FastFind »   Lastname: doi:10.1029/ Year: | Advanced Search  

AGU: Geophysical Research Letters

 

Keywords

  • LWC
  • CloudSat
  • GCM

Index Terms

  • Global Change: Global climate models
  • Computational Geophysics: Model verification and validation
  • Global Change: Remote sensing
  • Biogeosciences: Remote sensing
  • Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Cloud/radiation interaction

Abstract

Comparisons of satellites liquid water estimates to ECMWF and GMAO analyses, 20th century IPCC AR4 climate simulations, and GCM simulations

Jui-Lin F. Li

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

D. Waliser

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

C. Woods

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

J. Teixeira

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

J. Bacmeister

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

J. Chern

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

B.-W. Shen

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

A. Tompkins

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK

W.-K. Tao

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

M. Köhler

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK

To assess the fidelity of general circulation models (GCMs) in simulating cloud liquid water, liquid water path (LWP) retrievals from several satellites with passive sensors and the vertically-resolved liquid water content (LWC) from the CloudSat are used. Comparisons are made with ECMWF and MERRA analyses, GCM simulations utilized in the IPCC 4th Assessment, and three GCM simulations. There is considerable disagreement amongst the LWP estimates and amongst the modeled values. The LWP from GCMs are much larger than the observed estimates and the two analyses. The largest values in the CloudSat LWP occur over the boundary-layer stratocumulus regions; this feature is not as evident in the analyses or models. Better agreement is found between the two analyses and CloudSat LWP when cases with surface precipitation are excluded. The upward vertical extent of LWC from the GCMs and analyses is greater than CloudSat estimates. The issues of representing LWC and precipitation consistently between satellite-derived and model values are discussed.

Received 22 July 2008; accepted 11 September 2008; published 11 October 2008.

Citation: Li, J.-L. F., D. Waliser, C. Woods, J. Teixeira, J. Bacmeister, J. Chern, B.-W. Shen, A. Tompkins, W.-K. Tao, and M. Köhler (2008), Comparisons of satellites liquid water estimates to ECMWF and GMAO analyses, 20th century IPCC AR4 climate simulations, and GCM simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L19710, doi:10.1029/2008GL035427.

Cited By

Please wait one moment ...