Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHuang, Yiyi
dc.contributor.authorDong, Xiquan
dc.contributor.authorXi, Baike
dc.contributor.authorDolinar, Erica K.
dc.contributor.authorStanfield, Ryan E.
dc.contributor.authorQiu, Shaoyue
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-06T22:35:42Z
dc.date.available2017-11-06T22:35:42Z
dc.date.issued2017-10
dc.identifier.citationQuantifying the Uncertainties of Reanalyzed Arctic Cloud and Radiation Properties Using Satellite Surface Observations 2017, 30 (19):8007 Journal of Climateen
dc.identifier.issn0894-8755
dc.identifier.issn1520-0442
dc.identifier.doi10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0722.1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/625985
dc.description.abstractReanalyses have proven to be convenient tools for studying the Arctic climate system, but their uncertainties should first be identified. In this study, five reanalyses (JRA-55, 20CRv2c, CFSR, ERA-Interim, and MERRA-2) are compared with NASA CERES-MODIS (CM)-derived cloud fractions (CFs), cloud water paths (CWPs), top-of-atmosphere (TOA) and surface longwave (LW) and shortwave (SW) radiative fluxes over the Arctic (70 degrees-90 degrees N) over the period of 2000-12, and CloudSat-CALIPSO (CC)-derived CFs from 2006 to 2010. The monthly mean CFs in all reanalyses except JRA-55 are close to or slightly higher than the CC-derived CFs from May to September. However, wintertime CF cannot be confidently evaluated until instrument simulators are implemented in reanalysis products. The comparison between CM and CCCFs indicates that CM-derived CFs are reliable in summer but not in winter. Although the reanalysis CWPs follow the general seasonal variations of CM CWPs, their annual means are only half or even less than the CM-retrieved CWPs (126 g m(-2)). The annual mean differences in TOA and surface SW and LW fluxes between CERES EBAF and reanalyses are less than 6 W m(-2) for TOA radiative fluxes and 16 W m(-2) for surface radiative fluxes. All reanalyses show positive biases along the northern and eastern coasts of Greenland as a result of model elevation biases or possible CM clear-sky retrieval issues. The correlations between the reanalyses and CERES satellite retrievals indicate that all five reanalyses estimate radiative fluxes better than cloud properties, and MERRA-2 and JRA-55 exhibit comparatively higher correlations for Arctic cloud and radiation properties.
dc.description.sponsorshipNOAA MAPP Grant at the University of North Dakota [NA13OAR4310105]; NASA CERES project at The University of Arizona [NNX17AC52G]en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherAMER METEOROLOGICAL SOCen
dc.relation.urlhttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0722.1en
dc.rights© 2017 American Meteorological Society.en
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.titleQuantifying the Uncertainties of Reanalyzed Arctic Cloud and Radiation Properties Using Satellite Surface Observationsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Dept Hydrol & Atmospher Scien
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Climateen
dc.description.note6 month embargo; Published online: 6 Sept 2017.en
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Atmospheric Sciences, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Atmospheric Sciences, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Atmospheric Sciences, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
refterms.dateFOA2018-03-06T00:00:00Z
html.description.abstractReanalyses have proven to be convenient tools for studying the Arctic climate system, but their uncertainties should first be identified. In this study, five reanalyses (JRA-55, 20CRv2c, CFSR, ERA-Interim, and MERRA-2) are compared with NASA CERES-MODIS (CM)-derived cloud fractions (CFs), cloud water paths (CWPs), top-of-atmosphere (TOA) and surface longwave (LW) and shortwave (SW) radiative fluxes over the Arctic (70 degrees-90 degrees N) over the period of 2000-12, and CloudSat-CALIPSO (CC)-derived CFs from 2006 to 2010. The monthly mean CFs in all reanalyses except JRA-55 are close to or slightly higher than the CC-derived CFs from May to September. However, wintertime CF cannot be confidently evaluated until instrument simulators are implemented in reanalysis products. The comparison between CM and CCCFs indicates that CM-derived CFs are reliable in summer but not in winter. Although the reanalysis CWPs follow the general seasonal variations of CM CWPs, their annual means are only half or even less than the CM-retrieved CWPs (126 g m(-2)). The annual mean differences in TOA and surface SW and LW fluxes between CERES EBAF and reanalyses are less than 6 W m(-2) for TOA radiative fluxes and 16 W m(-2) for surface radiative fluxes. All reanalyses show positive biases along the northern and eastern coasts of Greenland as a result of model elevation biases or possible CM clear-sky retrieval issues. The correlations between the reanalyses and CERES satellite retrievals indicate that all five reanalyses estimate radiative fluxes better than cloud properties, and MERRA-2 and JRA-55 exhibit comparatively higher correlations for Arctic cloud and radiation properties.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
jcli-d-16-0722.1.pdf
Size:
3.910Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
FInal Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record