 |
| Titel |
Assessing observed and modelled spatial distributions of ice water path using satellite data |
| VerfasserIn |
S. Eliasson, S. A. Buehler, M. Milz, P. Eriksson, V. O. John |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1680-7316
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics ; 11, no. 1 ; Nr. 11, no. 1 (2011-01-14), S.375-391 |
| Datensatznummer |
250009076
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/acp-11-375-2011.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
The climate models used in the IPCC AR4 show large differences in monthly mean
ice water path (IWP). The most valuable source of information that can be used
to potentially constrain the models is global satellite data. The satellite
datasets also have large differences. The retrieved IWP depends on the
technique used, as retrievals based on different techniques are sensitive to
different parts of the cloud column. Building on the foundation of
Waliser et al. (2009), this article provides a more comprehensive
comparison between satellite datasets. IWP data from the CloudSat cloud
profiling radar provide the most advanced dataset on clouds. For all its
unmistakable value, CloudSat data are too short and too sparse to assess
climatic distributions of IWP, hence the need to also use longer datasets. We
evaluate satellite datasets from CloudSat, PATMOS-x, ISCCP, MODIS and MSPPS in
terms of monthly mean IWP, in order to determine the differences and relate
them to the sensitivity of the instrument used in the retrievals. This
information is also used to evaluate the climate models, to the extent that is
possible.
ISCCP and MSPPS were shown to have comparatively low IWP values. ISCCP shows
particularly low values in the tropics, while MSPPS has particularly low
values outside the tropics. MODIS and PATMOS-x were in closest agreement with
CloudSat in terms of magnitude and spatial distribution, with MODIS being the
better of the two. Additionally PATMOS-x and ISCCP, which have a temporal
range long enough to capture the inter-annual variability of IWP, are used
in conjunction with CloudSat IWP (after removing profiles that contain
precipitation) to assess the IWP variability and mean of the climate
models. In general there are large discrepancies between the individual
climate models, and all of the models show problems in reproducing the
observed spatial distribution of cloud-ice. Comparisons consistently showed
that ECHAM-5 is probably the GCM from IPCC AR4 closest to satellite
observations. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|