4.6 Article

Characterizing and understanding radiation budget biases in CMIP3/CMIP5 GCMs, contemporary GCM, and reanalysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 118, 期 15, 页码 8166-8184

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50378

关键词

Radiation; CMIP3; CMIP5

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluate the annual mean radiative shortwave flux downward at the surface (RSDS) and reflected shortwave (RSUT) and radiative longwave flux upward at top of atmosphere (RLUT) from the twentieth century Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 3 (CMIP3) simulations as well as from the NASA GEOS5 model and Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications analysis. The results show that a majority of the models have significant regional biases in the annual means of RSDS, RLUT, and RSUT, with biases from -30 to 30Wm(-2). While the global average CMIP5 ensemble mean biases of RSDS, RLUT, and RSUT are reduced compared to CMIP3 by about 32% (e.g., -6.9 to 2.5Wm(-2)), 43%, and 56%, respectively. This reduction arises from a more complete cancellation of the pervasive negative biases over ocean and newly larger positive biases over land. In fact, based on these biases in the annual mean, Taylor diagram metrics, and RMSE, there is virtually no progress in the simulation fidelity of RSDS, RLUT, and RSUT fluxes from CMIP3 to CMIP5. A persistent systematic bias in CMIP3 and CMIP5 is the underestimation of RSUT and overestimation of RSDS and RLUT in the convectively active regions of the tropics. The amount of total ice and liquid atmospheric water content in these areas is also underestimated. We hypothesize that at least a part of these persistent biases stem from the common global climate model practice of ignoring the effects of precipitating and/or convective core ice and liquid in their radiation calculations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据