general circulation models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), we have analyzed cloud biases and their role on radiation over the Indian region (65–100° E and 5–40° N) for the monsoon season of June to September. The present study reports the spatial patterns of CFs and their biases in GCMs compared to observations. It is found that the simulated CFs are highly underestimated up to ~ 40%. Mean of total CF from ISCCP observations is 75% with at least 10% difference with simulated CFs. For high-topped clouds, this difference is about 3–4%. Except for high-topped clouds, other cloud types are not simulated realistically by CMIP5 models used in this study. Further, we investigated the individual cloud types classified based on cloud optical depth and cloud top pressure. We found that, in general, individual cloud types are poorly simulated by models, although some (Max Planck Institute Earth System Model, Low Resolution and Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model, version 2, Earth System) models convincingly simulate high-topped thin clouds. To assess the impact of cloud biases on the simulated radiative forcings, we studied shortwave and longwave cloud radiative forcings from CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) observations and CMIP5 GCMs. It is noticed that the spatial patterns of biases in radiative forcings are similar to the patterns of biases in CFs for high-topped clouds, specifically over the oceanic regions. We find that the biases in cloud radiative forcings could potentially be caused due to the inefficacy of CMIP5 models in simulating high-topped anvil clouds (high-topped cirrus/stratocirrus clouds). The present study confirms that the uncertainty in simulating cloud fractions over the Indian region is still a prominent issue to be addressed in general circulation models.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestions that have led to significant improvement in the manuscript. The authors are thankful to International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) research group at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York and several climate modeling groups under Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) of World Climate Research Programme’s for providing cloud fraction data. We acknowledge NASA-University Corporation of Atmospheric Research for making available the CERES-EBAF radiative forcing datasets. The authors also acknowledge Dr. S. K. Mishra from IIT Delhi for supporting this research.

Funding information

This work is partially supported by Department of Science and Technology (DST) through DST Centre of Excellence in Climate Modeling, IIT Delhi, and DST Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) Project (ECR/2015/000229).

References

  1. AMS (2012) American Meteorological Society, cited 2012: cloud optical depth. Glossary of meteorology. http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Cloud_optical_depth. Accessed 6 Dec 2017
  2. Bony S, Dufresne JL (2005) Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of tropical cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models. Geophys Res Lett 32:L20806.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calisto M, Folini D, Wild M, Bengtsson L (2014) Cloud radiative forcing intercomparison between fully coupled CMIP5 models and CERES satellite data. Ann Geophys 32:793–807.  https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-32-793-2014
  4. Ceppi P, Gregory JM (2017) Relationship of tropospheric stability to climate sensitivity and Earth’s observed radiation budget. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(50):13126–13131.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714308114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cesana G, Waliser DE (2016) Characterizing and understanding systematic biases in the vertical structure of clouds in CMIP5/CFMIP2 models. Geophys Res Lett 43:10538–10546.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cess RD, Potter GL, Blanchet JP, Boer GJ, del Genio AD, Déqué M, Dymnikov V, Galin V, Gates WL, Ghan SJ, Kiehl JT, Lacis AA, le Treut H, Li ZX, Liang XZ, McAvaney BJ, Meleshko VP, Mitchell JFB, Morcrette JJ, Randall DA, Rikus L, Roeckner E, Royer JF, Schlese U, Sheinin DA, Slingo A, Sokolov AP, Taylor KE, Washington WM, Wetherald RT, Yagai I, Zhang MH (1990) Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J Geophys Res 95(D10):16601–16615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charney JG et al (1979) Carbon dioxide and climate: a scientific assessment. National Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, p 22Google Scholar
  8. Cole J, Barker HW, Loeb NG, von Salzen K (2011) Assessing simulated clouds and radiative fluxes using properties of clouds whose tops are exposed to space. J Clim 24:2715–2727.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3652.1
  9. Graham S (1999) Clouds and radiation. NASA earth observatory https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds. Accessed 14 Apr 2017
  10. Hartmann DL, Berry SE (2017) The balanced radiative effect of tropical anvil clouds. J Geophys Res: Atmos 122:5003–5020.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026460 Google Scholar
  11. Hartmann DL, Holton JR, Fu Q (2001) The heat balance of the tropical tropopause, cirrus and stratospheric dehydration. Geophys Res Lett 28(10):1969–1972.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012833 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Houghton JT et al (2001) Technical summary of working group 1. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contributions of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–45Google Scholar
  13. Jain D, Chakraborty A, Nanjundaiah RS (2018) A mechanism for the southward propagation of mesoscale convective systems over the Bay of Bengal. J Geophys Res Atmos 123:3893–3913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jing X, Zhang H, Peng J, Li J, Barker HW (2016) Cloud overlapping parameter obtained from CloudSat/CALIPSO dataset and its application in AGCM with McICA scheme. Atmos Res 170:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kay J, Hillman B, Klein S, Zhang Y, Medeiros B et al (2012) Exposing global cloud biases in the community atmosphere model (CAM) using satellite observations and their corresponding instrument simulators. J Clim 25(15):5190–5207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein SA, Jakob C (1999) Validation and sensitivities of frontal clouds simulated by the ECMWF model. Mon Weather Rev 127:2514–2531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krishnamurti TN (1985) Summer monsoon experiment—a review. Mon Wea Rev 113:1590–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li G, Xie SP (2014) Tropical biases in CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: the excessive equatorial Pacific cold tongue and double ITCZ problems. J Clim 27:1765–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu G, Curry JA, Sheu RS (1995) Classification of clouds over the western equatorial Pacific Ocean using combined infrared and microwave satellite data. J Geophys Res 100:13811–13826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loeb NG, Wielicki BA, Doelling DR, Smith GL, Keyes DF, Kato S, Manalo-Smith N, Wong T (2009) Toward optimal closure of the Earth’s top-of-atmosphere radiation budget. J Clim 22:748–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mace GG, Benson-Troth S (2002) Cloud-layer overlap characteristics derived from long-term cloud radar data. J Clim 15(17):2505–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Randall DA et al (2007) Climate models and their evaluation. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 589–662Google Scholar
  23. Rossow WB, Schiffer RA (1999) Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 80:2261–2287.  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<2261:AIUCFI>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sindhu KD, Bhat GS (2018) Characteristics of monsoonal precipitating cloud systems over the Indian subcontinent derived from weather radar data. Q J R Meteorol Soc 144:1742–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res 106:7183–7192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teixeira J, Cardoso S, Bonazzola M, Cole J, DelGenio A, DeMott C, Franklin C, Hannay C, Jakob C, Jiao Y, Karlsson J, Kitagawa H, Köhler M, Kuwano-Yoshida A, LeDrian C, Li J, Lock A, Miller MJ, Marquet P, Martins J, Mechoso CR, Meijgaard E, Meinke I, Miranda PMA, Mironov D, Neggers R, Pan HL, Randall DA, Rasch PJ, Rockel B, Rossow WB, Ritter B, Siebesma AP, Soares PMM, Turk FJ, Vaillancourt PA, von Engeln A, Zhao M (2011) Tropical and sub-tropical cloud transitions in weather and climate prediction models: the GCSS/WGNE Pacific Cross-section Intercomparison (GPCI). J Clim 24:5223–5256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tyagi A, Asnani GC, De US, Hatwar HR, Mazumdar AB (2012) Monsoon monograph, Vol. 2. New Delhi: India Meteorological Department Available at: http://imetsociety.org/wp-content/pdf/docs/MM2.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2017
  29. Webb M, Senior C, Bony S, Morcrette JJ (2001) Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre, ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models. Clim Dyn 17:905–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Webster PJ, Magana VO, Palmer TN, Shukla J, Tomas RA, Yanai M, Yasunari T (1998) Monsoons: processes, predictability, and the prospects for prediction. J Geophys Res 103:14451–14510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wetherald RT, Manabe S (1988) Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model. J Atmos Sci 45:1297–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yu S, Eder B, Dennis R, Chu SH, Schwartz SE (2006) New unbiased symmetric metrics for evaluation of air quality models. Atmos Sci Lett 7:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang MH et al (2005) Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. J Geophys Res 110:D15S02.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005021 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesIndian Institute of Science BangaloreBengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Centre for Atmospheric SciencesIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations