Xiquan Dong, Baike Xi, Erica Dolinar, and Ryan Stanfield

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An Examination of the Radiative Fluxes in Various Reanalyses with an Emphasis on the Global Budget Wesley Ebisuzaki 1, S. K. Yang 1,2, Li Zhang 1,2, Arun.
Advertisements

Xiaolei Niu and R. T. Pinker Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland Radiative Flux Estimates from.
An Evaluation of the Surface Radiation Budget Over North America for a Suite of Regional Climate Models Student: Marko Markovic Director: Colin Jones Université.
ISCCP/GISS ISCCP/UMD UMD/MODIS July 2001 Zonal Mean all-sky surface SW down W/m 2 ) Figure 1.
Climate change in the Antarctic. Turner et al, Significant warming of the Antarctic Winter Troposphere. Science, vol 311, pp Radiosonde.
Surface Skin/Air Temperature and LW Flux Calculation Y-C. Zhang and W.B. Rossow LandFlux Conference CNES/CESBIO, Toulouse, France May 28 – 31, 2007.
The Radiative Budget of an Atmospheric Column in Tropical Western Pacific Zheng Liu Department of Atmospheric Science University of Washington.
Quantifying aerosol direct radiative effect with MISR observations Yang Chen, Qinbin Li, Ralph Kahn Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology,
Climate Science Branch, Science Directorate NASA Langley Research Center Shashi K. Gupta, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr.*, Taiping Zhang, and J. Colleen Mikovitz.
The Radiative Budget of an Atmospheric Column in Tropical Western Pacific Zheng Liu 1 Thomas Ackerman 1,2, Sally McFarlane 2, Jim Mather 2, University.
Surface Atmospheric Radiation Budget (SARB) working group update Seiji Kato 1, Fred Rose 2, David Rutan 2, Alexander Radkevich 2, Tom Caldwell 2, David.
SHNHCEF EI ind c-5.3±0.24.5±0.1−0.8±0.1 EI dir c-5.4±0.24.8± ±0.2 E40 ind c−5.7±0.34.9±0.3−0.9±0.2 E40 dir c-4.9±0.64.7± ±0.2 FT08−4.9±0.25.1±0.5-
The Large-Scale Energy Budget of the Arctic Mark C. Serreze National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental.
Surface Radiative Fluxes over the Pan-Arctic Land Region: Variability and Trends Xiaogang Shi 1, Martin Wild 2, and Dennis P. Lettenmaier 1 1 Department.
A Comparison of the Northern American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) to an Ensemble of Analyses Including CFSR Wesley Ebisuzaki 1, Fedor Mesinger 2, Li Zhang.
Evaluation of CMIP5 Simulated Clouds and TOA Radiation Budgets in the SMLs Using NASA Satellite Observations Erica K. Dolinar Xiquan Dong and Baike Xi.
Radiation Group 3: Manabe and Wetherald (1975) and Trenberth and Fasullo (2009) – What is the energy balance of the climate system? How is it altered by.
AGU 2002 Fall Meeting NASA Langley Research Center / Atmospheric Sciences Validation of GOES-8 Derived Cloud Properties Over the Southeastern Pacific J.
JCSDA Summer Colloquium Erica Dolinar 4 August 2015.
Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications: Introduction to NASA’s Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications:
ISCCP at its 30 th (New York, 22 – 25 April, 2013) Congratulations to the “Core Team” and to “Patient Outside-Supporters”: Our best wishes for a perspective.
Seasonal Cycle of Climate Feedbacks in the NCAR CCSM3.0 Patrick Taylor CLARREO Science Team Meeting July 7, 2010 Patrick Taylor CLARREO Science Team Meeting.
Comparison on Cloud and radiation properties at Barrow between ARM/NSA measurements and GCM outputs Qun Miao and Zhien Wang University of Wyoming 1. Introduction.
A Preliminary Evaluation of the Global Water and Energy Budgets in an Upcoming NASA Reanalysis Junye Chen (1,2) and Michael G. Bosilovich (2) 1 ESSIC,
Ocean Surface heat fluxes
Diurnal Water and Energy Cycles over the Continental United States from three Reanalyses Alex Ruane John Roads Scripps Institution of Oceanography / UCSD.
Intercomparison of Polar Cloud Climatology: APP-x, ERA-40, Ground-based Observations Xuanji Wang Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies.
Evaluation of radiative properties of low and high clouds in different regimes using satellite measurements Bing Lin 1, Pat Minnis 1, and Tai-Fang Fan.
Lazaros Oreopoulos (NASA-GSFC)
Point Comparison in the Arctic (Barrow N, 156.6W ) Part I - Assessing Satellite (and surface) Capabilities for Determining Cloud Fraction, Cloud.
Validation of Satellite-derived Clear-sky Atmospheric Temperature Inversions in the Arctic Yinghui Liu 1, Jeffrey R. Key 2, Axel Schweiger 3, Jennifer.
AEROCOM AODs are systematically smaller than MODIS, with slightly larger/smaller differences in winter/summer. Aerosol optical properties are difficult.
Significance of ISCCP to Realistic Estimates of Global Radiation Profiles Yuanchong Zhang 1 and William B. Rossow 2 1 Columbia University at NASA GISS,
Consistent Earth System Data Records for Climate Research: Focus on Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Fluxes Rachel T. Pinker, Yingtao Ma and Eric Nussbaumer.
Arctic clouds, circulation, and sea ice during 2007 and beyond Jennifer Kay 1,2, Andrew Gettelman 1, Kevin Reader 1, and Tristan L’Ecuyer 2 1 National.
Variability of Arctic Cloudiness from Satellite and Surface Data Sets University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory Polar Science Center Axel J.
NASA Langley Research Center / Atmospheric Sciences CERES Instantaneous Clear-sky and Monthly Averaged Radiance and Flux Product Overview David Young NASA.
NASA’s Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA): Overview, global water and energy budgets and a brief demonstration Global.
A-Train Symposium, April 19-21, 2017, Pasadena, CA
Changes in the Melt Season and the Declining Arctic Sea Ice
Status and Outlook Evaluating CFSR Air-Sea Heat, Freshwater, and Momentum Fluxes in the context of the Global Energy and Freshwater Budgets PI: Lisan.
The Emergence of Surface-Based Arctic Amplification
Yinghui Liu1, Jeff Key2, and Xuanji Wang1
Climate Change Climate change scenarios of the
TOA Radiative Flux Estimation From CERES Angular Distribution Models
Diagnosing and quantifying uncertainties of
Reanalyzed Clouds, Precipitation, TOA and Surface Radiation Budgets: A Global Satellite Comparison and a Regional Study at Two ARM Locations Erica Dolinar,
The Interannual variability of the Arctic energy budget
Jeff Key*, Aaron Letterly+, Yinghui Liu+
Annual cycle of cloud fraction and surface radiative cloud forcing in the South-East Pacific Stratocumulus region Virendra P. Ghate and Bruce A. Albrecht.
P. Minnis A. DelGenio Project Title: A Study of Arctic Radiation Budget using CERES/MODIS Satellite and.
Robert Wood, Duli Chand, Tad Anderson University of Washington
Panel: Bill Large, Bob Weller, Tim Liu, Huug Van den Dool, Glenn White
+ = Climate Responses to Biomass Burning Aerosols over South Africa
Reconciling Ocean Heating and
A Comparison of Extratropical Cyclones in Recent Reanalyses
Changes in global net radiative imbalance
Robert Wood, Duli Chand, Tad Anderson University of Washington
Robert Wood, Duli Chand, Tad Anderson University of Washington
Aaron Kennedy, Xiquan Dong, and Baike Xi University of North Dakota
Assessment of NASA GISS CMIP5 and post-CMIP5 Simulated Clouds and Radiation fluxes Using Satellite Observations 1/15/2019 Ryan Stanfield(1), Xiquan Dong(1),
Calculation SW fluxes by SAIL and MGO parametrization
CO2 forcing induces semi-direct effects
Erin Robinson, Alan Pinkert June, 2010
Ming-Dah Chou Department of Atmospheric Sciences
REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.
Studying the cloud radiative effect using a new, 35yr spanning dataset of cloud properties and radiative fluxes inferred from global satellite observations.
Quantifying the uncertainties of reanalyzed Arctic cloud-radiation properties using satellite data (Dong) MODIS MERRA MERRA annual mean CF is 9% higher.
Integrated Satellite Global Energy Data for Climate Studies
CURRENT Energy Budget Changes
Presentation transcript:

Xiquan Dong, Baike Xi, Erica Dolinar, and Ryan Stanfield Quantifying the uncertainties of reanalyzed Arctic cloud-radiation properties using satellite-surface Observations Yiyi Huang Xiquan Dong, Baike Xi, Erica Dolinar, and Ryan Stanfield University of North Dakota  

Outline Datasets and Methodology Comparison between satellite-derived and ground-based observations Results I: Cloud fraction (CF) Results II: Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) radiation fluxes and cloud radiative effects (CREs) Results III: Surface radiation fluxes Summary

Datasets Time frame: 2000/03-2012/02 Area of interest: Arctic (70°-90°N) Satellite observations: CERES-MODIS cloud fraction, CERES- EBAF edition 3 for radiation fluxes at Top of Atmosphere (TOA) and surface Reanalyses   JRA55 20CR V2c CFSR ERA-Interim MERRA Horizontal Resolution Global Gaussian Grid (288×145) 1.25°×1.25° (180×91) 2°×2° (1153×576) 0.31°×0.31° (480×241) 0.75°×0.75° (540×361) 0.66°×0.5° Vertical Resolution 60 levels (to 0.1 hPa) 24 levels 64 levels (to 0.26 hPa) 72 levels (to 0.01 hPa) Temporal Resolution 3 hour time average 1 hour time average 6 hour time 1 hour time average

Methodology Using monthly means of cloud and radiation parameters Both Satellite observations and reanalyses are averaged into the same grid box (2ox2o) during comparison. In order to provide more reliable satellite derived surface Radiation products over entire Arctic region, the ground-based observations from BSRN surface sites have been collected to validate the NASA CERES surface radiation products (In progress).

Comparison between satellite-derived and surface observations Variable CERES-EBAF (70°-90°N) Dong et al. 2013a BAR(71.32°N,156.6°W) CERES/ARMb NYA(78.93°N,11.93°E) EBAF/BSRNc CFs (%) 63.2   64.8/78(Radar); 75(Ceilo) 66.5/67.0 LW↑all (Wm-2) 262.8 262.2 262.0/271.3 LW↓all (Wm-2) 232.2 230.6 245.9/240.0 243.8/252.9 SW↑all (Wm-2) 53.9 54 48.7/48.6 SW↓all (Wm-2) 95.9 96.1 104.0/96.9 88.5/76.5 LW↑clr (Wm-2) 264.9 277.1/265.2 LW↓clr (Wm-2) 192.7 204.8/203.2 SW↑clr (Wm-2) 65.9 58.9/65.3 SW↓clr (Wm-2) 127.9 139.5/139.8 CRFlw (Wm-2) 41.6 56.2/30.7 CRFsw (Wm-2) -20.0 -25.3/-26.2 CRFnet (Wm-2) 21.6 30.9/4.5 In Progress BSRN Sites: Alert (ALE,82.49°N,62.42°W):2001/11-2012/10 Tikisi (TIK,71.59°N, 128.92°E):2001/05-2012/04 aData from Dong et al. (2013): surface radiation fluxes from CERES-EBAF satellite data from 2000/03 to 2010/02 bData from Dong et al. (2010): surface radiation fluxes from the ARM NSA and NOAA BRW sites in North Slope of Alaska, from 1998/06 to 2008/05 cData from Zib et al. (2012) :surface radiation fluxes from the BSRN at Barrow(BAR) and Ny-Alesund (NYA) surface stations, from 1994 to 2008

Results I: Cloud Fraction CERES-MODIS JRA55 20CR V2c CFSR ERA-I MERRA Compared to NASA CERES derived CFs, only JRA55 can capture its seasonal variation but with large negative bias, while other four reanalyses overestimated CFs, particular during cold months. CF uncertainty from passive satellite remote sensing is also large without solar radiation.

Results I: Warm season (JJA) CFs CERES-MODIS (CF) JRA55 - CF For CERES-MODIS, the minimum CFs are located in Greenland, while the CFs in the ocean are very uniform JRA55 has the largest negative biases against observations There are relatively higher positive biases in the Arctic ocean in 20CR V2c, CFSR and ERA-I 20CR V2c - CF CFSR - CF ERA-I - CF MERRA - CF

Results II: TOA LWup radiation fluxes All-sky Clear-sky The TOA LWup flux increases from January to July and decreases to following winter Clear-sky TOA LWup flux is 12 W/m2 higher than all-sky one from CERES observations All reanalyses can well represent the trend of LWup fluxes for both in all-sky and clear-sky JRA55 is higher, but 20CR is lower, than CERES observations.

Results II: TOA SWup radiation fluxes All-sky Clear-sky All-sky TOA SWup flux peaks in June, while clear-sky one peaks in May due to high Solar radiation and large snow-ice coverage. All-sky TOA SWup flux is ~20 W/m2 higher than clear-sky one. Although the annual mean differences between observations and reanalyses are within a few Wm-2, there are large biases during warm months.

Results II:TOA CREs LW CRE LW CREs are positive, indicating warming effect. Reanalyzed LW CREs follow the seasonal variation with a 4 Wm-2 bias in MERRA and a –4 Wm-2 bias in JRA55. TOA SW: cooling effect (peak in July) Net CREs are dominated by LW warming effect during winter, and by SW cooling effect during summer. Good agreement in NET CREs are due to compensating effects of LW and SW CREs. SW CRE NET=LW+SW

Results II: Warm season (JJA) TOA net CREs Lower CF CERES EBAF Strongest warming effect in Greenland associated with low CF Strongest cooling effect in North Atlantic Ocean with higher CF Reanalyses JRA55 and CFSR are positively biased over the Arctic Ocean, however ERA-I is negatively biased in this area Positive net CRE from JRA55 and negative ERA-I are relatively consistent with the CF results (Low CF in JRA55 and high CF in ERA-I) Higher CF

Results III: Surface LW radiation fluxes LW up LW down Reanalyzed LW_up fluxes agree perfectly with CERES EBAF results from April to October, but constantly higher from Nov. to March. The annual mean differences in LW_down flux are 4 Wm-2, except for JRA55 has a -16 Wm-2 negative bias.

Results III: Surface SW radiation fluxes SW up SW down MERRA reanalyzed SW_down and SW_up fluxes are much lower than CERES EBAF Other reanalyses represent the seasonal variation well with relatively large differences during summer months.

Results III: Warm season (JJA) Surface SWdown flux CERES EBAF Maximum SWdown flux is over Greenland where CF is low Minimum value is over North Atlantic Ocean and is associated with higher CF Reanalyses CFSR, ERA-I and MERRA are largely negative biased in the Arctic Ocean CFSR and ERA-I reanalyzed SW_down fluxes are consistent with their CF results

Summary Except JRA55, the other four reanalyses have difficulties in representing the seasonal variation of Arctic cloud fraction, especially during the cold season (overestimation) Almost all the reanalyses can well capture the seasonal cycle of radiation fluxes, both at the TOA and surface TOA net CREs are dominated by LW warming effect during winter months, and by SW cooling effect from April to September In general, most of the reanalyzed CF and radiation results are not physically consistent with each other, such as higher CF should result in higher TOA SW up and lower surface SW down flux etc.