Abstract
Radiation fields from a perpetual July integration of a T106 version of the ECMWF operational model are used to identify the most appropriate way to diagnose cloud radiative forcing in a general circulation model, for the purposes of intercomparison between models. Differences between the methods 1 and 2 of Cess and Potter (1987) and a variant method are addressed. Method 1 is shown to be the least robust of all methods, due to the potential uncertainties related to persistent cloudiness, length of the sampling period, and biases in retrieved clear sky quantities due to insufficient sampling of the diurnal cycle. Method 2 is proposed as an unambiguous way to produce consistent radiative diagnostics for intercomparing model results. The impact of the three methods on the derived sensitivities and cloud feedbacks following an imposed change in sea surface temperature is discussed. The sensitivity of the results to horizontal resolution is considered by using the diagnostics from parallel integrations with T21 version of the model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
