4.1 Article

The potential impact of model horizontal resolution on the simulation of atmospheric cloud radiative effect in CMIP6 models

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s44195-022-00021-3

Keywords

Atmospheric cloud-radiative effect; Model horizontal resolution; CMIP6

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in Taiwan [MOST109-2111-M008-010, MOST110-2111-M008-031]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The simulations of atmospheric cloud-radiative effect (ACRE) from 54 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) models during the historical period of 2000/03-2014/12 are compared and evaluated against the satellite-based Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) products. High-resolution models generally produce better ACRE simulations, especially in the tropical oceans.
The simulations of atmospheric cloud-radiative effect (ACRE) from 54 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) models during the historical period of 2000/03-2014/12 are compared and evaluated against the satellite-based Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) products. For ease of comparison, all CMIP6 models are divided into high-, medium-, and low-resolution groups to examine the potential impact of model horizontal resolution change on the simulations of ACRE distribution over the tropical oceans. The results show that ACRE is positive inside the ITCZs but negative in the subtropics and cold tongue areas, owing to the very different radiative forcing between deep and shallow clouds. Simulations of ACRE are sensitive to the model horizontal resolution used and the finer resolution models generally produce a better performance of ACRE simulations against the CERES observations. The reduced ACRE biases in finer resolution models are mainly contributed by the improved longwave ACRE (i.e., LWACRE) simulations, especially over the Pacific and Atlantic cold tongue areas where shallow stratocumulus clouds prevail.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available