New tool clears the air on cloud simulations

LIVERMORE, Calif. — Climate models have a hard time representing clouds accurately because they lack the spatial resolution necessary to accurately simulate the billowy air masses.
But Livermore scientists and international collaborators have developed a new tool that will help scientists better represent the clouds observed in the sky in climate models.
Traditionally, observations from satellites infer the properties of clouds from the radiation field (reflection of sunlight back into space, or thermal emission of the planet). However, to accurately utilize satellite data in climate model assessment, a tool is required that allows an apples-to-apples comparison between the clouds simulated in a climate model and the cloud properties retrieved from satellites.
“The models are becoming more interactive and are taking into account the radiation data from the satellite observations and is an important part of the process of making better climate models,” said the Lab’s Stephen Klein, who along with LLNL’s Yuying Zhang and other collaborators have developed the Cloud-Feedback-Model Intercomparison Project Observation Simulator Package (COSP).
“The models have been improving and refining their representations of clouds and COSP will play an important role in furthering this improvement,” Klein said.
Climate models struggle to represent clouds accurately because the models lack the spatial resolution to fully represent clouds. Global climate models typically have a 100-kilometer resolution while meteorological models have a 20-kilometer range. However, to accurately represent clouds as seen in satellite measurements, the scale would need to be from the 500-meter resolution to 1-kilometer range.
“But those small scales are not practical for weather or global climate models,” Klein said. “Our tool will better connect with what the satellites observe – how many clouds, their levels and their reflectivity.”
The COSP is now used worldwide by most of the major models for climate and weather prediction, and it will play an important role in the evaluation of models that will be reviewed by the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Klein said.
The COSP allows for a meaningful comparison between model-simulated clouds and corresponding satellite observations. In other words, what would a satellite see if the atmosphere had the clouds of a climate model?
“COSP is an important and necessary development because modeled clouds cannot be directly compared with observational data; the model representation of clouds is not directly equivalent to what satellites are able to see,” Klein explained. “The COSP eliminates significant ambiguities in the direct comparison of model simulations with satellite retrievals.”
COSP includes a down-scaler that allows for large-scale climate models to estimate the clouds at the satellite-scale. The tool also allows modelers to diagnose how well models are able to simulate clouds as well as how climate change alters clouds. The tool already has revealed climate model limitations such as too many optically thick clouds, too few mid-level clouds and an overestimate of the frequency of precipitation. Additionally, COSP has shown that climate change leads to an increase in optical thickness and increases the altitude of high clouds and decreases the amount of low and mid-level clouds.
Other collaborators include: the UK’s Hadley Centre, Université Pierre et Marie Curie; University of Washington; Monash University, University of Colorado; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Earth System Research Laboratory.
More information about the COSP appears in the August issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
More Information
“Increase in atmospheric moisture tied to human activities,” LLNL news release, Sept. 18, 2007
“Identification of Human-Induced Changes in Atmospheric Moisture Content,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sept. 25, 2007
LLNL’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
After they work on the clouds, will they then get on to Humidity. From their report
Upper-tropospheric humidity. As an example of RTTOV diagnostics, we use uppertropospheric
humidity (UTH; Fig. 8). UTH is a key climate variable that plays a very important role in
Earth’s radiation budget (e.g., Kiehl and Briegleb 1992; Ingram 2010). However, UTH is not well simulated by current climate models (Pierce et al. 2006; John and Soden 2007).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1
Send in the clowns… delete delete delete… clouds.
It IS a great advancement for Climate Science; now they’ll have better explanations for why reality needs adjustment to the models.
You should perhaps acquaint yourself with realclimate, who have been saying that consistently, and have explained in some detail the shortcomings and occasional advances with cloud modelling. Or check out the IPCC report, which spends time time talking about the advances and problems with cloud modelling – chapter 8 on models has a lot on that sub-topic.
Real skepticism is omnidirectional. Just because something is said (or jokingly implied) at WUWT, doesn’t make it true.
@henrythethird : I swear I hadn’t read your comment… It was probably still “awaiting moderation” when I posted mine anyway… Shall we say that great minds think alike?
So then a new type of Holy Divination is to be used? How else can a “computer model” predict random chaotic events that have not yet, and may not even happen? Events, such as condensation of water vapour into droplets, and back again, and whether they precipate or not (if indeed they existed at all), at some specific location or area of the planet.
Sounds like hokum and gimcrackery to me.
Barry, it is true that Realclimarte, and for that matter the IPCC reports such as AR4, and many papers by mainstream climatologists, have repeatedly stated that the role of clouds is not yet fully understood. However, when making projections based on models (based themselves on a poor understanding of clouds) the above acknowledgment of ignorance is not fully taken into account. A better understanding of clouds may potentially have an enormous effect on estimates of climate sensitivity, basically introducing a potentially large negative feedback into the equation. Thus these new developments providing more knowledge about clouds and pointing in exactly that direction are worth remarking. When one sees the next model projection of global warming due to CO2 emissions, a sign reading “Clouds ahead – Use your grain of salt” should be visibly displayed.
Hector, IPCC climate sensitivity has a range that is the same size as the mean estimate. The projections accordingly have a wide range, widening the further forward in time. For any given emissions scenario, the range is about -40% – to +60% of the mean estimate out to the late 21st century. Uncertainties like clouds are included in the range. There is no need for bumper stickers – the uncertainties are discussed at length in the IPCC report.
These things are not neglected is all I’m saying. If you think, like Richard Lindzen, that IPCC doesn’t allow enough range for cloud (or other) uncertainties, then that’s a different, more technical conversation (which I am completely unqualified to attempt).
All else having failed to date, now they are going to try to hang the blame of their statistical generated global warming on poor puffy cloud, letting the repeating offender UHI off the hook scott-free. Do these alarmist climatologers have no shame?
Anthony writes “REPLY: OK, don’t bother, they’re here”
You couldn’t buy a better “article heading -> response -> response to the response” 🙂