% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Wright:889165,
author = {Wright, Jonathon S. and Sun, Xiaoyi and Konopka, Paul and
Krüger, Kirstin and Legras, Bernard and Molod, Andrea M.
and Tegtmeier, Susann and Zhang, Guang J. and Zhao, Xin},
title = {{D}ifferences in tropical high clouds among reanalyses:
origins and radiative impacts},
journal = {Atmospheric chemistry and physics},
volume = {20},
number = {14},
issn = {1680-7324},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {EGU},
reportid = {FZJ-2021-00088},
pages = {8989 - 9030},
year = {2020},
abstract = {We examine differences among reanalysis high-cloud products
in the tropics, assess the impacts of these differences on
radiation budgets at the top of the atmosphere and within
the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere
(UTLS), and discuss their possible origins in the context of
the reanalysis models. We focus on the ERA5
(fifth-generation European Centre for Medium-range Weather
Forecasts – ECMWF – reanalysis), ERA-Interim (ECMWF
Interim Reanalysis), JRA-55 (Japanese 55-year Reanalysis),
MERRA-2 (Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and
Applications, Version 2), and CFSR/CFSv2 (Climate Forecast
System Reanalysis/Climate Forecast System Version 2)
reanalyses. As a general rule, JRA-55 produces the smallest
tropical high-cloud fractions and cloud water contents among
the reanalyses, while MERRA-2 produces the largest.
Accordingly, long-wave cloud radiative effects are
relatively weak in JRA-55 and relatively strong in MERRA-2.
Only MERRA-2 and ERA5 among the reanalyses produce
tropical-mean values of outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR)
close to those observed, but ERA5 tends to underestimate
cloud effects, while MERRA-2 tends to overestimate
variability. ERA5 also produces distributions of long-wave,
short-wave, and total cloud radiative effects at the top of
the atmosphere that are very consistent with those observed.
The other reanalyses all exhibit substantial biases in at
least one of these metrics, although compensation between
the long-wave and short-wave effects helps to constrain
biases in the total cloud radiative effect for most
reanalyses. The vertical distribution of cloud water content
emerges as a key difference between ERA-Interim and other
reanalyses. Whereas ERA-Interim shows a monotonic decrease
of cloud water content with increasing height, the other
reanalyses all produce distinct anvil layers. The latter is
in better agreement with observations and yields very
different profiles of radiative heating in the UTLS. For
example, whereas the altitude of the level of zero net
radiative heating tends to be lower in convective regions
than in the rest of the tropics in ERA-Interim, the opposite
is true for the other four reanalyses. Differences in cloud
water content also help to explain systematic differences in
radiative heating in the tropical lower stratosphere among
the reanalyses. We discuss several ways in which aspects of
the cloud and convection schemes impact the tropical
environment. Discrepancies in the vertical profiles of
temperature and specific humidity in convective regions are
particularly noteworthy, as these variables are directly
constrained by data assimilation, are widely used, and feed
back to convective behaviour through their relationships
with thermodynamic stability.},
cin = {IEK-7},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-7-20101013},
pnm = {244 - Composition and dynamics of the upper troposphere and
middle atmosphere (POF3-244) / DFG project 392169209 -
Klimavariabilität in der oberen Troposphäre und
Stratosphäre über Asien und ihre Darstellung in modernen
Re-Analysen},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-244 / G:(GEPRIS)392169209},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000557791000004},
doi = {10.5194/acp-20-8989-2020},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/889165},
}