Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

The Relationship of Cloud Cover to Near-Surface Temperature and Humidity: Comparison of GCM Simulations with Empirical Data

Pavel Ya Groisman Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by Pavel Ya Groisman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Raymond S. Bradley Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by Raymond S. Bradley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Bomin Sun Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts

Search for other papers by Bomin Sun in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jun 2000
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<1858:TROCCT>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1858–1878
Restricted access

Abstract

One of the possible ways to check the adequacy of the physical description of meteorological elements in global climate models (GCMs) is to compare the statistical structure of these elements reproduced by models with empirical data from the world climate observational system. The success in GCM development warranted a further step in this assessment. The description of the meteorological element in the model can be considered adequate if, with a proper reproduction of the mean and variability of this element (as shown by the observational system), the model properly reproduces the internal relationships between this element and other climatic variables (as observed during the past several decades). Therefore, to distinguish more reliable models, the authors suggest first analyzing these relationships, “the behavior of the climatic system,” using observational data and then testing the GCMs’ output against this behavior.

In this paper, the authors calculated a set of statistics from synoptic data of the past several decades and compared them with the outputs of seven GCMs participating in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), focusing on cloud cover, one of the major trouble spots for which parameterizations are still not well established, and its interaction with other meteorological fields. Differences between long-term mean values of surface air temperature and atmospheric humidity for average and clear sky or for average and overcast conditions characterize the long-term noncausal associations between these two elements and total cloud cover. Not all the GCMs reproduce these associations properly. For example, there was a general agreement in reproducing mean daily cloud–temperature associations in the cold season among all models tested, but large discrepancies between empirical data and some models are found for summer conditions. A correct reproduction of the diurnal cycle of cloud–temperature associations in the warm season is still a major challenge for two of the GCMs that were tested.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Pavel Groisman, UCAR Project Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, 151 Patton Avenue, Asheville, NC, 28801.

Abstract

One of the possible ways to check the adequacy of the physical description of meteorological elements in global climate models (GCMs) is to compare the statistical structure of these elements reproduced by models with empirical data from the world climate observational system. The success in GCM development warranted a further step in this assessment. The description of the meteorological element in the model can be considered adequate if, with a proper reproduction of the mean and variability of this element (as shown by the observational system), the model properly reproduces the internal relationships between this element and other climatic variables (as observed during the past several decades). Therefore, to distinguish more reliable models, the authors suggest first analyzing these relationships, “the behavior of the climatic system,” using observational data and then testing the GCMs’ output against this behavior.

In this paper, the authors calculated a set of statistics from synoptic data of the past several decades and compared them with the outputs of seven GCMs participating in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), focusing on cloud cover, one of the major trouble spots for which parameterizations are still not well established, and its interaction with other meteorological fields. Differences between long-term mean values of surface air temperature and atmospheric humidity for average and clear sky or for average and overcast conditions characterize the long-term noncausal associations between these two elements and total cloud cover. Not all the GCMs reproduce these associations properly. For example, there was a general agreement in reproducing mean daily cloud–temperature associations in the cold season among all models tested, but large discrepancies between empirical data and some models are found for summer conditions. A correct reproduction of the diurnal cycle of cloud–temperature associations in the warm season is still a major challenge for two of the GCMs that were tested.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Pavel Groisman, UCAR Project Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, 151 Patton Avenue, Asheville, NC, 28801.

Save
Cover Journal of Climate
Journal of Climate

  • Abakumova, G. M., E. M. Feigelson, V. Russak, and V. V. Stadnik, 1996: Evaluation of long-term changes in radiation, cloudiness, and surface temperature on the territory of the former Soviet Union. J. Climate,9, 1319–1327.

  • Arking, A., 1991: The radiative effects of clouds and their impact on climate. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,72, 795–813.

  • Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1991: Interpretation of snow–climate feedback as produced by 17 general circulation models. Science,253, 888–892.

  • ——, W. L. Gates, J.-J. Morcrette, and L. Corsetti, 1992a: Comparison of general circulation models to Earth Radiation Budget Experiment data: Computation of clear-sky fluxes. J. Geophys. Res.,97 (D18), 20 421–20 426.

  • ——, E. F. Harrison, P. Minnis, B. R. Barkstrom, V. Ramanthan, and T. Y. Kwon, 1992b: Interpretation of seasonal cloud–climate interactions using Earth Radiation Budget Experiment data. J. Geophys. Res.,97, 7613–7617.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 1993: Uncertainties in CO2 radiative forcing in general circulation models. Science,262, 1252–1255.

  • Chanine, M. T., 1995: Observation of local cloud and moisture feedbacks over high ocean and desert surface temperatures. J. Geophys. Res.,100 (D5), 8919–8927.

  • Del Genio, A. D., M.-S. Yao, W. Kovari, and K. K.-W. Lo, 1996: A prognostic cloud water parameterization for global climate models. J. Climate,9, 270–304.

  • Gaffen, D. J., and W. P. Elliott, 1993: Column water vapor content in clear and cloudy skies. J. Climate,6, 2278–2287.

  • Gates, W. L., 1992: AMIP: The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,73, 1962–1970.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 1999: An overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP 1). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,80, 29–55.

  • GEWEX, 1990: Scientific plan for the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment. WMO, Geneva, Switzerland, Rep. WCRP-40 (WMO/TD 376), 83 pp.

  • Goody, R., J. Anderson, and G. North, 1998: Testing climate models:An approach. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,79, 2541–2549.

  • Groisman, P. Ya., and P. M. Zhai, 1995: Climate variability under clear skies: Applications for the cloud and snow cover feedback problems. Proc. Sixth Int. Meeting on Statistical Climatology, Galway, Ireland, University College, All-Ireland Committee on Statistics, Amer. Meteor. Soc., European Union, Irish Meteorological Service, and World Meteorological Organization, 605–608.

  • ——, T. R. Karl, and R. W. Knight, 1994a: Observed impact of snow cover on the rise of continental spring temperatures. Science,263, 198–200.

  • ——, ——, ——, and G. Stenchikov, 1994b: Changes of snow cover, temperature, and the radiative heat balance over the Northern Hemisphere. J. Climate,7, 1633–1656.

  • ——, P.-M. Zhai, and E. L. Genikhovich, 1995: Cloud and snow cover effects on the surface–atmosphere interactions. Extended Abstracts, Papers Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Canadian Geophysical Union-Hydrology Section (CGU-HS) and International GEWEX Workshop on Cold-Season/Region Hydrometeorology, Banff, AB, Canada, GEWEX, 209–212.

  • ——, E. L. Genikhovich, and P. -M. Zhai, 1996: “Overall” cloud and snow cover effects on internal climate variables: The use of clear sky climatology. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,77, 2055–2065.

  • ——, ——, R. S. Bradley, and B. M. Ilyin, 1997: Assessing surface–atmosphere interactions from former Soviet Union standard meteorological data. Part II. Cloud and snow cover effects. J. Climate,10, 2184–2199.

  • Hahn, C. J., and S. G. Warren, 1999: Extended edited synoptic cloud reports from ships and land stations over the globe, 1951–1996. Data Set Documentation, NDP 026C, 77 pp. [Available from Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Data Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831.].

  • ——, ——, and J. London, 1995: The effect of moonlight on observation of cloud cover at night, and application to cloud climatology. J. Climate,8, 1429–1446.

  • Harrison, E. F., P. Minnis, B. R. Barkstrom, V. Ramanathan, R. D. Cess, and G. G. Gibson, 1990: Seasonal variation of cloud radiative forcing derived from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment. J. Geophys. Res.,95, 18 687–18 703.

  • Hartmann, D. L., K. J. Kowalewsky, and M. L. Michelsen, 1991: Diurnal variations of outgoing longwave radiation and albedo from ERBE scanner data. J. Climate,4, 598–617.

  • Henderson-Sellers, A., 1992: Continental cloudiness changes this century. GeoJournal,27.3, 255–262.

  • Higgins, R. W., K. C. Mo, and S. D. Schubert, 1996: The moisture budget of the central United States in spring as evaluated in the NCEP/NCAR and the NASA/DAO reanalyses. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 939–963.

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1990: Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. J. T. Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 362 pp.

  • ——, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. The Second IPCC Scientific Assessment. J. T. Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 572 pp.

  • Isaac, G. A., and R. A. Stuart 1996: Relationships between cloud type and amount, precipitation, and surface temperature in the Mackenzie River valley—Beaufort Sea area. J. Climate,9, 1921–1941.

  • Kaas, E., and P. Frich, 1995: Diurnal temperature range and cloud cover in the Nordic countries: Observed trends and estimates for the future. Atmos. Res.,37, 211–228.

  • Phillips, T. J., 1994: A summary documentation of the AMIP models. PCMDI Rep. 18, UCRL-ID-116384, 343 pp. [Available from Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550.].

  • Polyak, I. I., 1996: Computational Statistics in Climatology. Oxford University Press, 358 pp.

  • Potter, G. L., J. M. Slingo, J.-J. Morcrette, and L. Corsetti, 1992: Modeling perspective on cloud radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res.,97 (D18), 20 507–20 518.

  • Randall, D. A., and Coauthors, 1994: Analysis of snow cover feedbacks in 14 general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res.,99 (D10), 20 757–20 771.

  • Robock, A., C. A. Schlosser, K. Ya. Vinnikov, N. A. Speranskaya, J. K. Entin, and S. Qiu, 1998: Evaluation of AMIP soil moisture simulations. Global Planet. Change,19, 181–208.

  • Rossow, W. B., and Z.-C. Zhang, 1995: Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiation fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP datasets: Part 2. Validation and first results. J. Geophys. Res.,100 (D1), 1167–1197.

  • Sellers, P. J., and Coauthors, 1996: The ISLSCP Initiative 1 global datasets: Surface boundary conditions and atmospheric forcings for land–atmosphere studies. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,77, 1987–2005.

  • Stephens, G. L., A. Slingo, M. Webb, and I. Wittmeyer, 1994: Observations of the earth’s radiation budget in relation to atmospheric hydrology. 4: Atmospheric column radiative cooling over the world’s oceans. J. Geophys. Res.,99, 18 595–18 604.

  • Stouffer, R. J., S. Manabe, and K. Ya. Vinnikov, 1994: Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming. Nature,367, 634–636.

  • Stuart, R. A., and G. A. Isaac, 1994: A comparison of temperature–precipitation relationships from observations and as modeled by the general circulation model of the Canadian Climate Centre. J. Climate,7, 277–282.

  • Sun, B.-M., and P. Ya. Groisman, 1998: Cloud cover interaction with the near-the-surface land meteorology in the GCMs: Comparison with empirical data in Tropics and the assessment of the diurnal cycle of this interaction. Preprints, Ninth Symp. on Global Change Studies, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 321–322.

  • ——, and ——, 2000: Cloudiness variations over the former Soviet Union. Int. J. Climatol, in press.

  • ——, ——, R. S. Bradley, and F. Keimig, 1999: Cloud effects on the near surface air temperature: Temporal changes. Preprints, 10th Symp. on Global Change Studies, Dallas, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 277–281.

  • ——, ——, ——, and ——, 2000: Temporal changes in the observed relationship between cloud cover and surface air temperature. J. Climate, in press.

  • USAFETAC, 1986: DATSAV2 Surface USAFETAC Climatic Database. User Handbook No. 4, December 1986. USAF Environ-mental Technical Application Center, Asheville, NC, 6 pp. + appendices. [Available from National Climatic Data Center, 151 Patton Avenue, Asheville, NC 28801.].

  • Weare, B. C., and I. I. Mokhov, 1995: Evaluation of total cloudiness and its variability in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project. J. Climate,8, 2224–2238.

  • Wielicki, B. A., R. D. Cess, M. D. King, D. A. Randall, and E. F. Harrison, 1995: Mission to Planet Earth: Role of clouds and radiation in climate. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,76, 2125–2153.

  • Yao, M.-S., and A. D. Del Genio, 1999: Effects of cloud parameterization on the simulation of climate changes in the GISS GCM. J. Climate,12, 761–779.

  • Zhang, M. H., R. D. Cess, and S. C. Xie, 1996: Relationship between cloud radiative forcing and sea surface temperatures over the entire tropical oceans. J. Climate,9, 1374–1384.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 2173 859 51
PDF Downloads 1166 229 23