How accurate did GCMs compute the insolation at TOA for AMIP‐2?

Raschke, E.; Giorgetta, Marco; Kinne, Stefan; Wild, Martin

doi:10.1029/2005gl024411

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is seen that the distributions of radiative flux in many models (bcc‐csm1‐1, BNU‐ESM, CanAM4, CCSM4, CESM1‐CAM5, EC‐EARTH, inmcm4, and NorESM1‐M) exhibit longitudinal oscillations. The same type of biases was also reported in some climate model in AMIP‐2 in the dezonalized anomalies plot [ Raschke et al ., ]. This variation would not be visible in zonally averaged plots or in spatial plots when the color scale has a large range.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models

Zhou

Zhang

Bao

et al. 2015

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model. We show that this feature is caused by temporal sampling errors in the calculation of the solar zenith angle. The sampling error can cause zonal oscillations of surface clear‐sky net shortwave radiation of about 3 W/m2 when an hourly radiation time step is used and 24 W/m2 when a 3 h radiation time step is used.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models

Zhou

Zhang

Bao

et al. 2015

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We recommend, that in a first step both projects must reprocess their solar radiation components agreeing in the same insolation at TOA and in the same onset and offset of the daylight period over each area. Similarly also other radiation budget projects (e.g., CERES [ Wielicki et al , 1996]; not shown here) and also all climate models should adjust their insolation to same values for the same time periods [ Raschke et al , 2005b]. Both projects need to correct their ancillary skin temperature values.…”

Section: Final Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An assessment of radiation budget data provided by the ISCCP and GEWEX‐SRB

Raschke¹,

Bakan

Kinne

2006

Geophysical Research Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] The projects ISCCP and GEWEX-SRB compute global data sets of radiation budget components at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface. Time series range from July 1983 to June 2001, and to October 1995, respectively. Comparing monthly averages over broader zones we find that the SRB underestimates the incident radiation at TOA by more than 2 -5 Wm À2 over the tropics and up to 40 Wm À2 over polar regions. The ISCCP infrared radiation fluxes near the surface and at TOA, in particular over both polar zones, are higher than those of the SRB. Clouds in the ISCCP appear optically less effective than in the SRB. Interannual and month-to-month variations are observed indicating serious errors in ancillary data. Complete reprocessing is recommended. End products need validation within this large domain in space and time with correlated radiation budget measurements at TOA and at ground.

show abstract

“…Documentations of the models can be found at the Website of the U.S. Department of Energy's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). The outputs of the AMIP II models have been used in many studies, including discussion on cloud radiation [ Potter and Cess , 2004], solar insolation [ Raschke et al , 2005], leading modes of the interannual variability of Asian‐Australian Monsoon [ Zhou et al , 2009a], and the vertical structures of atmospheric temperature anomalies associated with different flavors of El Niño [ Zhou and Zhang , 2011].…”

Section: Model Data and Methods Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

El Niño–Southern Oscillation–related principal interannual variability modes of early and late summer rainfall over East Asia in sea surface temperature-driven atmospheric general circulation model simulations

Li¹,

Zhou²

2011

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] A large portion of interannual variability during early summer (May-June mean; hereinafter referred to as MJ) and late summer (July-August mean; hereinafter referred to as JA) rainfall over East Asia is dominated by El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. Four ENSO-related modes have been identified by using empirical orthogonal function (EOF) decomposition analysis on East Asian rainfall for the period 1980-1999, with EOF2 for MJ rainfall (hereinafter referred to as MJ-2; similar notations are used for other modes) corresponding to the developing phase of La Niña events, while MJ-3, JA-1, and JA-2 correspond to the decaying phase of El Niño events. The authors investigate the predictability of ENSO-related MJ and JA rainfall modes by analyzing the outputs of 12 atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs) of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project Phase II (AMIP II), which were run in an AGCM stand-alone mode and were forced by the monthly historical sea surface temperature (SST) from 1980 to 1999. The results show that although the climatological differences between MJ and JA rainfall are reasonably reproduced by most AGCMs, the four ENSO-related interannual variability modes of MJ and JA rainfall show different predictabilities. While both atmospheric circulation and precipitation anomalies associated with MJ-3 (the slow El Niño decaying mode) are reasonably reproduced by nearly all the models, the JA-1 (MJ-2) mode is only partly reproduced by about two thirds (half) of the AMIP II models. All models fail to reproduce the JA-2 mode. The relatively low skills in predicting both JA-1 and JA-2 modes are primarily due to the bias of the AMIP models in simulating both the intensity and the position of the western North Pacific anticyclone. The predictability of the JA-1 mode is slightly higher than that of JA-2, and the difference results from the stronger and longer persistence of SST anomaly (SSTA) forcing associated with the decaying ENSO events. The low skill of the MJ-2 prediction is due to the weak SSTA forcing associated with the developing phase of La Niña. The skills of the AMIP II models in predicting the leading interannual variability modes of East Asian summer rainfall do not depend on the horizontal resolutions of the models.Citation: Li, B., and T. Zhou (2011), El Niño-Southern Oscillation-related principal interannual variability modes of early and late summer rainfall over East Asia in sea surface temperature-driven atmospheric general circulation model simulations,

show abstract

How accurate did GCMs compute the insolation at TOA for AMIP‐2?

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models

On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models

An assessment of radiation budget data provided by the ISCCP and GEWEX‐SRB

El Niño–Southern Oscillation–related principal interannual variability modes of early and late summer rainfall over East Asia in sea surface temperature-driven atmospheric general circulation model simulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About