Wang Fang, Ding Yihui. Validation of simulation on surface shortwave radiation over East Asia by global climate models. J Appl Meteor Sci, 2008, 19(6): 749-759.
Citation: Wang Fang, Ding Yihui. Validation of simulation on surface shortwave radiation over East Asia by global climate models. J Appl Meteor Sci, 2008, 19(6): 749-759.

Validation of Simulation on Surface Shortwave Radiation over East Asia by Global Climate Models

  • Received Date: 2008-03-26
  • Rev Recd Date: 2008-09-08
  • Publish Date: 2008-12-31
  • Surface shortwave radiation (SSR) plays an important role in surface energy balance.The ability to simulate the disposition and variation of SSR in CGCMs has direct effects on climate projection for the future.Especially the simulation on East Asia monsoon may be affected by the impacts of SSR on surface thermal condition.So it is necessary to validate the ability of CGCMs to simulate SSR in East Asia.By use of 18 CGCMs output provided by WCRPCMIP3 and ERA40 reanalysis data, the ability of GCMs to simulate East Asia SSR is validated through ensemble analysis.The simulation shows remarkable differences among models.The simulated SSR and clear-sky SSR are generally higher than ERA40, while the effect of cloud on SSR (SSCRF) is generally weak.Multi-model ensemble is simulated at about 8.7 W/m2 and 3.4 W/m2 for SSR and clear-sky SSR respectively, and about 5.3 W/m2 lower for SSCRF as compared to ERA40.The standard deviation (STDEV) among different models is 9.6, 7.8 W/m2 and 8 W/m2 for SSR, clear-sky SSR and SSCRF, respectively.The phase characteristics are simulated well for seasonal variation of zonally-averaged SSR, although there is a great gap in magnitude.The simulation is obviously higher in the south of 30°N, especially in summer hemisphere, which is 30—50 W/m2 higher, mainly due to combined effects of low simulation on SSCRF and overestimation of clear-sky SSR both of which have a positive deviation on the SSR simulation. In the north of 30°N, SSR is mainly low by simulation due to the higher simulation of SSCRF.The root mean square deviation (RMSD) in summer is higher than in winter.Multi-model ensemble of RMSD is 34.7, 17.1 W/m2 and 29.1 W/m2 for SSR, clear-sky SSR and SSCRF, respectively, which shows the great effect of cloud on SSR modeling.The STDEV of different model RMSD is 12.5, 11.3 W/m2 and 10.2 W/m2, respectively, showing little difference.The linear decrease in annual downscaling SSR can be simulated rather well by multi-model ensemble. However, for clear-sky downscaling SSR and downscaling SSCRF, the simulation is not good, in other words, the decrease trend of clear-sky downscaling SSR is overestimated by models, while the adverse trend of downscaling SSCRF is given as compared to ERA40.
  • Fig. 1  Difference of surface shortwave radiation (SSR), clear-sky SSR, and surface shortwavw cloud radiative forcing (SSCRF) between multi-model ensemble and ERA40(Ensemble-ERA 40)

    (unit :W/m2, shaded areas denote passing the test of 0.01 level)

    Fig. 2  Difference of surface albedo (unit :%) and clear-sky downscaling shortwave radiation (unit :W/m2) between multi-model ensemble and ERA 40(Ensemble-ERA40)

    Fig. 3  Regional average difference between simulation and ERA 40 for SSR, clear-sky SSR and SSCRF (Model-ERA40)(unit:W/m2)

    Fig. 4  Seasonal variation of zonally averaged SSR, clear-sky SSR and SSCRF for ERA 40 and multi-model ensemble (contour) and their difference (shaded, Ensemble-E RA40)(unit :W/m2)

    Fig. 5  Multi-model ensemble of root mean square deviation (contour) and inter-model standard deviation (shaded) of SSR, clear-sky and SSCRF (unit :W/m2)

    Fig. 6  Seasonal variation of regional average of root mean square deviation and standard deviation

    (a) SSR, (b) clear-sky SSR, (c) SSCRF, (d) ratio of SSCRF to clear-sky SSR

    Fig. 7  Annual variation of surface downscaling shortwave radiation (a), clear-sky surface downscaling shortwave radiation (b), surface shortwave cloud radiative forcing (c) and inter-model standard deviation (d)

    Table  1  Spandard coef ficients between multi-model ensemble of root mean square devlation and inter-model standard deviation

  • [1]
    Li Z, Moreau L, Arking A. On solar energy disposition. Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 1997, 78 : 53-70 doi:  10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0053:OSEDAP>2.0.CO;2
    [2]
    Wild M, Ohmura A, Gilgen H. The disposition of radiative energy in the global climate system: GCM versus observational estimates. Clim Dyn, 1998, 14:853-869 doi:  10.1007/s003820050260
    [3]
    Wild M. Solar radiation budgets in atmospheric model intercomparisons from a surface perspective. Geophys Res Lett, 2005: 32, L07704, doi:10.1029/ 2005GL022421. 850
    [4]
    IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis// Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, et al. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007
    [5]
    Arking A. Absorption of solar energy in the atmosphere:Discrepancy between model and observations. Science, 1996, 273:779-782 doi:  10.1126/science.273.5276.779
    [6]
    Wild M, Ohmura A, Gilgen H, et al. Validation of GCM simulated radiative fluxes using surface observations. J Clim, 1995, 8: 1309-1324 doi:  10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<1309:VOGCMR>2.0.CO;2
    [7]
    Cusack S, Slingo A A, Edwards J M, et al. The radiative impact of a simple aerosol climatology on the Hadley Centre atmospheric GCM. Q J R Meteorol Soc, 1998, 124: 2517-2526 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248019720_The_radiative_impact_of_a_simple_aerosol_climatology_on_the_Hadley_Centre_atmospheric_GCM
    [8]
    Wild M, Gilgen H, Roesch A, et al. From dimming to brightening: Decadal changes in solar radiation at the Earth's surface. Science, 2005, 308 : 847-850 doi:  10.1126/science.1103215
    [9]
    Che H Z, Shi G Y, Zhang X Y, et al. Analysis of 40 years of solar radiation data from China, 1961--2000. Geophys Res Lett, 2005, 32, L06803, doi: 10.1029/2004GL022322
    [10]
    Liang F, Xia X A. Long term trends in solar radiation and the associated climatic factors over China for 1961--2000. Annales Geophysicae, 2005, 2 : 2424-2432 http://www.oalib.com/paper/1369199
    [11]
    Yu R C, Yu Y Q, Zhang M H. Comparing cloud radiative properties between the Eastern China and the Indian monsoon region. Adv Atmos Sci, 2001, 18(6) : 1090-1102 http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DQJZ200106003.htm
    [12]
    Wang W C, Gong W, Kau W S, et al. Characteristics of cloud radiative forcing over east China. J Climate, 2004, 17 (4) : 845-853 doi:  10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<0845:COCRFO>2.0.CO;2
    [13]
    Ramanathan V. The role of earth radiation budget studies in climate and general circulation research. J Atmos Sci, 1987, 37: 447-454 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248791502_The_role_of_Earth_Radiation_Budget_studies_in_climate_and_general_circulation_research
    [14]
    刘洪利, 朱文琴, 宜树华, 等.中国地区云的气候特征分析.气象学报, 2003, 61(4):466-473 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-QXXB200304007.htm
    [15]
    尹宏.大气辐射学基础.北京:气象出版社, 1993.
    [16]
    张莉.全球海气耦合模式对东亚降水模拟的检验.北京:中国科学院研究生院, 2008
    [17]
    汪方, 丁一汇, 徐影.辐射参数化方案对一个海气耦合模式云和辐射模拟的影响.应用气象学报, 2007, 18(3):257-265. http://qikan.camscma.cn/jams/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20070346&flag=1
  • 加载中
  • -->

Catalog

    Figures(7)  / Tables(1)

    Article views (3550) PDF downloads(1241) Cited by()
    • Received : 2008-03-26
    • Accepted : 2008-09-08
    • Published : 2008-12-31

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint