1. Introduction
Clouds play a significant role in Earth’s radiation budget by modulating the shortwave (SW) reflected (0.3–3.5 μm) and longwave (LW) emitted (3.5–100 μm) radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) (Stephens et al. 1990; Chen et al. 2000; Stephens 2005). On a global annual scale, clouds reduce incoming SW (outgoing LW) irradiance by about 50 W m−2 (28 W m−2). Clouds, therefore, have a net cooling effect on Earth’s climate system of about 22 W m−2, according to the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF)-TOA dataset (Loeb et al. 2009, 2012; Dolinar et al. 2015). Changes in cloud macrophysical (e.g., height, amount) and microphysical (e.g., optical thickness) properties induce positive or negative feedbacks, thus contributing to Earth’s climate system response to climate forcings and noncloud feedbacks.
Cloud response to Earth’s warming climate is one of the largest sources of uncertainty among global climate model (GCM) projections. Net cloud feedbacks in modeling experiments comprising phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (Taylor et al. 2012) tend to be nearly neutral or positive on average, meaning that clouds would cool the planet less as global mean surface temperature increases. Significant disagreement remains regarding the net cloud feedback magnitude among CMIP5 model output (e.g., Bony et al. 2006; Dessler and Loeb 2013; Vial et al. 2013; Webb et al. 2013; Caldwell et al. 2016). Estimating SW and LW cloud feedback from observations requires global monitoring of observed decadal changes in the SW and LW cloud radiative effect (CRE; previously cloud forcing), the difference between clear-sky and all-sky TOA irradiance (flux). Understanding the physical basis of CRE decadal trends requires a comprehensive understanding of how global cloud properties that govern trends in SW and LW CRE respond to changes in Earth’s climate. The uncertainty in CMIP5 SW cloud feedback is the largest contributor to intermodel spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) (2.1 to 4.7 K) (Flato et al. 2013). Soden and Vecchi (2011) determined that 75% of the intermodel spread in net cloud feedback was due to low cloud, which dominates the SW cloud feedback.
In addition to the large uncertainty in cloud feedback, the aerosol indirect effect is among the greatest uncertainties in estimates of anthropogenic radiative forcing (Myhre et al. 2013). The uncertainty in the aerosol indirect effect can be better constrained by reducing uncertainty in cloud amount, cloud optical thickness, and water cloud effective radius trends. Here, we will focus on the connection between the aerosol indirect effect and water cloud effective radius. A decrease in water cloud effective radius may be indicative of an increased number of cloud condensation nuclei, which are typically dominated by aerosol particles (Twomey 1977).
To better constrain radiative forcing and cloud feedback, the tools used to observe Earth’s climate system must have sufficient accuracy and stability to detect cloud property trends on climate change–relevant scales (larger than 2000-km spatial and decadal temporal scales; Soden et al. 2008; Wielicki et al. 2013, hereafter W13). Such tools include passive remote sensing satellite measurements and associated retrieval algorithms. The accuracy and stability of both the satellite instruments and algorithms must be sufficient for unambiguous understanding of cloud response to climate change.
Climate change detection requires measurements from instruments with high accuracy and stability that provide the capability to detect what are likely to be small changes within Earth’s climate system (Goody et al. 2002; Ohring et al. 2005). W13 addressed this challenge by presenting an uncertainty framework that can be applied to a diverse group of essential climate variables (ECVs) and measurement systems to determine the necessary absolute measurement uncertainty requirements of a satellite-based observing system (Leroy et al. 2008b; Weatherhead et al. 1998).
W13 presented this uncertainty framework using, as an example, the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO), a Tier-1 Decadal Survey–recommended climate observing mission (National Research Council 2007). The CLARREO mission concept includes reflected solar (RS) and infrared (IR) spectrometers with International System of Units (SI)-traceable on-orbit calibration designed to achieve substantially higher absolute accuracy (up to 10 times greater) than currently or previously operational Earth-observing satellite sensors (W13). These instruments will be used both for climate benchmarking and intercalibrating with instruments operational during the CLARREO lifetime. CLARREO intercalibration would include cloud imagers, such as Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS; King et al. 2003) and VIIRS (Visible/Infrared Imager/Radiometer Suite; Lee et al. 2006), thus enabling reduced measurement uncertainty of reflectance and brightness temperature measurements used in the corresponding retrieval algorithms. A Pathfinder to the full CLARREO mission is planned to be on the International Space Station (ISS) in the early 2020s. The CLARREO Pathfinder mission includes a RS spectrometer and has been approved for one year of operation on ISS.
The satellite sensors with which the CLARREO instruments would intercalibrate would still be essential parts of the global climate observing system. For example, cloud imagers have the spatial and temporal sampling needed for global monitoring of cloud properties, and CERES instruments have the angular sampling and broadband spectral response required to estimate TOA SW and LW irradiance. The CLARREO mission goals of unprecedented absolute accuracy and high information content for intercalibration and climate benchmarking allow for such a mission to contribute to the climate community’s needs independently and in conjunction with the other essential instruments within the climate observing system. In the studies presented here, applications of the climate change uncertainty framework are shown using the CLARREO requirements as examples of climate mission requirements.
W13 presented an uncertainty framework to quantify climate change instrument requirements based on the need to detect global mean trends in two ECVs: the SW cloud radiative effect and global mean surface temperature. However, the impact of instrument and algorithm uncertainties on delaying trend detection times in many other ECVs remains to be evaluated. This includes cloud properties which, as noted above, are a crucial but largely uncertain part of constraining the spread among climate model projections.
Other studies have applied a similar framework to study the effect of measurement errors on precipitable water vapor trend detection times (Roman et al. 2014), to compare the trend detection times between RS hyperspectral and broadband climate Observing System Simulation Experiment (OSSE) simulations (Feldman et al. 2011), and to quantify the instrument and IR spectral fingerprinting retrieval error impact on atmospheric and cloud property trend uncertainties (Leroy et al. 2008a; Kato et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2017).
In this study, we apply the principles of the W13 uncertainty framework to evaluate the impact of RS and IR instrument uncertainty requirements on trend uncertainty and trend detection times of satellite-retrieved globally averaged cloud properties. These studies are focused on instrument calibration uncertainty which, among instrument uncertainty sources (e.g., random instrument noise and orbit sampling errors), dominates on global scales (W13). This study does not address the potential impact of time-dependent retrieval algorithm biases on trend uncertainty. While such biases are currently assumed to be constant in climate change studies, future research is needed to evaluate the potential for time-dependent algorithm biases to augment the uncertainty of climate change trends (National Research Council 2015; Trenberth et al. 2013).
Current satellite retrievals of climate change from Earth-viewing reflected solar and thermal infrared spaceborne sensors rely on in-orbit estimates of instrument calibration stability along with some form of intercalibration between successively launched, temporally overlapping sensors. This is required both because the lifetime of sensors on orbit is much shorter than climate change-relevant time scales and because current Earth-viewing satellite sensors are not tied to SI-traceable standards on orbit.
Stringent characterization of the stability of instruments in orbit remains a challenge, despite the variety of techniques that have been developed to characterize instrument stability (e.g., Loeb et al. 2007). Long-term instrument degradation can have an impact on the subsequently retrieved geophysical variables, as illustrated by Lyapustin et al. (2014), which showed how the MODIS Collection 5 calibration impacted several MODIS-ST data products, including cloud properties. Several improvements have been made to the MODIS-ST Collection 6+ calibration, including a correction for the sensors’ increased sensitivity to polarization over time, that have subsequently resulted in improved geophysical property retrievals (Lyapustin et al. 2014; Platnick et al. 2017). In addition to polarization sensitivity, several other factors can impact the characterization of instrument stability such as changes in spectral response, optical surface contamination causing spectrally dependent transmission loss, and detector nonlinearity, among others.
While monitoring stability and utilizing measurement overlap are the current best practices for constructing satellite climate change records, these methods limit the confidence level in detected climate change trends. Given the large economic and societal issues at stake with climate change, a more rigorous approach to achieve high accuracy and stability levels, ideally using on-orbit SI traceability, is preferred. Current in-orbit methods to determine stability lack such SI traceability at the confidence and uncertainty levels required for climate change detection.
The present study therefore considers a rigorous and conservative approach of SI traceability to determine uncertainty requirements of orbiting sensors for observations of climate change (Anderson et al. 2004; Leroy et al. 2008b; Fox et al. 2011; W13). Such rigorous methods would achieve higher accuracy calibration in orbit for climate-related sensors. Currently, most operational sensors do not have climate change observations as part of their primary mission, nor are technologies currently available to reach the needed uncertainty levels for a large number of satellite instruments. A less costly approach is to use a few highly accurate SI-traceable orbiting reference spectrometers that span the reflected solar and infrared spectral ranges as in-orbit transfer standards, similar to those used by metrology laboratories (Fox et al. 2011; Lukashin et al. 2013; W13).
Stringent uncertainty requirements, high spectral resolution, and high spatial resolution of CLARREO-like (W13) or Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial- and Helio- Studies (TRUTHS)-like (Fox et al. 2011) instruments could reduce measurement uncertainty in other sensors through intercalibration including cloud imagers, land imagers, and radiation budget monitoring instruments (Roithmayr et al. 2014; Wu et al. 2015). Intercalibration with an in-orbit absolute reference could then provide resilience to gaps in climate monitoring and verify instrument stability in orbit. This type of approach has been recommended by the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Space-Based Intercalibration System (WMO GSICS; Goldberg et al. 2011) as well as a joint document from the WMO, CEOS (Committee on Earth Observation Satellites), and CGMS (Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites) called “Strategy towards an Architecture for Climate Monitoring from Space” (Dowell et al. 2013). The current study seeks to understand the calibration uncertainty required for such a designed climate monitoring system, wherein multiple, potentially nonoverlapping, instruments are needed to detect a single trend, with specific regard to detecting trends in clouds properties using cloud imagers.
The analysis described herein was conducted using cloud properties retrieved from the CERES (Wielicki et al. 1996) Cloud Property Retrieval System (CPRS) (Minnis et al. 2011), which ingests spatially subsetted MODIS reflectance and brightness temperatures. We therefore quantified the MODIS-like measurement uncertainty requirements needed to observe climate change trends in globally averaged retrieved cloud properties.
Section 2 describes the W13 climate change uncertainty framework used in this study. Section 3 details how the framework was applied to cloud properties. Section 4 contains analysis of the results, and sections 5 and 6 include, respectively, conclusions and future research directions.
2. Climate observing system uncertainty framework
Additional instrument and algorithm uncertainties can also be evaluated using Eq. (1). For retrieved geophysical variables, such as cloud properties, retrieval algorithm uncertainties may have a large impact on climate change–scale trend uncertainties. For example, the 3D optical thickness bias may not be constant on the scale of several decades as cloud type distributions change as Earth’s climate changes. Addressing the impact of algorithm uncertainties on cloud property trend uncertainties, while highly important, is planned for future study (see section 6). As discussed above in section 1, calibration uncertainty tends to dominate the trend uncertainty (among instrument noise, calibration, and sampling uncertainty) of geophysical variables on global scales (W13); therefore, we focus in this paper on calibration uncertainty for global trends of cloud properties. We also note that cloud feedbacks are determined using global mean trends (Soden et al. 2008; Dessler and Loeb 2013). Units of 
Solving Eq. (4) for 
3. Determining requirements from uncertainty framework
a. Natural variability of CERES/MODIS cloud properties
We examine several cloud properties retrieved by the CERES (Wielicki et al. 1996) Cloud Property Retrieval System (Minnis et al. 2011): cloud fraction, cloud optical thickness (log10), liquid water cloud effective radius (log10), and cloud effective temperature. The logarithm of optical thickness was evaluated because it is approximately linearly proportional to the cloud radiative effect, and the logarithm of the water cloud effective radius was used because in section 4b we take advantage of the relationship between optical thickness and effective radius (Slingo 1989) to approximate relevant effective radius trends in the context of radiative forcing.
To estimate the natural variability of cloud properties here, we used data from operational satellites (CERES/MODIS cloud properties), combined with statistical adjustments to account for the short annual time series and any potential secular linear trends. This assumes that the anomalies in cloud properties measured from satellite adequately represent cloud property natural variability. The natural variability parameters, 
These averages excluded regions poleward of 60°N/S and any 1° grid boxes containing snow or ice identified using the 1° CERES monthly compilation of snow and ice percent coverage of the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s 25-km daily coverage (Nolin et al. 1998) and the permanent snow map from the U.S. Geological Survey’s International Geosphere/Biosphere Programme (IGBP) (Loveland et al. 2000). The cloud mask algorithm operates differently when discriminating clouds from snow- or ice-covered surfaces (Trepte et al. 2003; Minnis et al. 2008), so these regions were eliminated to focus the scope of these studies. Because MODIS Terra sensor degradation has contributed to calibration-based trend artifacts in geophysical properties retrieved from the MODIS TERRA L1B data (Lyapustin et al. 2014) we used the CERES/MODIS Aqua cloud properties to compute 
This study was conducted on global and annual scales to provide the most stringent spatial and temporal constraint on calibration uncertainty requirements. Natural variability increases at smaller zonal and regional scales compared to global and annual scales, resulting in less stringent requirements (W13). This is clearly illustrated by Eq. (4). Holding all other terms in the equation constant, if 
Global and annual scales are not the only spatial and temporal scales on which to conduct these studies. The following studies give an initial assessment of the calibration uncertainty requirements needed to evaluate cloud property trends, and evaluating instrument and retrieval algorithm requirements on regional scales and by cloud type is planned for future studies (section 6).
Using linear regression, we detrended the time series prior to calculating 
The natural variability parameters of the cloud properties evaluated in this study are shown in Table 1. For calculating requirements in the RS band, 
Global, annual natural variability parameters calculated for the following cloud properties: cloud fraction (0%–100%), optical thickness [log10
b. Sensitivity of CPRS cloud properties to instrument changes
The reflectance in the 0.65-μm band was perturbed by 
As in the natural variability analysis, snow- or ice-covered pixels in nonpolar regions were excluded from this sensitivity analysis. These sensitivity studies were conducted using the highest resolution of MODIS data available at the NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC), which is subsampled to every other pixel and every other scan line from the 1-km MODIS L1B data. This results in MODIS reflectance and BT at a 1-km resolution and 2-km spatial sampling. Additionally, since MODIS is a passive instrument, only clouds with an optical thickness of at least 0.3 were included in these studies. The CLARREO RS spectrometer has been designed to match measurements with other sensors in space, time, and viewing angle (W13), meaning that its design allows for intercalibrating with a MODIS-like instrument across its full swath. We therefore evaluated cloud properties retrieved across the full MODIS swath.
Tests were conducted to determine the number of samples sufficient for robust statistics of cloud property sensitivity to reflectance and BT. Each day contains on the order of 
Global, 21-day cloud property means were calculated using MODIS data from the first three weeks of July 2003. Linear regression was applied to determine the slope for each set of absolute and relative differenced averages. Because both positive and negative calibration changes were imposed, the linear parameters for both sets of changes were computed separately. This allowed examination of linearity for every band, imposed change, and cloud property across both negative and positive changes. The slopes determined from the linear regressions give the average sensitivity of each cloud property [C in Eq. (7)] to changes in MODIS reflectance or brightness temperature [I in Eq. (7)]. The standard deviations of the daily, globally averaged differences were used to determine the uncertainties in the regression slopes, allowing for estimation of the uncertainty in the sensitivities and, ultimately, the determined requirements.
Upon calculating the requirements for each cloud property and each band it was clear that certain cloud property–driven requirements served as limiting factors within each spectral band. Five of these sensitivities (slopes) are shown in Table 2 for the band(s) predominantly used to calculate each property: cloud optical thickness (0.65 μm), cloud fraction (11 and 12 μm), effective cloud temperature (11 μm), and water droplet effective radius (3.8 μm). The sensitivities shown in Table 2 are the average sensitivities determined from the linear regressions discussed above. In these cases discussed here, the relationships were linear across the increased and decreased changes.
Partial derivatives calculated from global, 21-day means from July 2003 retrieved cloud properties are given that represent the sensitivity of cloud properties to changes in brightness temperature or reflectance. Sensitivity uncertainties were computed using the standard deviations of the global daily averages.
The bands shown in Table 2 are not the only bands to which these four cloud properties were sensitive. For example, the CPRS cloud mask is determined prior to calculating cloud optical thickness using the 0.65-μm reflectance (
For simplicity and to clearly demonstrate a proof of concept for applying the climate uncertainty framework to cloud properties retrieved from cloud imagers, we have conducted these studies by considering changes in each band individually. Evaluating changes in multiple bands simultaneously remains for future study and would more realistically simulate potential changes in an operational satellite instrument.
The results from these studies are dependent on the algorithm used. Alternate results can be expected if a different algorithm (MODIS-ST cloud algorithms; Platnick et al. 2017) or cloud imager and its corresponding algorithms (e.g., VIIRS) were used to determine these sensitivities.
4. Implications for instrument requirements
a. Optical thickness, effective temperature, and cloud fraction
Combining the natural variability and sensitivity results allows for calculation of instrument requirements [Eqs. (4) and (7)]. Recall that these studies use the initial CLARREO goal of 
To compute the 2
Figure 1a shows the global optical thickness trend uncertainty, 
(a) The 95% confidence trend uncertainty 
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
(a) The 95% confidence trend uncertainty
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
(a) The 95% confidence trend uncertainty
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
The measurement record length among different instruments spans a larger range as the required trend uncertainty approaches 0% decade−1. For example, for an optical thickness trend uncertainty of 10% decade−1 the difference in measurement record length between a perfect observing system and one with a 3.6% (2σ) uncertainty spans about a decade. However, achieving a much smaller trend uncertainty of 2% decade−1 becomes more difficult, with record length differences spanning about 25 years between a perfect observing system and one with 3.6% calibration uncertainty.
Without further information, however, the selection of the range of optical thickness trend uncertainty shown in Fig. 1 is arbitrary. This range can be placed into a climate change–relevant context by estimating the expected range of optical thickness trends that correspond to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) intermodel range of 2.1–4.7 K (IPCC 2013) and the corresponding SW cloud feedback. Estimating this range would help to better constrain instrument uncertainty requirements to reduce the uncertainty in detecting global trends in optical thickness.
This was estimated using two primary steps. First, we used CMIP5 climate model output and the forcing-feedback framework to estimate SW and LW cloud feedback values for a wide range of ECS. Then, we used retrieved CERES data products to estimate radiative kernels and link trends in cloud properties to trends in CRE and cloud feedback, with an assumed global surface temperature trend. We used the CERES data products for consistency with the rest of our analysis in which we use the CERES retrieved cloud properties to evaluate the natural variability and to determine the absolute calibration instrument requirements. Details of this methodology are discussed below.
We applied the forcing-feedback framework, 
The noncloud feedbacks used are the ensemble averages from the IPCC AR5 doubled CO2 model runs. The SW and LW cloud property-partitioned cloud feedbacks are those calculated by Zelinka et al. (2013) from abrupt quadrupled CO2 model runs, neglecting rapid adjustments, using CFMIP2/CMIP5 model output.
The SW and LW cloud feedbacks used were the ensemble averages, neglecting rapid adjustments, calculated by Zelinka et al. (2013) from abrupt quadrupled CO2 simulations, in which the cloud fraction, optical thickness, and altitude contributions to the SW and LW cloud feedbacks were partitioned by isolating contributions due to changes in cloud amount, cloud optical thickness, and cloud height using output from CFMIP2/CMIP5 model simulations and CTP-τ histograms (Table 3). Using the 
Finally, we estimated the relationship between each partitioned SW and LW cloud feedback and their corresponding cloud property trends. We used the monthly averaged 1° gridded CERES edition 4 data products to estimate cloud radiative kernels by calculating the differences between select geophysical variables from July 2006 and July 2004 and using multiple linear regression to regress LW irradiance, SW irradiance over land, and SW irradiance over ocean (Su et al. 2015), each of which is approximately normally distributed, on those variables. Regions poleward of 60° and snow- or ice-covered nonpolar grid boxes were excluded. Using the USGS IGBP map, SW irradiance was regressed onto cloud fraction and the relative log10(
CERES TOA irradiance (flux) anomaly differences between July 2004 and July 2006 from (a) LW and (b) SW land multiple linear regressions are compared to CERES TOA LW and SW land irradiance anomaly differences. The multivariate regression 
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
CERES TOA irradiance (flux) anomaly differences between July 2004 and July 2006 from (a) LW and (b) SW land multiple linear regressions are compared to CERES TOA LW and SW land irradiance anomaly differences. The multivariate regression
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
CERES TOA irradiance (flux) anomaly differences between July 2004 and July 2006 from (a) LW and (b) SW land multiple linear regressions are compared to CERES TOA LW and SW land irradiance anomaly differences. The multivariate regression
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
Multiple linear regression coefficients and their 
We multiplied the cloud property-partitioned SW and LW cloud feedbacks by a global mean surface temperature trend of 0.25 K decade−1 to calculate TOA SW and LW irradiance trends (in W m−2 decade−1). Then, dividing the SW and LW irradiance trends by the radiative kernels we computed corresponding cloud property decadal trends. These analyses resulted in relationships among ECS, globally averaged cloud property trends (for cloud fraction, cloud effective temperature, and cloud optical thickness), and the SW and LW cloud feedback.
Similarly to Fig. 1, Fig. 3 shows the trend uncertainties as a function of 
As in Fig. 1, except the 
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
As in Fig. 1, except the
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
As in Fig. 1, except the
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
From estimating this relationship we find that the globally averaged optical thickness trend range falls between −0.56% decade−1 (for 4.7 K ECS) and 0.39% decade−1 (for 2.1 K ECS) (Fig. 3, shaded). With an instrument with a 0.65-μm calibration uncertainty of 0.3% (2σ) it would take 21–27 years [with a 95% confidence interval in record length of 14–33 years, due to the uncertainty in 
To demonstrate the challenge of detecting a trend of smaller absolute magnitude in 
The results related to the effective cloud temperature (
(a) 95% confidence trend uncertainties 
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
(a) 95% confidence trend uncertainties
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
(a) 95% confidence trend uncertainties
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
For the likely range of globally averaged 
For global cloud fraction, we found the 
For instruments with various calibration uncertainties in the 11-μm band, (a) the 95% confidence cloud fraction trend uncertainties 
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
For instruments with various calibration uncertainties in the 11-μm band, (a) the 95% confidence cloud fraction trend uncertainties
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
For instruments with various calibration uncertainties in the 11-μm band, (a) the 95% confidence cloud fraction trend uncertainties
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
These results for cloud fraction need to be considered with some caution, however. Recall that within these studies, we have thus far evaluated the sensitivity of cloud properties to changes in four MODIS bands independently, and we have determined the impact on time to detect trends in those cloud properties based on calibration requirements in each of those bands. This should not be the only way these requirements are evaluated, however, since within the CERES/MODIS cloud mask retrieval algorithm, bands may be used individually (such as the 11-μm band, which is used to determine if the pixel is too cold to be cloud free) or the combination of information between two bands may be used together, such as the difference between the BT in the 11- and 12-μm bands. Additionally several other cloud mask tests are often applied using reflectance and brightness temperature in different wavelengths depending on the cloud type encountered. For example, there are differences in determining thin high clouds versus low thick clouds.
We have conducted preliminary investigations into the impact of these cloud types differences on the sensitivity of cloud properties to changes in the four bands considered here. In these preliminary results, we have found that the sensitivity of cloud fraction in the 11-μm band varies by cloud type. The total cloud sensitivities used in this study, however, do not necessarily sufficiently represent the variability in the sensitivity among different cloud types. Further investigation, therefore, is required that also carefully examines the natural variability of the cloud properties of different cloud types, in addition to their RS and IR instrument calibration sensitivities, the combination of which would allow for determination of calibration requirements by cloud type.
b. Water cloud effective radius
We also determined calibration uncertainty requirements for detecting global trends in effective particle size of water clouds. In the CPRS, the effective particle radius, 
This climate change uncertainty analysis for effective radius can be placed into a climate change–relevant context using the relationship between 
Ultimately, we needed to estimate a relationship between aerosol forcing trends and effective radius trends. To quantify this relationship we used the 30-yr forcing projections from the AR5 representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) scenario (Collins et al. 2013). Between 2000 and 2030, the RCP4.5 total effective radiative forcing projected change is 1.31 W m−2. The total aerosol ERF (ERFari+aci) (IPCC 2013), which includes aerosol cloud interactions (aci) and aerosol radiation interactions (ari), is nearly indistinguishable among the four future scenarios, or representative concentration pathways, used in the AR5 (Cubasch et al. 2013), with the ERFari+aci becoming less negative by about 1 W m−2 during the twenty-first century. Between 2000 (−1.17 W m−2) and 2030 (−0.91 W m−2) the ERFari+aci is projected to increase by 0.26 W m−2. However, to connect the aerosol ERF to the effective radius trend, we needed to isolate the ERFaci. AR5 radiative forcing estimates for 2011 relative to 1750 show that the ERFaci and ERFari contribute 50% each to the ERFari+aci, each being about −0.45 W m−2 (Myhre et al. 2013). Assuming this ratio remains approximately constant throughout the twenty-first century, we estimate an ERFaci change between 2000 and 2030 of 0.13 W m−2 (0.043 W m−2 decade−1).
(a) The 95% confidence trend uncertainties 
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
(a) The 95% confidence trend uncertainties
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
(a) The 95% confidence trend uncertainties
Citation: Journal of Climate 30, 17; 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0429.1
For the specific AR5 projection discussed above for which the ERFaci trend was 0.043 W m−2 decade−1, the corresponding relative 
These results need to be considered with care, as we have made several assumptions within this analysis, which are stated above; however, despite the idealized context within which we obtained these results, our analysis provides important information regarding the impact of calibration uncertainty requirements on quantifying the aerosol indirect effect, which is among the greatest uncertainties in radiative forcing (Myhre et al. 2013). We have shown that with an instrument with a comparable calibration requirement to the CLARREO IR spectrometer, trends in effective radius, and therefore ERFaci could be detected eight to nine decades sooner than with existing instruments. These results illustrate, similarly to the results from W13, the importance of stringent uncertainty requirements for climate change trend detection. This study was conducted solely using the effective radius retrieved using the 3.8-μm band; however, it would also be relevant to extend this study to investigate the impact of calibration uncertainty on the time to detect trends in water cloud effective radius retrieved using reflectance in the 1.6-μm and 2.1-μm bands.
5. Conclusions
Reducing cloud property trend uncertainties using instruments with sufficient accuracy and stability for climate change detection and attribution would contribute significantly to improved understanding of climate processes. In these studies we applied a climate uncertainty framework (W13) to enable quantitatively based justification for determining what constitutes sufficient uncertainty requirements for timely globally averaged cloud property trend detection. We applied this climate uncertainty framework to quantify the impact of calibration uncertainty of RS and IR instruments on the trend uncertainties and trend detection times of cloud fraction, effective temperature, optical thickness, and water cloud effective radius retrieved by the CERES/MODIS Cloud Property Retrieval System (Wielicki et al. 1996; Minnis et al. 2011).
These studies followed the CLARREO goal for detection of climate variable trends at uncertainties no more than 20% from those determined using a perfect observing system (
The CLARREO RS requirement of 0.3% (2σ) is nearly equivalent to the requirement for an instrument detecting cloud optical thickness trends within 20% of trend uncertainties that could be determined by a perfect instrument in the 0.65-μm band (
The climate uncertainty framework applied to cloud effective temperature revealed a 0.06 K (2σ) requirement for the 11-μm band for an instrument with goal of 
To detect trends in cloud fraction using the 
For detecting trends in water cloud effective radius (
An important distinction to make is that these studies focus on absolute measurement uncertainty, not on relative stability, of passive satellite sensors. Stability is typically inferred, but not proven, by comparing operational instruments to one another. Stability intercomparisons are important, but they potentially provide a weaker test of trend uncertainty than instruments with small uncertainty levels tied to SI-traceable standards. Climate data records used to inform critical societal decisions require a high level of confidence. The present results consider tying measurements to international standards as a method to provide that higher level of confidence, also assuming from the most conservative standpoint that dependence solely on stability is insufficient.
Studies evaluating other essential climate variables with quantitative frameworks such as that demonstrated here will become increasingly important within the current U.S. and global challenge to appropriate sufficient resources for climate change monitoring. With the challenge of limited Earth science funding to develop instruments with the rigorous uncertainty requirements for climate change detection and attribution, using quantitative studies such as these can provide more rigorous justification for the design of new climate change satellite, aircraft-based, surface, and in situ sensors. A similar method for determining the required quality of climate change measurements has been demonstrated in the report entitled “Continuity of NASA Earth Observations from Space” (National Research Council 2015).
6. Future work
This study demonstrates the value of applying the climate uncertainty framework and techniques for placing the results from that framework application into a climate change–relevant context. There are, however, several areas for future studies. Although we focused on trends in individual cloud properties and connected the value of improving trend detection time to climate model projections, applying cloud fingerprints may help to detect secular trends more rapidly (e.g., Marvel et al. 2015; Roberts et al. 2014; Jin and Sun 2016). In this study, we limited our analysis to evaluating the impact of calibration requirements in individual bands on trend detection times; however, evaluating cloud property trend detection impacts of calibration requirements in multiple instrument bands simultaneously would provide a more realistic analysis. Because the CERES CPRS was used to quantify the sensitivity of cloud properties to gain and offset changes in MODIS data, the results from our study are dependent on the CERES CPRS retrieval algorithm; therefore, it would also be valuable to extend these studies to other cloud imagers (e.g., VIIRS) and retrieval algorithms (e.g., MODIS-ST).
In these studies, we focused on global trends in cloud properties for total cloud, without evaluating regional variability or individual cloud type contributions; however, climate projections have indicated that different cloud types on both a global and regional scale respond differently to and exert different feedbacks upon Earth’s changing climate. For example, there is a need for better constraint of low cloud processes to reduce uncertainty of the SW feedback and, ultimately, equilibrium climate sensitivity. It would be valuable, therefore, to expand these studies to both two-dimensional cloud type histograms and to regional scales. These analyses could then be expanded to link instrument requirements and their impact on cloud trend detection to climate model projections for those different cloud types, which would help to provide more specific constraints regarding instrument requirements.
Retrieved geophysical variable trend detection uncertainty is also dependent upon uncertainties due to assumptions and approximations made in retrieval algorithms. Time-dependent biases in retrieval algorithms could be erroneously identified as secular geophysical trends in the climate system, thereby masking or distorting the true climate change trends occurring in the climate system. In future studies, we plan to evaluate the impact of time-dependent biases (e.g., the three-dimensional 
Acknowledgments
The CERES data products were obtained from the Atmospheric Science Data Center at the NASA Langley Research Center. The authors thank David Doelling for his help with obtaining the CERES Edition 4A Cloud Property Data and the three reviewers whose comments improved the quality and presentation of this manuscript. P. Minnis and S. Sun-Mack are supported by the NASA CERES Program. Y. Shea and B. Wielicki are supported by NASA CLARREO Pre-formulation funding.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J., J. Dykema, R. Goody, H. Hu, and D. Kirk-Davidoff, 2004: Absolute, spectrally-resolved, thermal radiance: A benchmark for climate monitoring from space. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 85, 367–383, doi:10.1016/S0022-4073(03)00232-2.
Bony, S., and Coauthors, 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Climate, 19, 3445–3482, doi:10.1175/JCLI3819.1.
Caldwell, P. M., M. D. Zelinka, K. E. Taylor, and K. Marvel, 2016: Quantifying the sources of intermodel spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity. J. Climate, 29, 513–524, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0352.1.
Cao, C., F. J. De Luccia, X. Xiong, R. Wolfe, and F. Weng, 2014: Early on-orbit performance of the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite onboard the Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership (S-NPP) satellite. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 52, 1142–1156, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2013.2247768.
CERES Science Team, 2016: CERES SSF1deg, edition 4A, subset monthly. NASA Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC), Hampton, VA, accessed June 2016, doi:10.5067/AQUA/CERES/SSF1DEGMONTH_L3.004A.
Chen, T., W. B. Rossow, and Y. Zhang, 2000: Radiative effects of cloud-type variations. J. Climate, 13, 264–286, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<0264:REOCTV>2.0.CO;2.
Collins, M., and Coauthors, 2013: Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1029–1136, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.024.
Cubasch, U., D. Wuebbles, D. Chen, M. Facchini, D. Frame, N. Mahowald, and J.-G. Winther, 2013: Introduction. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 119–158, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.007.
Dessler, A., and N. Loeb, 2013: Impact of dataset choice on calculations of the short-term cloud feedback. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 2821–2826, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50199.
Dolinar, E. K., X. Dong, B. Xi, J. H. Jiang, and H. Su, 2015: Evaluation of CMIP5 simulated clouds and TOA radiation budgets using NASA satellite observations. Climate Dyn., 44, 2229–2247, doi:10.1007/s00382-014-2158-9.
Dowell, M., and Coauthors, 2013: Strategy towards an architecture for climate monitoring from space. CEOS/CGMS/WMO, 39 pp.
Feldman, D. R., C. A. Algieri, W. D. Collins, Y. L. Roberts, and P. A. Pilewskie, 2011: Simulation studies for the detection of changes in broadband albedo and shortwave nadir reflectance spectra under a climate change scenario. J. Geophys. Res., 116, D24103, doi:10.1029/2011JD016407.
Flato, G., and Coauthors, 2013: Evaluation of climate models. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 741–866, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.020.
Fox, N., A. Kaiser-Weiss, W. Schmutz, K. Thome, D. Young, B. Wielicki, R. Winkler, and E. Woolliams, 2011: Accurate radiometry from space: An essential tool for climate studies. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 369A, 4028–4063, doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0246.
Goldberg, M., and Coauthors, 2011: The Global Space-Based Inter-Calibration System. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 92, 467–475, doi:10.1175/2010BAMS2967.1.
Goody, R., J. Anderson, T. Karl, R. Balstad Miller, G. North, J. Simpson, G. Stephens, and W. Washington, 2002: Why we should monitor the climate. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 873–878, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083<0873:WWSMTC>2.3.CO;2.
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1535 pp.
Jin, Z., and M. Sun, 2016: An initial study on climate change fingerprinting using the reflected solar spectra. J. Climate, 29, 2781–2796, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0297.1.
Kato, S., F. G. Rose, X. Liu, B. A. Wielicki, and M. G. Mlynczak, 2014: Retrieval of atmospheric and cloud property anomalies and their trend from temporally and spatially averaged infrared spectra observed from space. J. Climate, 27, 4403–4420, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00566.1.
King, M. D., and Coauthors, 2003: Cloud and aerosol properties, precipitable water, and profiles of temperature and water vapor from MODIS. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 41, 442–458, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2002.808226.
Lee, T. E., S. D. Miller, F. J. Turk, C. Schueler, R. Julian, S. Deyo, P. Dills, and S. Wang, 2006: The NPOESS VIIRS day/night visible sensor. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 191–199, doi:10.1175/BAMS-87-2-191.
Leroy, S., J. Anderson, J. Dykema, and R. Goody, 2008a: Testing climate models using thermal infrared spectra. J. Climate, 21, 1863–1875, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2061.1.
Leroy, S., J. Anderson, and G. Ohring, 2008b: Climate signal detection times and constraints on climate benchmark accuracy requirements. J. Climate, 21, 841–846, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI1946.1.
Liu, X., and Coauthors, 2017: Spectrally dependent CLARREO infrared spectrometer calibration requirement for climate change detection. J. Climate, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0704.1, in press.
Loeb, N. G., and Coauthors, 2007: Multi-instrument comparison of top-of-atmosphere reflected solar radiation. J. Climate, 20, 575–591, doi:10.1175/JCLI4018.1.
Loeb, N. G., B. A. Wielicki, D. R. Doelling, G. L. Smith, D. F. Keyes, S. Kato, N. Manalo-Smith, and T. Wong, 2009: Toward optimal closure of the Earth’s top-of-atmosphere radiation budget. J. Climate, 22, 748–766, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1.
Loeb, N. G., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, R. P. Allan, D. R. Doelling, T. Wong, B. J. Soden, and G. L. Stephens, 2012: Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. Nat. Geosci., 5, 110–113, doi:10.1038/ngeo1375.
Loveland, T., B. Reed, J. Brown, D. Ohlen, Z. Zhu, L. Yang, and J. Merchant, 2000: Development of a global land cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data. Int. J. Remote Sens., 21, 1303–1330, doi:10.1080/014311600210191.
Lukashin, C., B. A. Wielicki, D. F. Young, K. Thome, Z. Jin, and W. Sun, 2013: Uncertainty estimates for imager reference inter-calibration with CLARREO reflected solar spectrometer. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 51, 1425–1436, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2012.2233480.
Lyapustin, A., and Coauthors, 2014: Scientific impact of MODIS C5 calibration degradation and C6+ improvements. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 4353–4365, doi:10.5194/amt-7-4353-2014.
Marvel, K., M. Zelinka, S. A. Klein, C. Bonfils, P. Caldwell, C. Doutriaux, B. D. Santer, and K. E. Taylor, 2015: External influences on modeled and observed cloud trends. J. Climate, 28, 4820–4840, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00734.1.
Minnis, P., and Coauthors, 2008: Cloud detection in nonpolar regions for CERES using TRMM VIRS and Terra and Aqua MODIS data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 46, 3857–3884, 10.1109/TGRS.2008.2001351.
Minnis, P., and Coauthors, 2011: CERES edition-2 cloud property retrievals using TRMM VIRS and Terra and Aqua MODIS data—Part I: Algorithms. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 49, 4374–4400, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2011.2144601.
Moeller, C., D. Tobin, and G. Quinn, 2013: S-NPP VIIRS thermal band spectral radiance performance through 18 months of operation on-orbit, Earth Observing Systems XVIII, J. J. Butler, X. Xiong, and X. Gu, Eds., International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 8866), 88661N, doi:10.1117/12.2023389.
Myhre, G., and Coauthors, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. T. F. Stocker et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.018.
National Research Council, 2007: Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. National Academies Press, 428 pp.
National Research Council, 2015: Continuity of NASA Earth Observations from Space: A Value Framework. National Academies Press, 118 pp.
Nolin, A., R. L. Armstrong, and J. Maslanik, 1998: Near-real-time SSM/I-SSMIS EASE-Grid daily global ice concentration and snow extent (updated daily). National Snow and Ice Data Center, accessed 9 November 2015. [Available online at http://nsidc.org/data/nise.]
Ohring, G., B. Wielicki, R. Spencer, B. Emery, and R. Datla, 2005: Satellite instrument calibration for measuring global climate change: Report of a workshop. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 1303–1313, doi:10.1175/BAMS-86-9-1303.
Phojanamongkolkij, N., S. Kato, B. A. Wielicki, P. C. Taylor, and M. G. Mlynczak, 2014: A comparison of climate signal trend detection uncertainty analysis methods. J. Climate, 27, 3363–3376, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00400.1.
Platnick, S., and Coauthors, 2017: The MODIS cloud optical and microphysical products: Collection 6 updates and examples from Terra and Aqua. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 55, 502–525, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522.
Roberts, Y., P. Pilewskie, D. Feldman, B. Kindel, and W. Collins, 2014: Temporal variability of observed and simulated hyperspectral reflectance. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 10 262–10 280, doi:10.1002/2014JD021566.
Roithmayr, C. M., C. Lukashin, P. W. Speth, G. Kopp, K. Thome, B. Wielicki, and D. F. Young, 2014: CLARREO approach for reference intercalibration of reflected solar sensors: On-orbit data matching and sampling. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 52, 6762–6774, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2014.2302397.
Roman, J., R. Knuteson, and S. Ackerman, 2014: Time-to-detect trends in precipitable water vapor with varying measurement error. J. Climate, 27, 8259–8275, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00736.1.
Slingo, A., 1989: A GCM parameterization for the shortwave radiative properties of water clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 46, 1419–1427, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1989)046<1419:AGPFTS>2.0.CO;2.
Soden, B. J., and G. A. Vecchi, 2011: The vertical distribution of cloud feedback in coupled ocean–atmosphere models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L12704, doi:10.1029/2011GL047632.
Soden, B. J., I. M. Held, R. Colman, K. M. Shell, J. T. Kiehl, and C. A. Shields, 2008: Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J. Climate, 21, 3504–3520, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1.
Stephens, G. L., 2005: Cloud feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J. Climate, 18, 237–273, doi:10.1175/JCLI-3243.1.
Stephens, G. L., S.-C. Tsay, P. W. Stackhouse Jr., and P. J. Flatau, 1990: The relevance of the microphysical and radiative properties of cirrus clouds to climate and climatic feedback. J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 1742–1754, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047<1742:TROTMA>2.0.CO;2.
Su, W., J. Corbett, Z. Eitzen, and L. Liang, 2015: Next-generation angular distribution models for top-of-atmosphere radiative flux calculation from CERES instruments: Validation. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 3297–3313, doi:10.5194/amt-8-3297-2015.
Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, 2012: An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485–498, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.
Trenberth, K. E., and Coauthors, 2013: Challenges of a sustained climate observing system. Climate Science for Serving Society, A. Ghassem and J. W. Hurrell, Eds., Springer, 13–50.
Trepte, Q., P. Minnis, and R. F. Arduini, 2003: Daytime and nighttime polar cloud and snow identification using MODIS data. Optical Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Clouds III, H.-L. Huang, D. Lu, and Y. Sasano, Eds., International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 4891), 449–459, doi:10.1117/12.467306.
Twomey, S., 1977: The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034<1149:TIOPOT>2.0.CO;2.
Vial, J., J.-L. Dufresne, and S. Bony, 2013: On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates. Climate Dyn., 41, 3339–3362, doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9.
Weatherhead, E. C., and Coauthors, 1998: Factors affecting the detection of trends: Statistical considerations and applications to environmental data. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 17 149–17 161, doi:10.1029/98JD00995.
Webb, M. J., F. H. Lambert, and J. M. Gregory, 2013: Origins of differences in climate sensitivity, forcing and feedback in climate models. Climate Dyn., 40, 677–707, doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1336-x.
Wenny, B. N., A. Wu, S. Madhavan, Z. Wang, Y. Li, N. Chen, K.-F. Chiang, and X. Xiong, 2012: MODIS TEB calibration approach in collection 6. Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites XVI, R. Meynart, S. P. Neeck, and H. Shimoda, Eds., International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 8533), 85331M, doi:10.1117/12.974231.
Wielicki, B. A., B. R. Barkstrom, E. F. Harrison, R. B. Lee III, G. L. Smith, and J. E. Cooper, 1996: Clouds and the Earth’s radiant energy system (CERES): An Earth observing system experiment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77, 853–868, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0853:CATERE>2.0.CO;2.
Wielicki, B. A., and Coauthors, 2013: Achieving climate change absolute accuracy in orbit. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 1519–1539, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00149.1.
Wu, A., X. Xiong, Z. Jin, C. Lukashin, B. N. Wenny, and J. J. Butler, 2015: Sensitivity of intercalibration uncertainty of the CLARREO reflected solar spectrometer features. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 53, 4741–4751, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2015.2409030.
Xiong, X., J. Sun, X. Xie, W. L. Barnes, and V. V. Salomonson, 2010: On-orbit calibration and performance of Aqua MODIS reflective solar bands. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 48, 535–546, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2009.2024307.
Zelinka, M. D., S. A. Klein, and D. L. Hartmann, 2012a: Computing and partitioning cloud feedbacks using cloud property histograms. Part I: Cloud radiative kernels. J. Climate, 25, 3715–3735, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00248.1.
Zelinka, M. D., S. A. Klein, and D. L. Hartmann, 2012b: Computing and partitioning cloud feedbacks using cloud property histograms. Part II: Attribution to changes in cloud amount, altitude, and optical depth. J. Climate, 25, 3736–3754, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00249.1.
Zelinka, M. D., S. A. Klein, K. E. Taylor, T. Andrews, M. J. Webb, J. M. Gregory, and P. M. Forster, 2013: Contributions of different cloud types to feedbacks and rapid adjustments in CMIP5. J. Climate, 26, 5007–5027, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00555.1.
