Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Assessing modelled spatial distributions of ice water path using satellite data
LuleƄ University of Technology, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Space Technology.
Department of Radio and Space Science, Chalmers University of Technology.
Show others and affiliations
2010 (English)In: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, ISSN 1680-7367, E-ISSN 1680-7375, Vol. 10, no 5, 12185-12224 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The climate models used in the IPCC AR4 show large differences in monthly mean cloud ice. The most valuable source of information that can be used to potentially constrain the models is global satellite data. For this, the data sets must be long enough to capture the inter-annual variability of Ice Water Path (IWP). PATMOS-x was used together with ISCCP for the annual cycle evaluation in Fig. 7 while ECHAM-5 was used for the correlation with other models in Table 3. A clear distinction between ice categories in satellite retrievals, as desired from a model point of view, is currently impossible. However, long-term satellite data sets may still be used to indicate the climatology of IWP spatial distribution. We evaluated satellite data sets from CloudSat, PATMOS-x, ISCCP, MODIS and MSPPS in terms of monthly mean IWP, to determine which data sets can be used to evaluate the climate models. IWP data from CloudSat cloud profiling radar provides the most advanced data set on clouds. As CloudSat data are too short to evaluate the model data directly, it was mainly used here to evaluate IWP from the other satellite data sets. 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 best of the two. As PATMOS-x extends over more than 25 years and is in fairly close agreement with CloudSat, it was chosen as the reference data set for the model evaluation. 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 the GCM from IPCC AR4 closest to satellite observations

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 10, no 5, 12185-12224 p.
National Category
Aerospace Engineering
Research subject
Space Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-14034DOI: 10.5194/acpd-10-12185-2010Local ID: d5a11880-6cb1-11df-ab16-000ea68e967bOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-14034DiVA: diva2:986988
Note
Validerad; 2010; 20100531 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2017-11-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eliasson, SalomonBuehler, StefanMilz, Mathias
By organisation
Space Technology
In the same journal
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
Aerospace Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 16 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf