Articles | Volume 23, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-523-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-523-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
13 Jan 2023
Research article |
| 13 Jan 2023
| 13 Jan 2023
Machine learning of cloud types in satellite observations and climate models
Department of Meteorology (MISU), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Frida A.-M. Bender
Department of Meteorology (MISU), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Alex Schuddeboom
School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand
Adrian J. McDonald
School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand
Øyvind Seland
Research and Development Department, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
Related authors
Hans Segura, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Philipp Weiss, Sebastian K. Müller, Thomas Rackow, Junhong Lee, Edgar Dolores-Tesillos, Imme Benedict, Matthias Aengenheyster, Razvan Aguridan, Gabriele Arduini, Alexander J. Baker, Jiawei Bao, Swantje Bastin, Eulàlia Baulenas, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Beyer, Hendryk Bockelmann, Nils Brüggemann, Lukas Brunner, Suvarchal K. Cheedela, Sushant Das, Jasper Denissen, Ian Dragaud, Piotr Dziekan, Madeleine Ekblom, Jan Frederik Engels, Monika Esch, Richard Forbes, Claudia Frauen, Lilli Freischem, Diego García-Maroto, Philipp Geier, Paul Gierz, Álvaro González-Cervera, Katherine Grayson, Matthew Griffith, Oliver Gutjahr, Helmuth Haak, Ioan Hadade, Kerstin Haslehner, Shabeh ul Hasson, Jan Hegewald, Lukas Kluft, Aleksei Koldunov, Nikolay Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Shunya Koseki, Sergey Kosukhin, Josh Kousal, Peter Kuma, Arjun U. Kumar, Rumeng Li, Nicolas Maury, Maximilian Meindl, Sebastian Milinski, Kristian Mogensen, Bimochan Niraula, Jakub Nowak, Divya Sri Praturi, Ulrike Proske, Dian Putrasahan, René Redler, David Santuy, Domokos Sármány, Reiner Schnur, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Dorian Spät, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Adrian Tompkins, Alejandro Uribe, Mirco Valentini, Menno Veerman, Aiko Voigt, Sarah Warnau, Fabian Wachsmann, Marta Wacławczyk, Nils Wedi, Karl-Hermann Wieners, Jonathan Wille, Marius Winkler, Yuting Wu, Florian Ziemen, Janos Zimmermann, Frida A.-M. Bender, Dragana Bojovic, Sandrine Bony, Simona Bordoni, Patrice Brehmer, Marcus Dengler, Emanuel Dutra, Saliou Faye, Erich Fischer, Chiel van Heerwaarden, Cathy Hohenegger, Heikki Järvinen, Markus Jochum, Thomas Jung, Johann H. Jungclaus, Noel S. Keenlyside, Daniel Klocke, Heike Konow, Martina Klose, Szymon Malinowski, Olivia Martius, Thorsten Mauritsen, Juan Pedro Mellado, Theresa Mieslinger, Elsa Mohino, Hanna Pawłowska, Karsten Peters-von Gehlen, Abdoulaye Sarré, Pajam Sobhani, Philip Stier, Lauri Tuppi, Pier Luigi Vidale, Irina Sandu, and Bjorn Stevens
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The nextGEMS project developed two Earth system models that resolve processes of the order of 10 km, giving more fidelity to the representation of local phenomena, globally. In its fourth cycle, nextGEMS performed simulations with coupled ocean, land, and atmosphere over the 2020–2049 period under the SSP3-7.0 scenario. Here, we provide an overview of nextGEMS, insights into the model development, and the realism of multi-decadal, kilometer-scale simulations.
Zhangcheng Pei, Sonya L. Fiddes, W. John R. French, Simon P. Alexander, Marc D. Mallet, Peter Kuma, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14691–14714, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14691-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14691-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we use ground-based observations to evaluate a climate model and a satellite product in simulating surface radiation and investigate how radiation biases are influenced by cloud properties over the Southern Ocean. We find that significant radiation biases exist in both the model and satellite. The cloud fraction and cloud occurrence play an important role in affecting radiation biases. We suggest further development for the model and satellite using ground-based observations.
Adrien Guyot, Alain Protat, Simon P. Alexander, Andrew R. Klekociuk, Peter Kuma, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3663–3681, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3663-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3663-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Ceilometers are instruments that are widely deployed as part of operational networks. They are usually not able to detect cloud phase. Here, we propose an evaluation of various methods to detect supercooled liquid water with ceilometer observations, using an extensive dataset from Davis, Antarctica. Our results highlight the possibility for ceilometers to detect supercooled liquid water in clouds.
Stefanie Kremser, Mike Harvey, Peter Kuma, Sean Hartery, Alexia Saint-Macary, John McGregor, Alex Schuddeboom, Marc von Hobe, Sinikka T. Lennartz, Alex Geddes, Richard Querel, Adrian McDonald, Maija Peltola, Karine Sellegri, Israel Silber, Cliff S. Law, Connor J. Flynn, Andrew Marriner, Thomas C. J. Hill, Paul J. DeMott, Carson C. Hume, Graeme Plank, Geoffrey Graham, and Simon Parsons
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3115–3153, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3115-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3115-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol–cloud interactions over the Southern Ocean are poorly understood and remain a major source of uncertainty in climate models. This study presents ship-borne measurements, collected during a 6-week voyage into the Southern Ocean in 2018, that are an important supplement to satellite-based measurements. For example, these measurements include data on low-level clouds and aerosol composition in the marine boundary layer, which can be used in climate model evaluation efforts.
Ethan R. Dale, Stefanie Kremser, Jordis S. Tradowsky, Greg E. Bodeker, Leroy J. Bird, Gustavo Olivares, Guy Coulson, Elizabeth Somervell, Woodrow Pattinson, Jonathan Barte, Jan-Niklas Schmidt, Nariefa Abrahim, Adrian J. McDonald, and Peter Kuma
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2053–2075, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2053-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2053-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
MAPM is a project whose goal is to develop a method to infer particulate matter (PM) emissions maps from PM concentration measurements. In support of MAPM, we conducted a winter field campaign in New Zealand. In addition to two types of instruments measuring PM, an array of other meteorological sensors were deployed, measuring temperature and wind speed as well as probing the vertical structure of the lower atmosphere. In this article, we present the measurements taken during this campaign.
Peter Kuma, Adrian J. McDonald, Olaf Morgenstern, Richard Querel, Israel Silber, and Connor J. Flynn
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 43–72, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-43-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-43-2021, 2021
Sara M. Blichner, Theodore Khadir, Sini Talvinen, Paulo Artaxo, Liine Heikkinen, Harri Kokkola, Radovan Krejci, Muhammed Irfan, Twan van Noije, Tuukka Petäjä, Christopher Pöhlker, Øyvind Seland, Carl Svenhag, Antti Vartiainen, and Ilona Riipinen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2559, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2559, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study looks at how well climate models capture the impact of rain on particles that help form cloud droplets. Using data from three measurement stations and applying both a correlation analysis and a machine learning approach, we found that models often miss how new particles form after rain and struggle in cold environments. This matters because these particles influence cloud formation and climate.
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding historical isoprene emission changes is important for predicting future climate, but trends and their controlling factors remain uncertain. This study shows that long-term isoprene trends vary among Earth system models mainly due to partially incorporating CO2 effects and land cover changes rather than to climate. Future models that refine these factors’ effects on isoprene emissions, along with long-term observations, are essential for better understanding plant–climate interactions.
Hans Segura, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Philipp Weiss, Sebastian K. Müller, Thomas Rackow, Junhong Lee, Edgar Dolores-Tesillos, Imme Benedict, Matthias Aengenheyster, Razvan Aguridan, Gabriele Arduini, Alexander J. Baker, Jiawei Bao, Swantje Bastin, Eulàlia Baulenas, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Beyer, Hendryk Bockelmann, Nils Brüggemann, Lukas Brunner, Suvarchal K. Cheedela, Sushant Das, Jasper Denissen, Ian Dragaud, Piotr Dziekan, Madeleine Ekblom, Jan Frederik Engels, Monika Esch, Richard Forbes, Claudia Frauen, Lilli Freischem, Diego García-Maroto, Philipp Geier, Paul Gierz, Álvaro González-Cervera, Katherine Grayson, Matthew Griffith, Oliver Gutjahr, Helmuth Haak, Ioan Hadade, Kerstin Haslehner, Shabeh ul Hasson, Jan Hegewald, Lukas Kluft, Aleksei Koldunov, Nikolay Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Shunya Koseki, Sergey Kosukhin, Josh Kousal, Peter Kuma, Arjun U. Kumar, Rumeng Li, Nicolas Maury, Maximilian Meindl, Sebastian Milinski, Kristian Mogensen, Bimochan Niraula, Jakub Nowak, Divya Sri Praturi, Ulrike Proske, Dian Putrasahan, René Redler, David Santuy, Domokos Sármány, Reiner Schnur, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Dorian Spät, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Adrian Tompkins, Alejandro Uribe, Mirco Valentini, Menno Veerman, Aiko Voigt, Sarah Warnau, Fabian Wachsmann, Marta Wacławczyk, Nils Wedi, Karl-Hermann Wieners, Jonathan Wille, Marius Winkler, Yuting Wu, Florian Ziemen, Janos Zimmermann, Frida A.-M. Bender, Dragana Bojovic, Sandrine Bony, Simona Bordoni, Patrice Brehmer, Marcus Dengler, Emanuel Dutra, Saliou Faye, Erich Fischer, Chiel van Heerwaarden, Cathy Hohenegger, Heikki Järvinen, Markus Jochum, Thomas Jung, Johann H. Jungclaus, Noel S. Keenlyside, Daniel Klocke, Heike Konow, Martina Klose, Szymon Malinowski, Olivia Martius, Thorsten Mauritsen, Juan Pedro Mellado, Theresa Mieslinger, Elsa Mohino, Hanna Pawłowska, Karsten Peters-von Gehlen, Abdoulaye Sarré, Pajam Sobhani, Philip Stier, Lauri Tuppi, Pier Luigi Vidale, Irina Sandu, and Bjorn Stevens
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-509, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The nextGEMS project developed two Earth system models that resolve processes of the order of 10 km, giving more fidelity to the representation of local phenomena, globally. In its fourth cycle, nextGEMS performed simulations with coupled ocean, land, and atmosphere over the 2020–2049 period under the SSP3-7.0 scenario. Here, we provide an overview of nextGEMS, insights into the model development, and the realism of multi-decadal, kilometer-scale simulations.
Lise Seland Graff, Jerry Tjiputra, Ada Gjermundsen, Andreas Born, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Heiko Goelzer, Yan-Chun He, Petra Margaretha Langebroek, Aleksi Nummelin, Dirk Olivié, Øyvind Seland, Trude Storelvmo, Mats Bentsen, Chuncheng Guo, Andrea Rosendahl, Dandan Tao, Thomas Toniazzo, Camille Li, Stephen Outten, and Michael Schulz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-472, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-472, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The magnitude of future Arctic amplification is highly uncertain. Using the Norwegian Earth system model, we explore the effect of improving the representation of clouds, ocean eddies, the Greenland ice sheet, sea ice, and ozone on the projected Arctic winter warming in a coordinated experiment set. These improvements all lead to enhanced projected Arctic warming, with the largest changes found in the sea-ice retreat regions and the largest uncertainty on the Atlantic side.
Alejandro Uribe, Frida A.-M. Bender, and Thorsten Mauritsen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13371–13384, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13371-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13371-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our study explores climate feedbacks, vital for understanding global warming. It links them to shifts in Earth's energy balance at the atmosphere's top due to natural temperature variations. It takes roughly 50 years to establish this connection. Combined satellite observations and reanalysis suggest that Earth cools more than expected under carbon dioxide influence. However, continuous satellite data until at least the mid-2030s are crucial for refining our understanding of climate feedbacks.
Luke Edgar Whitehead, Adrian James McDonald, and Adrien Guyot
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5765–5784, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5765-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5765-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Supercooled liquid water cloud is important to represent in weather and climate models, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. Previous work has developed a new machine learning method for measuring supercooled liquid water in Antarctic clouds using simple lidar observations. We evaluate this technique using a lidar dataset from Christchurch, New Zealand, and develop an updated algorithm for accurate supercooled liquid water detection at mid-latitudes.
Fangxuan Ren, Jintai Lin, Chenghao Xu, Jamiu A. Adeniran, Jingxu Wang, Randall V. Martin, Aaron van Donkelaar, Melanie S. Hammer, Larry W. Horowitz, Steven T. Turnock, Naga Oshima, Jie Zhang, Susanne Bauer, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Pierre Nabat, David Neubauer, Gary Strand, Twan van Noije, Philippe Le Sager, and Toshihiko Takemura
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4821–4836, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4821-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4821-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate the performance of 14 CMIP6 ESMs in simulating total PM2.5 and its 5 components over China during 2000–2014. PM2.5 and its components are underestimated in almost all models, except that black carbon (BC) and sulfate are overestimated in two models, respectively. The underestimation is the largest for organic carbon (OC) and the smallest for BC. Models reproduce the observed spatial pattern for OC, sulfate, nitrate and ammonium well, yet the agreement is poorer for BC.
Alejandro Baró Pérez, Michael S. Diamond, Frida A.-M. Bender, Abhay Devasthale, Matthias Schwarz, Julien Savre, Juha Tonttila, Harri Kokkola, Hyunho Lee, David Painemal, and Annica M. L. Ekman
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 4591–4610, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4591-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4591-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We use a numerical model to study interactions between humid light-absorbing aerosol plumes, clouds, and radiation over the southeast Atlantic. We find that the warming produced by the aerosols reduces cloud cover, especially in highly polluted situations. Aerosol impacts on drizzle play a minor role. However, aerosol effects on cloud reflectivity and moisture-induced changes in cloud cover dominate the climatic response and lead to an overall cooling by the biomass burning plumes.
Yusuf A. Bhatti, Laura E. Revell, Alex J. Schuddeboom, Adrian J. McDonald, Alex T. Archibald, Jonny Williams, Abhijith U. Venugopal, Catherine Hardacre, and Erik Behrens
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15181–15196, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15181-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15181-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are a large source of uncertainty over the Southern Ocean. A dominant source of sulfate aerosol in this region is dimethyl sulfide (DMS), which is poorly simulated by climate models. We show the sensitivity of simulated atmospheric DMS to the choice of oceanic DMS data set and emission scheme. We show that oceanic DMS has twice the influence on atmospheric DMS than the emission scheme. Simulating DMS more accurately in climate models will help to constrain aerosol uncertainty.
Zhangcheng Pei, Sonya L. Fiddes, W. John R. French, Simon P. Alexander, Marc D. Mallet, Peter Kuma, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14691–14714, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14691-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14691-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we use ground-based observations to evaluate a climate model and a satellite product in simulating surface radiation and investigate how radiation biases are influenced by cloud properties over the Southern Ocean. We find that significant radiation biases exist in both the model and satellite. The cloud fraction and cloud occurrence play an important role in affecting radiation biases. We suggest further development for the model and satellite using ground-based observations.
McKenna W. Stanford, Ann M. Fridlind, Israel Silber, Andrew S. Ackerman, Greg Cesana, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Alain Protat, Simon Alexander, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9037–9069, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9037-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9037-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds play an important role in the Earth’s climate system as they modulate the amount of radiation that either reaches the surface or is reflected back to space. This study demonstrates an approach to robustly evaluate surface-based observations against a large-scale model. We find that the large-scale model precipitates too infrequently relative to observations, contrary to literature documentation suggesting otherwise based on satellite measurements.
Sushant Das, Frida Bender, and Thorsten Mauritsen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1605, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1605, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Quantifying global and Indian precipitation responses to anthropogenic aerosol and CO2 forcings using multiple models is needed for reducing climate uncertainty. The response to global warming from CO2 increases precipitation both globally and over India, whereas the cooling response to sulfate aerosol leads to a reduction in precipitation in both cases. An opposite response to black carbon is noted i.e., a global decrease but an increase of precipitation over India implying changes in dynamics.
Astrid Fremme, Paul J. Hezel, Øyvind Seland, and Harald Sodemann
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 449–470, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-449-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-449-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We study the atmospheric moisture transport into eastern China for past, present, and future climate. Hence, we use different climate and weather prediction model data with a moisture source identification method. We find that while the moisture to first order originates mostly from similar regions, smaller changes consistently point to differences in the recycling of precipitation over land between different climates. Some differences are larger between models than between different climates.
Aiden R. Jönsson and Frida A.-M. Bender
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 345–365, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-345-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-345-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth has nearly the same mean albedo in both hemispheres, a feature not well replicated by climate models. Global warming causes changes in surface and cloud properties that affect albedo and that feed back into the warming. We show that models predict more darkening due to ice loss in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere in response to increasing CO2 concentrations. This is, to varying degrees, counteracted by changes in cloud cover, with implications for cloud feedback on climate.
Ville Leinonen, Harri Kokkola, Taina Yli-Juuti, Tero Mielonen, Thomas Kühn, Tuomo Nieminen, Simo Heikkinen, Tuuli Miinalainen, Tommi Bergman, Ken Carslaw, Stefano Decesari, Markus Fiebig, Tareq Hussein, Niku Kivekäs, Radovan Krejci, Markku Kulmala, Ari Leskinen, Andreas Massling, Nikos Mihalopoulos, Jane P. Mulcahy, Steffen M. Noe, Twan van Noije, Fiona M. O'Connor, Colin O'Dowd, Dirk Olivie, Jakob B. Pernov, Tuukka Petäjä, Øyvind Seland, Michael Schulz, Catherine E. Scott, Henrik Skov, Erik Swietlicki, Thomas Tuch, Alfred Wiedensohler, Annele Virtanen, and Santtu Mikkonen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12873–12905, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12873-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12873-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first extensive comparison of detailed aerosol size distribution trends between in situ observations from Europe and five different earth system models. We investigated aerosol modes (nucleation, Aitken, and accumulation) separately and were able to show the differences between measured and modeled trends and especially their seasonal patterns. The differences in model results are likely due to complex effects of several processes instead of certain specific model features.
Petri Räisänen, Joonas Merikanto, Risto Makkonen, Mikko Savolahti, Alf Kirkevåg, Maria Sand, Øyvind Seland, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 11579–11602, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11579-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11579-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A climate model is used to evaluate how the radiative forcing (RF) associated with black carbon (BC) emissions depends on the latitude, longitude, and seasonality of emissions. It is found that both the direct RF (BC absorption of solar radiation in air) and snow RF (BC absorption in snow/ice) depend strongly on the emission region and season. The results suggest that, for a given mass of BC emitted, climatic impacts are likely to be largest for high-latitude emissions due to the large snow RF.
Qirui Zhong, Nick Schutgens, Guido van der Werf, Twan van Noije, Kostas Tsigaridis, Susanne E. Bauer, Tero Mielonen, Alf Kirkevåg, Øyvind Seland, Harri Kokkola, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, David Neubauer, Zak Kipling, Hitoshi Matsui, Paul Ginoux, Toshihiko Takemura, Philippe Le Sager, Samuel Rémy, Huisheng Bian, Mian Chin, Kai Zhang, Jialei Zhu, Svetlana G. Tsyro, Gabriele Curci, Anna Protonotariou, Ben Johnson, Joyce E. Penner, Nicolas Bellouin, Ragnhild B. Skeie, and Gunnar Myhre
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 11009–11032, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11009-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11009-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol optical depth (AOD) errors for biomass burning aerosol (BBA) are evaluated in 18 global models against satellite datasets. Notwithstanding biases in satellite products, they allow model evaluations. We observe large and diverse model biases due to errors in BBA. Further interpretations of AOD diversities suggest large biases exist in key processes for BBA which require better constraining. These results can contribute to further model improvement and development.
Adrien Guyot, Alain Protat, Simon P. Alexander, Andrew R. Klekociuk, Peter Kuma, and Adrian McDonald
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 3663–3681, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3663-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3663-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Ceilometers are instruments that are widely deployed as part of operational networks. They are usually not able to detect cloud phase. Here, we propose an evaluation of various methods to detect supercooled liquid water with ceilometer observations, using an extensive dataset from Davis, Antarctica. Our results highlight the possibility for ceilometers to detect supercooled liquid water in clouds.
Alex R. Aves, Laura E. Revell, Sally Gaw, Helena Ruffell, Alex Schuddeboom, Ngaire E. Wotherspoon, Michelle LaRue, and Adrian J. McDonald
The Cryosphere, 16, 2127–2145, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2127-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2127-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study confirms the presence of microplastics in Antarctic snow, highlighting the extent of plastic pollution globally. Fresh snow was collected from Ross Island, Antarctica, and subsequent analysis identified an average of 29 microplastic particles per litre of melted snow. The most likely source of these airborne microplastics is local scientific research stations; however, modelling shows their origin could have been up to 6000 km away.
Ingo Bethke, Yiguo Wang, François Counillon, Noel Keenlyside, Madlen Kimmritz, Filippa Fransner, Annette Samuelsen, Helene Langehaug, Lea Svendsen, Ping-Gin Chiu, Leilane Passos, Mats Bentsen, Chuncheng Guo, Alok Gupta, Jerry Tjiputra, Alf Kirkevåg, Dirk Olivié, Øyvind Seland, Julie Solsvik Vågane, Yuanchao Fan, and Tor Eldevik
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7073–7116, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7073-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7073-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Norwegian Climate Prediction Model version 1 (NorCPM1) is a new research tool for performing climate reanalyses and seasonal-to-decadal climate predictions. It adds data assimilation capability to the Norwegian Earth System Model version 1 (NorESM1) and has contributed output to the Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) as part of the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). We describe the system and evaluate its baseline, reanalysis and prediction performance.
Stefanie Kremser, Mike Harvey, Peter Kuma, Sean Hartery, Alexia Saint-Macary, John McGregor, Alex Schuddeboom, Marc von Hobe, Sinikka T. Lennartz, Alex Geddes, Richard Querel, Adrian McDonald, Maija Peltola, Karine Sellegri, Israel Silber, Cliff S. Law, Connor J. Flynn, Andrew Marriner, Thomas C. J. Hill, Paul J. DeMott, Carson C. Hume, Graeme Plank, Geoffrey Graham, and Simon Parsons
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3115–3153, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3115-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3115-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol–cloud interactions over the Southern Ocean are poorly understood and remain a major source of uncertainty in climate models. This study presents ship-borne measurements, collected during a 6-week voyage into the Southern Ocean in 2018, that are an important supplement to satellite-based measurements. For example, these measurements include data on low-level clouds and aerosol composition in the marine boundary layer, which can be used in climate model evaluation efforts.
Ethan R. Dale, Stefanie Kremser, Jordis S. Tradowsky, Greg E. Bodeker, Leroy J. Bird, Gustavo Olivares, Guy Coulson, Elizabeth Somervell, Woodrow Pattinson, Jonathan Barte, Jan-Niklas Schmidt, Nariefa Abrahim, Adrian J. McDonald, and Peter Kuma
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2053–2075, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2053-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2053-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
MAPM is a project whose goal is to develop a method to infer particulate matter (PM) emissions maps from PM concentration measurements. In support of MAPM, we conducted a winter field campaign in New Zealand. In addition to two types of instruments measuring PM, an array of other meteorological sensors were deployed, measuring temperature and wind speed as well as probing the vertical structure of the lower atmosphere. In this article, we present the measurements taken during this campaign.
Alejandro Baró Pérez, Abhay Devasthale, Frida A.-M. Bender, and Annica M. L. Ekman
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6053–6077, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6053-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6053-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We study the impacts of above-cloud biomass burning plumes on radiation and clouds over the southeast Atlantic using data derived from satellite observations and data-constrained model simulations. A substantial amount of the aerosol within the plumes is not classified as smoke by the satellite. The atmosphere warms more with increasing smoke aerosol loading. No clear influence of aerosol type, loading, or moisture within the overlying aerosol plumes is detected on the cloud top cooling rates.
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
Lena Frey, Frida A.-M. Bender, and Gunilla Svensson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 577–595, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-577-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-577-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the vertical distribution of aerosol in the climate model NorESM1-M in five regions of marine stratocumulus clouds. We thereby analyze the total aerosol extinction to facilitate a comparison with satellite data. We find that the model underestimates aerosol extinction throughout the troposphere, especially elevated aerosol layers. Further, we perform sensitivity experiments to identify the processes most important for vertical aerosol distribution in our model.
Peter Kuma, Adrian J. McDonald, Olaf Morgenstern, Richard Querel, Israel Silber, and Connor J. Flynn
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 43–72, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-43-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-43-2021, 2021
Øyvind Seland, Mats Bentsen, Dirk Olivié, Thomas Toniazzo, Ada Gjermundsen, Lise Seland Graff, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Alok Kumar Gupta, Yan-Chun He, Alf Kirkevåg, Jörg Schwinger, Jerry Tjiputra, Kjetil Schanke Aas, Ingo Bethke, Yuanchao Fan, Jan Griesfeller, Alf Grini, Chuncheng Guo, Mehmet Ilicak, Inger Helene Hafsahl Karset, Oskar Landgren, Johan Liakka, Kine Onsum Moseid, Aleksi Nummelin, Clemens Spensberger, Hui Tang, Zhongshi Zhang, Christoph Heinze, Trond Iversen, and Michael Schulz
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The second version of the coupled Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) is presented and evaluated. The temperature and precipitation patterns has improved compared to NorESM1. The model reaches present-day warming levels to within 0.2 °C of observed temperature but with a delayed warming during the late 20th century. Under the four scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5), the warming in the period of 2090–2099 compared to 1850–1879 reaches 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, and 3.9 K.
Cited articles
Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M.,
Ghemawat, S., Irving, G., Isard, M., Kudlur, M., Levenberg, J., Monga, R.,
Moore, S., Murray, D. G., Steiner, B., Tucker, P., Vasudevan, V., Warden, P.,
Wicke, M., Yu, Y., and Zheng, X.: TensorFlow: A System for Large-Scale
Machine Learning, in: Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating
Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI'16, [code], USENIX Association,
USA, 265–283, 2016. a, b
Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., Dalcin, L., Seljebotn, D. S., and Smith,
K.: Cython: The Best of Both Worlds, Comput. Sci. Eng., 13,
31–39, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2010.118, 2011. a
Bender, F. A.-M., Engström, A., Wood, R., and Charlson, R. J.: Evaluation of
Hemispheric Asymmetries in Marine Cloud Radiative Properties, J. Climate, 30, 4131–4147, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0263.1, 2017. a
Bjordal, J., Storelvmo, T., Alterskjær, K., and Carlsen, T.: Equilibrium
climate sensitivity above 5 ∘C plausible due to
state-dependent cloud feedback, Nat. Geosci., 13, 718–721,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1, 2020. a
Bretherton, C. S. and Caldwell, P. M.: Combining Emergent Constraints for
Climate Sensitivity, J. Climate, 33, 7413–7430,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0911.1, 2020. a
CERES: CERES Data Products, [data set],
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/, last access: 5 December
2022. a
Cesana, G., Del Genio, A. D., and Chepfer, H.: The Cumulus And Stratocumulus CloudSat-CALIPSO Dataset (CASCCAD), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1745–1764, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1745-2019, 2019. a
Cho, N., Tan, J., and Oreopoulos, L.: Classifying Planetary Cloudiness with an
Updated Set of MODIS Cloud Regimes, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 60, 981–997, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-20-0247.1, 2021. a
CMIP5: CMIP5 Data Search, [data set],
https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip5/, last access: 5
December 2022. a
CMIP6: CMIP6 Data Search, [data set],
https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/, last access: 5
December 2022. a
Doelling, D. R., Loeb, N. G., Keyes, D. F., Nordeen, M. L., Morstad, D.,
Nguyen, C., Wielicki, B. A., Young, D. F., and Sun, M.: Geostationary
Enhanced Temporal Interpolation for CERES Flux Products, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 30, 1072–1090,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00136.1, 2013. a
Dong, Y., Armour, K. C., Zelinka, M. D., Proistosescu, C., Battisti, D. S.,
Zhou, C., and Andrews, T.: Intermodel Spread in the Pattern Effect and Its
Contribution to Climate Sensitivity in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models, J. Climate, 33, 7755–7775, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-1011.1, 2020. a
Drönner, J., Korfhage, N., Egli, S., Mühling, M., Thies, B., Bendix, J.,
Freisleben, B., and Seeger, B.: Fast Cloud Segmentation Using Convolutional
Neural Networks, Remote Sens., 10, 1782, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10111782, 2018. a
Engström, A., Bender, F. A.-M., Charlson, R. J., and Wood, R.: The nonlinear
relationship between albedo and cloud fraction on near-global, monthly mean
scale in observations and in the CMIP5 model ensemble, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 9571–9578, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066275, 2015. a
ERA5: ERA5, [data set],
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era5,
last access: 5 December 2022. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a, b
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G.,
Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M.,
Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P.,
Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G.,
Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D.,
Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.:
Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9,
102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019. a
Flynn, C. M. and Mauritsen, T.: On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolution in recent coupled model ensembles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 7829–7842, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7829-2020, 2020. a
FORCeS: The FORCeS Project: Constrained aerosol forcing for improved climate
projections, https://forces-project.eu, last access: 5
December 2022. a
Forster, P. M., Maycock, A. C., McKenna, C. M., and Smith, C. J.: Latest
climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change, 10,
7–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0660-0, 2020. a
Foster, M. J. and Heidinger, A.: PATMOS-x: Results from a Diurnally Corrected
30-yr Satellite Cloud Climatology, J. Climate, 26, 414–425,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00666.1, 2013. a
Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L.,
Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K.,
Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A.,
da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D.,
Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M., Schubert,
S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis
for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30,
5419–5454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1, 2017. a, b
Guo, Y., Cao, X., Liu, B., and Gao, M.: Cloud Detection for Satellite Imagery
Using Attention-Based U-Net Convolutional Neural Network, Symmetry, 12,
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12061056, 2020. a
Haarsma, R., Acosta, M., Bakhshi, R., Bretonnière, P.-A., Caron, L.-P., Castrillo, M., Corti, S., Davini, P., Exarchou, E., Fabiano, F., Fladrich, U., Fuentes Franco, R., García-Serrano, J., von Hardenberg, J., Koenigk, T., Levine, X., Meccia, V. L., van Noije, T., van den Oord, G., Palmeiro, F. M., Rodrigo, M., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Le Sager, P., Tourigny, E., Wang, S., van Weele, M., and Wyser, K.: HighResMIP versions of EC-Earth: EC-Earth3P and EC-Earth3P-HR – description, model computational performance and basic validation, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3507–3527, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3507-2020, 2020. a
Haarsma, R. J., Roberts, M. J., Vidale, P. L., Senior, C. A., Bellucci, A., Bao, Q., Chang, P., Corti, S., Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., von Hardenberg, J., Hazeleger, W., Kodama, C., Koenigk, T., Leung, L. R., Lu, J., Luo, J.-J., Mao, J., Mizielinski, M. S., Mizuta, R., Nobre, P., Satoh, M., Scoccimarro, E., Semmler, T., Small, J., and von Storch, J.-S.: High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4185–4208, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016, 2016. a
Hahn, C. J., Rossow, W. B., and Warren, S. G.: ISCCP Cloud Properties
Associated with Standard Cloud Types Identified in Individual Surface
Observations, J. Climate, 14, 11–28,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0011:ICPAWS>2.0.CO;2, 2001. a
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P.,
Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., Kern, R.,
Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., del
Río, J. F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., Gérard-Marchant, P.,
Sheppard, K., Reddy, T., Weckesser, W., Abbasi, H., Gohlke, C., and Oliphant,
T. E.: Array programming with NumPy, Nature, 585, 357–362,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2, 2020. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons,
A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati,
G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D.,
Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer,
A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M.,
Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P.,
Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global
reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146,
1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a, b
Hourdin, F., Mauritsen, T., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J.-C., Balaji, V., Duan, Q.,
Folini, D., Ji, D., Klocke, D., Qian, Y., Rauser, F., Rio, C., Tomassini, L.,
Watanabe, M., and Williamson, D.: The Art and Science of Climate Model
Tuning, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 589–602,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1, 2017. a
Jakob, C. and Tselioudis, G.: Objective identification of cloud regimes in the
Tropical Western Pacific, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018367, 2003. a
Jiménez-de-la-Cuesta, D. and Mauritsen, T.: Emergent constraints on
Earth's transient and equilibrium response to doubled CO2 from post-1970s
global warming, Nat. Geosci., 12, 902–905,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0463-y, 2019. a
Karlsson, K.-G., Anttila, K., Trentmann, J., Stengel, M., Fokke Meirink, J., Devasthale, A., Hanschmann, T., Kothe, S., Jääskeläinen, E., Sedlar, J., Benas, N., van Zadelhoff, G.-J., Schlundt, C., Stein, D., Finkensieper, S., Håkansson, N., and Hollmann, R.: CLARA-A2: the second edition of the CM SAF cloud and radiation data record from 34 years of global AVHRR data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5809–5828, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5809-2017, 2017. a
Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Zelinka, M. D., Pincus, R., Boyle, J., and Gleckler,
P. J.: Are climate model simulations of clouds improving? An evaluation using
the ISCCP simulator, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118,
1329–1342, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50141, 2013. a
Konsta, D., Dufresne, J.-L., Chepfer, H., Vial, J., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H.,
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Roehrig, R., Watanabe, M., and Ogura, T.: Low-Level Marine
Tropical Clouds in Six CMIP6 Models Are Too Few, Too Bright but Also Too
Compact and Too Homogeneous, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49,
e2021GL097593, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL097593,
2022. a
Kuma, P.: Code for the paper “Machine learning of cloud types in satellite
observations and climate models”, [code],
https://github.com/peterkuma/ml-clouds-2021/, last access: 5
December 2022. a
Kuma, P., McDonald, A. J., Morgenstern, O., Alexander, S. P., Cassano, J. J., Garrett, S., Halla, J., Hartery, S., Harvey, M. J., Parsons, S., Plank, G., Varma, V., and Williams, J.: Evaluation of Southern Ocean cloud in the HadGEM3 general circulation model and MERRA-2 reanalysis using ship-based observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 6607–6630, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-6607-2020, 2020. a
Kuma, P., Bender, F. A.-M., Schuddeboom, A., McDonald, A. J., and Seland,
Ø.: Code accompanying the manuscript “Machine learning of cloud types
shows higher climate sensitivity is associated with lower cloud biases”, [code],
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7400793, 2022. a, b
Lenssen, N., Schmidt, G., Hansen, J., Menne, M., Persin, A., Ruedy, R., and
Zyss, D.: Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 6307–6326, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029522, 2019. a
Liu, C., Yang, S., Di, D., Yang, Y., Zhou, C., Hu, X., and Sohn, B.-J.: A
Machine Learning-based Cloud Detection Algorithm for the Himawari-8 Spectral
Image, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 39, 1994–2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-0366-x,
2021. a
Liu, S. and Li, M.: Deep multimodal fusion for ground-based cloud
classification in weather station networks, EURASIP Journal on Wireless
Communications and Networking, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-018-1062-0, 2018. a
Loeb, N., Su, W., Doelling, D., Wong, T., Minnis, P., Thomas, S., and Miller,
W.: 5.03 – Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget, in: Comprehensive
Remote Sensing, edited by: Liang, S., Elsevier, Oxford,
67–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10367-7, 2018. a
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S.,
Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy,
E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and
Zhou, B. (Eds.): Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution
of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, in press, 2021.
McDonald, A. J., Cassano, J. J., Jolly, B., Parsons, S., and Schuddeboom, A.:
An automated satellite cloud classification scheme using self-organizing
maps: Alternative ISCCP weather states, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 13009–13030, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025199, 2016. a
McErlich, C., McDonald, A., Schuddeboom, A., and Silber, I.: Comparing
Satellite- and Ground-Based Observations of Cloud Occurrence Over High
Southern Latitudes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126,
e2020JD033607, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033607,
2021. a, b
Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Eyring, V., Flato, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Stouffer,
R. J., Taylor, K. E., and Schlund, M.: Context for interpreting equilibrium
climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth
system models, Sci. Adv., 6, eaba1981, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981,
2020. a, b, c, d
MERRA-2: Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications,
Version 2, [data set], https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/reanalysis/MERRA-2/,
last access: 5 December 2022. a
Met Office: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matplotlib
interface, Exeter, Devon, [data set], https://scitools.org.uk/cartopy (last access: 16 December 2022),
2010. a
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., and
Teller, E.: Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines,
J. Chem. Phys., 21, 1087–1092, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114, 1953. a
Nam, C., Bony, S., Dufresne, J.-L., and Chepfer, H.: The “too few, too
bright” tropical low-cloud problem in CMIP5 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L21801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gl053421, 2012. a
Nijsse, F. J. M. M., Cox, P. M., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 737–750, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020, 2020. a, b
Olsson, B., Ynnerman, A., and Lenz, R.: Computing synthetic satellite images
from weather prediction data, in: Visualization and Data Analysis 2004,
edited by: Erbacher, R. F., Chen, P. C., Roberts, J. C., Gröhn, M. T., and
Börner, K., International Society for Optics and
Photonics, SPIE, 5295, 296–304, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.526829, 2004. a
Oreopoulos, L., Cho, N., Lee, D., and Kato, S.: Radiative effects of global
MODIS cloud regimes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121,
2299–2317, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024502, 2016. a, b
Renoult, M., Annan, J. D., Hargreaves, J. C., Sagoo, N., Flynn, C., Kapsch, M.-L., Li, Q., Lohmann, G., Mikolajewicz, U., Ohgaito, R., Shi, X., Zhang, Q., and Mauritsen, T.: A Bayesian framework for emergent constraints: case studies of climate sensitivity with PMIP, Clim. Past, 16, 1715–1735, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1715-2020, 2020. a
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020. a
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., and Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional Networks for
Biomedical Image Segmentation, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1505.04597, 2015. a, b
Rossow, W. B. and Schiffer, R. A.: Advances in Understanding Clouds from ISCCP,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2261–2288,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<2261:AIUCFI>2.0.CO;2, 1999. a
Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., and Fonnesbeck, C.: Probabilistic programming in
Python using PyMC3, PeerJ Comp. Sci., 2, e55,
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55, 2016. a, b
Schlund, M., Lauer, A., Gentine, P., Sherwood, S. C., and Eyring, V.: Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity in CMIP5: do they hold for CMIP6?, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1233–1258, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, 2020. a
Schmidt, G. A., Bader, D., Donner, L. J., Elsaesser, G. S., Golaz, J.-C., Hannay, C., Molod, A., Neale, R. B., and Saha, S.: Practice and philosophy of climate model tuning across six US modeling centers, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3207–3223, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3207-2017, 2017. a
Schuddeboom, A., McDonald, A. J., Morgenstern, O., Harvey, M., and Parsons, S.:
Regional Regime-Based Evaluation of Present-Day General Circulation Model
Cloud Simulations Using Self-Organizing Maps, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 4259–4272, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD028196, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Schuddeboom, A. J. and McDonald, A. J.: The Southern Ocean Radiative Bias,
Cloud Compensating Errors, and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6
Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, 1–16,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035310, 2021. a, b
Segal-Rozenhaimer, M., Li, A., Das, K., and Chirayath, V.: Cloud detection
algorithm for multi-modal satellite imagery using convolutional
neural-networks (CNN), Remote Sens. Environ., 237, 111446,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111446, 2020. a
Semmler, T., Jungclaus, J., Danek, C., Goessling, H. F., Koldunov, N. V.,
Rackow, T., and Sidorenko, D.: Ocean Model Formulation Influences Transient
Climate Response, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 126,
e2021JC017633, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC017633,
2021. a
Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and Shields, C. A.: Using the Radiative Kernel
Technique to Calculate Climate Feedbacks in NCAR’s Community Atmospheric
Model, J. Climate, 21, 2269–2282, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2044.1,
2008. a
Shendryk, Y., Rist, Y., Ticehurst, C., and Thorburn, P.: Deep learning for
multi-modal classification of cloud, shadow and land cover scenes in
PlanetScope and Sentinel-2 imagery, ISPRS J. Photogr. Remote Sens., 157, 124–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.08.018, 2019. a
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M.,
Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J.,
Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L.,
Hausfather, Z., von der Heydt, A. S., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris,
J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska, K. B., and
Zelinka, M. D.: An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple
Lines of Evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000678,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678, 2020. a, b, c, d
Shi, C., Wang, C., Wang, Y., and Xiao, B.: Deep Convolutional Activations-Based
Features for Ground-Based Cloud Classification, IEEE Geosci. Remote
Sens., 14, 816–820, https://doi.org/10.1109/lgrs.2017.2681658, 2017. a
Soden, B. J., Held, I. M., Colman, R., Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and Shields,
C. A.: Quantifying Climate Feedbacks Using Radiative Kernels, J. Climate, 21, 3504–3520, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1, 2008. a
Stengel, M., Stapelberg, S., Sus, O., Finkensieper, S., Würzler, B., Philipp, D., Hollmann, R., Poulsen, C., Christensen, M., and McGarragh, G.: Cloud_cci Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer post meridiem (AVHRR-PM) dataset version 3: 35-year climatology of global cloud and radiation properties, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 41–60, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-41-2020, 2020. a
Stocker, T., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S., Boschung, J.,
Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P., eds.: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324, 2014.
Tange, O.: Gnu parallel-the command-line power tool, The USENIX
Magazine, 36, 42–47, 2011. a
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the
Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2012. a
The pandas development team: pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134, 2020. a
Tiedtke, M.: Representation of Clouds in Large-Scale Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 121, 3040–3061,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1993)121<3040:ROCILS>2.0.CO;2, 1993. a
Tokarska, K. B., Stolpe, M. B., Sippel, S., Fischer, E. M., Smith, C. J.,
Lehner, F., and Knutti, R.: Past warming trend constrains future warming in
CMIP6 models, Sci. Adv., 6, eaaz9549, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549,
2020. a
Unidata, U. C. f. A. R.: Historical Unidata Internet Data Distribution (IDD)
Global Observational Data, [data set], https://doi.org/10.5065/9235-WJ24, 2003. a, b, c
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T.,
Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J.,
van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N.,
Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J., Polat,
İ., Feng, Y., Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, J.,
Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Quintero, E. A., Harris, C. R., Archibald, A. M.,
Ribeiro, A. H., Pedregosa, F., van Mulbregt, P., Vijaykumar, A., Bardelli,
A. P., Rothberg, A., Hilboll, A., Kloeckner, A., Scopatz, A., Lee, A., Rokem,
A., Woods, C. N., Fulton, C., Masson, C., Häggström, C., Fitzgerald, C.,
Nicholson, D. A., Hagen, D. R., Pasechnik, D. V., Olivetti, E., Martin, E.,
Wieser, E., Silva, F., Lenders, F., Wilhelm, F., Young, G., Price, G. A.,
Ingold, G.-L., Allen, G. E., Lee, G. R., Audren, H., Probst, I., Dietrich,
J. P., Silterra, J., Webber, J. T., Slavič, J., Nothman, J., Buchner,
J., Kulick, J., Schönberger, J. L., de Miranda Cardoso, J. V., Reimer, J.,
Harrington, J., Rodríguez, J. L. C., Nunez-Iglesias, J., Kuczynski,
J., Tritz, K., Thoma, M., Newville, M., Kümmerer, M., Bolingbroke, M.,
Tartre, M., Pak, M., Smith, N. J., Nowaczyk, N., Shebanov, N., Pavlyk, O.,
Brodtkorb, P. A., Lee, P., McGibbon, R. T., Feldbauer, R., Lewis, S., Tygier,
S., Sievert, S., Vigna, S., Peterson, S., More, S., Pudlik, T., Oshima, T.,
Pingel, T. J., Robitaille, T. P., Spura, T., Jones, T. R., Cera, T., Leslie,
T., Zito, T., Krauss, T., Upadhyay, U., Halchenko, Y. O., and and, Y. V.-B.:
SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python,
Nat. Methods, 17, 261–272, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2, 2020. a
Volodin, E.: The Mechanisms of Cloudiness Evolution Responsible for Equilibrium
Climate Sensitivity in Climate Model INM-CM4-8, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
48, e2021GL096204, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096204,
2021. a
Wall, C. J., Hartmann, D. L., and Ma, P.-L.: Instantaneous linkages between
clouds and large-scale meteorology over the Southern Ocean in observations
and a climate model, J. Climate, 30, 9455–9474,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0156.1, 2017. a
Wessel, P. and Smith, W. H. F.: A global, self-consistent, hierarchical,
high-resolution shoreline database, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 101, 8741–8743, https://doi.org/10.1029/96JB00104, 1996. a, b
Wielicki, B. A., Barkstrom, B. R., Harrison, E. F., Lee, R. B., Smith, G. L.,
and Cooper, J. E.: Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES): An
Earth Observing System Experiment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 853–868, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0853:CATERE>2.0.CO;2,
1996. a
Wilks, D. S.: Chapter 9 – Forecast Verification, in: Statistical Methods in
the Atmospheric Sciences (Fourth Edition), edited by: Wilks, D. S.,
Elsevier, 4 Edn., 369–483,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815823-4.00009-2, 2019. a
WMO: Global Observing System,
https://public.wmo.int/en/programmes/global-observing-system(last access: 16 December 2022),
2021b. a
Wohlfarth, K., Schröer, C., Klaß, M., Hakenes, S., Venhaus, M., Kauffmann,
S., Wilhelm, T., and Wohler, C.: Dense Cloud Classification on Multispectral
Satellite Imagery, in: 2018 10th IAPR Workshop on Pattern Recognition in
Remote Sensing (PRRS), 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/PRRS.2018.8486379, 2018. a
Wyser, K., van Noije, T., Yang, S., von Hardenberg, J., O'Donnell, D., and Döscher, R.: On the increased climate sensitivity in the EC-Earth model from CMIP5 to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3465–3474, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3465-2020, 2020. a
Ye, L., Cao, Z., and Xiao, Y.: DeepCloud: Ground-Based Cloud Image
Categorization Using Deep Convolutional Features, IEEE Transactions on
Geosci. Remote Sens., 55, 5729–5740,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2017.2712809, 2017. a
Zelinka, M. D.: Tables of ECS, Effective Radiative Forcing, and Radiative
Feedbacks,
https://github.com/mzelinka/cmip56_forcing_feedback_ecs (last
access: 26 January 2022), 2021.
a
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Qin, Y., and Myers, T. A.: Evaluating Climate
Models’ Cloud Feedbacks Against Expert Judgment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2021JD035198, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035198,
2022. a, b
Zhang, J., Liu, P., Zhang, F., and Song, Q.: CloudNet: Ground-Based Cloud
Classification With Deep Convolutional Neural Network, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 8665–8672, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077787, 2018. a
Zhao, M., Golaz, J.-C., Held, I. M., Ramaswamy, V., Lin, S.-J., Ming, Y.,
Ginoux, P., Wyman, B., Donner, L. J., Paynter, D., and Guo, H.: Uncertainty
in Model Climate Sensitivity Traced to Representations of Cumulus
Precipitation Microphysics, J. Climate, 29, 543–560,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0191.1, 2016. a
Zhu, J., Poulsen, C. J., and Otto-Bliesner, B. L.: High climate sensitivity in
CMIP6 model not supported by paleoclimate, Nat. Clim. Change, 10,
378–379, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0764-6, 2020. a
Zhu, J., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Brady, E. C., Poulsen, C. J., Tierney, J. E.,
Lofverstrom, M., and DiNezio, P.: Assessment of Equilibrium Climate
Sensitivity of the Community Earth System Model Version 2 Through Simulation
of the Last Glacial Maximum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48,
e2020GL091220, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091220,
2021. a
Zhu, J., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Brady, E. C., Gettelman, A., Bacmeister, J. T.,
Neale, R. B., Poulsen, C. J., Shaw, J. K., McGraw, Z. S., and Kay, J. E.: LGM
Paleoclimate Constraints Inform Cloud Parameterizations and Equilibrium
Climate Sensitivity in CESM2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy.,
14, e2021MS002776, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002776,
2022. a
Short summary
We present a machine learning method for determining cloud types in climate model output and satellite observations based on ground observations of cloud genera. We analyse cloud type biases and changes with temperature in climate models and show that the bias is anticorrelated with climate sensitivity. Models simulating decreasing stratiform and increasing cumuliform clouds with increased CO2 concentration tend to have higher climate sensitivity than models simulating the opposite tendencies.
We present a machine learning method for determining cloud types in climate model output and...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint