All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 657 302 115
PDF Downloads 428 151 27

Thin Liquid Water Clouds: Their Importance and Our Challenge

D. D. Turner
Search for other papers by D. D. Turner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
A. M. Vogelmann
Search for other papers by A. M. Vogelmann in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
R. T. Austin
Search for other papers by R. T. Austin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. C. Barnard
Search for other papers by J. C. Barnard in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
K. Cady-Pereira
Search for other papers by K. Cady-Pereira in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. C. Chiu
Search for other papers by J. C. Chiu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
S. A. Clough
Search for other papers by S. A. Clough in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
C. Flynn
Search for other papers by C. Flynn in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
M. M. Khaiyer
Search for other papers by M. M. Khaiyer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. Liljegren
Search for other papers by J. Liljegren in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
K. Johnson
Search for other papers by K. Johnson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
B. Lin
Search for other papers by B. Lin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
C. Long
Search for other papers by C. Long in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
A. Marshak
Search for other papers by A. Marshak in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
S. Y. Matrosov
Search for other papers by S. Y. Matrosov in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
S. A. McFarlane
Search for other papers by S. A. McFarlane in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
M. Miller
Search for other papers by M. Miller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Q. Min
Search for other papers by Q. Min in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
P. Minimis
Search for other papers by P. Minimis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
W. O'Hirok
Search for other papers by W. O'Hirok in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Z. Wang
Search for other papers by Z. Wang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
W. Wiscombe
Search for other papers by W. Wiscombe in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Full access

Many of the clouds important to the Earth's energy balance, from the Tropics to the Arctic, contain small amounts of liquid water. Longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes are very sensitive to small perturbations of the cloud liquid water path (LWP), when the LWP is small (i.e., < 100 g m−2; clouds with LWP less than this threshold will be referred to as “thin”). Thus, the radiative properties of these thin liquid water clouds must be well understood to capture them correctly in climate models. We review the importance of these thin clouds to the Earth's energy balance, and explain the difficulties in observing them. In particular, because these clouds are thin, potentially mixed phase, and often broken (i.e., have large 3D variability), it is challenging to retrieve their microphysical properties accurately. We describe a retrieval algorithm intercomparison that was conducted to evaluate the issues involved. The intercomparison used data collected at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains (SGP) site and included 18 different algorithms to evaluate their retrieved LWP, optical depth, and effective radii. Surprisingly, evaluation of the simplest case, a single-layer overcast stratocumulus, revealed that huge discrepancies exist among the various techniques, even among different algorithms that are in the same general classification. This suggests that, despite considerable advances that have occurred in the field, much more work must be done, and we discuss potential avenues for future research.)

University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington

Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts

University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland

AS&M, Hampton, Virginia

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois

NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

CIRES, University of Colorado, and NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. David D. Turner, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1225 West Dayton Street, Madison, W l 53706, E-mail: dturner@ssec.wisc.edu

Many of the clouds important to the Earth's energy balance, from the Tropics to the Arctic, contain small amounts of liquid water. Longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes are very sensitive to small perturbations of the cloud liquid water path (LWP), when the LWP is small (i.e., < 100 g m−2; clouds with LWP less than this threshold will be referred to as “thin”). Thus, the radiative properties of these thin liquid water clouds must be well understood to capture them correctly in climate models. We review the importance of these thin clouds to the Earth's energy balance, and explain the difficulties in observing them. In particular, because these clouds are thin, potentially mixed phase, and often broken (i.e., have large 3D variability), it is challenging to retrieve their microphysical properties accurately. We describe a retrieval algorithm intercomparison that was conducted to evaluate the issues involved. The intercomparison used data collected at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains (SGP) site and included 18 different algorithms to evaluate their retrieved LWP, optical depth, and effective radii. Surprisingly, evaluation of the simplest case, a single-layer overcast stratocumulus, revealed that huge discrepancies exist among the various techniques, even among different algorithms that are in the same general classification. This suggests that, despite considerable advances that have occurred in the field, much more work must be done, and we discuss potential avenues for future research.)

University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington

Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts

University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland

AS&M, Hampton, Virginia

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois

NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

CIRES, University of Colorado, and NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. David D. Turner, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1225 West Dayton Street, Madison, W l 53706, E-mail: dturner@ssec.wisc.edu
Save