Articles | Volume 10, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2547-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2547-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
06 Jul 2017
Model evaluation paper |
| 06 Jul 2017
A multi-diagnostic approach to cloud evaluation
Keith D. Williams
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Related authors
Prince Xavier, Martin Willett, Tim Graham, Paul Earnshaw, Dan Copsey, Nikesh Narayan, Charline Marzin, Alistair Sellar, Duncan Ackerley, Adam Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Andrew Bushell, Nakbin Choi, Xin Rong Chua, Catherine Guiavarc'h, Muhammad Hassim, Julian Heming, Debra Hudson, Sarah Ineson, Anthony Jones, Colin Jones, Richard Keane, Kiwook Kim, Jiyeong Kim, Till Kuhlbrodt, Myong-In Lee, Richard Levine, Chen Li, Gill Martin, Alex Megann, Anne Mccabe, Aurel Moise, Leighton Regayre, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Sandeep Sahany, Reinhard K. H. Schiemann, David Storkey, Warren Tennant, Lorenzo Tomassini, Yoko Tsushima, Graham P. Weedon, Alex West, Matthew C. Wheeler, Keith Williams, Xiaobing Zhou, and Hongyan Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
GC5 is the Met Office's newest climate and weather model, combining an updated atmosphere/land component with an improved ocean and sea-ice component. Compared to its predecessor GC4, it better simulates global temperatures, winds, monsoons over India and SE Asia, and African weather, and forecasts tropical cyclones more accurately. Southern Ocean errors shrank too. Some tropical patterns and regional biases worsened slightly. A lower-resolution version will underpin the UK's Earth System Model.
Edward Groot, Hannah Christensen, Xia Sun, Kathryn Newman, Wahiba Lfarh, Romain Roehrig, Lisa Bengtsson, Julia Simonson, Keith Williams, and Hugo Lambert
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1445, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1445, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse diagnostic variables associated with thunderstorm clouds potential (height) and precipitation in model uncertainty model intercomparison project, where multiple numerical submodels are pre-conditioned with each other. We quantify the adjustment rules that occur in vertical columns the climate simulations. The result is that low-level drying is important for the thunderstorm potential diagnostics, which strongly varies among the models, despite not relating to actual storm occurrence.
Mike Bush, David L. A. Flack, Huw W. Lewis, Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel, Chris J. Short, Charmaine Franklin, Adrian P. Lock, Martin Best, Paul Field, Anne McCabe, Kwinten Van Weverberg, Segolene Berthou, Ian Boutle, Jennifer K. Brooke, Seb Cole, Shaun Cooper, Gareth Dow, John Edwards, Anke Finnenkoetter, Kalli Furtado, Kate Halladay, Kirsty Hanley, Margaret A. Hendry, Adrian Hill, Aravindakshan Jayakumar, Richard W. Jones, Humphrey Lean, Joshua C. K. Lee, Andy Malcolm, Marion Mittermaier, Saji Mohandas, Stuart Moore, Cyril Morcrette, Rachel North, Aurore Porson, Susan Rennie, Nigel Roberts, Belinda Roux, Claudio Sanchez, Chun-Hsu Su, Simon Tucker, Simon Vosper, David Walters, James Warner, Stuart Webster, Mark Weeks, Jonathan Wilkinson, Michael Whitall, Keith D. Williams, and Hugh Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3819–3855, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
RAL configurations define settings for the Unified Model atmosphere and Joint UK Land Environment Simulator. The third version of the Regional Atmosphere and Land (RAL3) science configuration for kilometre- and sub-kilometre-scale modelling represents a major advance compared to previous versions (RAL2) by delivering a common science definition for applications in tropical and mid-latitude regions. RAL3 has more realistic precipitation distributions and an improved representation of clouds and visibility.
Paulo Ceppi, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Mark D. Zelinka, Timothy Andrews, Florent Brient, Robin Chadwick, An-Zhuo Dai, Jonathan M. Gregory, Yen-Ting Hwang, Sarah M. Kang, Jennifer E. Kay, Thorsten Mauritsen, Tomoo Ogura, George Tselioudis, Masahiro Watanabe, Mark J. Webb, and Allison A. Wing
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 8693–8708, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8693-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8693-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds constitute a key uncertainty for climate change projections. The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) aims to address this challenge by evaluating and understanding clouds and their impacts on atmospheric circulation, precipitation, and climate sensitivity. The present paper describes the CFMIP experiment protocol for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 7 (CMIP7), and discusses the accompanying science questions and opportunities for progress.
Prince Xavier, Martin Willett, Tim Graham, Paul Earnshaw, Dan Copsey, Nikesh Narayan, Charline Marzin, Alistair Sellar, Duncan Ackerley, Adam Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Andrew Bushell, Nakbin Choi, Xin Rong Chua, Catherine Guiavarc'h, Muhammad Hassim, Julian Heming, Debra Hudson, Sarah Ineson, Anthony Jones, Colin Jones, Richard Keane, Kiwook Kim, Jiyeong Kim, Till Kuhlbrodt, Myong-In Lee, Richard Levine, Chen Li, Gill Martin, Alex Megann, Anne Mccabe, Aurel Moise, Leighton Regayre, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Sandeep Sahany, Reinhard K. H. Schiemann, David Storkey, Warren Tennant, Lorenzo Tomassini, Yoko Tsushima, Graham P. Weedon, Alex West, Matthew C. Wheeler, Keith Williams, Xiaobing Zhou, and Hongyan Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
GC5 is the Met Office's newest climate and weather model, combining an updated atmosphere/land component with an improved ocean and sea-ice component. Compared to its predecessor GC4, it better simulates global temperatures, winds, monsoons over India and SE Asia, and African weather, and forecasts tropical cyclones more accurately. Southern Ocean errors shrank too. Some tropical patterns and regional biases worsened slightly. A lower-resolution version will underpin the UK's Earth System Model.
Edward Groot, Hannah Christensen, Xia Sun, Kathryn Newman, Wahiba Lfarh, Romain Roehrig, Lisa Bengtsson, Julia Simonson, Keith Williams, and Hugo Lambert
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1445, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1445, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse diagnostic variables associated with thunderstorm clouds potential (height) and precipitation in model uncertainty model intercomparison project, where multiple numerical submodels are pre-conditioned with each other. We quantify the adjustment rules that occur in vertical columns the climate simulations. The result is that low-level drying is important for the thunderstorm potential diagnostics, which strongly varies among the models, despite not relating to actual storm occurrence.
John W. Rostron, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, David M. H. Sexton, Colin G. Jones, Edward W. Blockley, Till Kuhlbrodt, Jane P. Mulcahy, Tamzin E. Palmer, Saloua Peatier, Mark A. Ringer, Steven T. Rumbold, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Yongming Tang, and Martin R. Willet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1676, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1676, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Met Office’s latest weather and climate model warms very strongly in response to increases in carbon dioxide. We created a modified version of the model with a more moderate warming response by adjusting key model parameters, using both automated methods and expert judgement. The new model matches historical temperatures more closely and is better suited for studies of long‑term climate, but has reduced overall accuracy when simulating the baseline climate.
Mike Bush, David L. A. Flack, Huw W. Lewis, Sylvia I. Bohnenstengel, Chris J. Short, Charmaine Franklin, Adrian P. Lock, Martin Best, Paul Field, Anne McCabe, Kwinten Van Weverberg, Segolene Berthou, Ian Boutle, Jennifer K. Brooke, Seb Cole, Shaun Cooper, Gareth Dow, John Edwards, Anke Finnenkoetter, Kalli Furtado, Kate Halladay, Kirsty Hanley, Margaret A. Hendry, Adrian Hill, Aravindakshan Jayakumar, Richard W. Jones, Humphrey Lean, Joshua C. K. Lee, Andy Malcolm, Marion Mittermaier, Saji Mohandas, Stuart Moore, Cyril Morcrette, Rachel North, Aurore Porson, Susan Rennie, Nigel Roberts, Belinda Roux, Claudio Sanchez, Chun-Hsu Su, Simon Tucker, Simon Vosper, David Walters, James Warner, Stuart Webster, Mark Weeks, Jonathan Wilkinson, Michael Whitall, Keith D. Williams, and Hugh Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3819–3855, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3819-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
RAL configurations define settings for the Unified Model atmosphere and Joint UK Land Environment Simulator. The third version of the Regional Atmosphere and Land (RAL3) science configuration for kilometre- and sub-kilometre-scale modelling represents a major advance compared to previous versions (RAL2) by delivering a common science definition for applications in tropical and mid-latitude regions. RAL3 has more realistic precipitation distributions and an improved representation of clouds and visibility.
Jacqueline E. Russell, Richard J. Bantges, Helen E. Brindley, and Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 4243–4266, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-4243-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-4243-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a dataset of top-of-atmosphere diurnally resolved reflected solar and emitted thermal energy for Earth system model evaluation. The multi-year, monthly hourly dataset, derived from observations made by the Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget instrument, covers the range 60° N–60° S, 60° E–60° W at 1° resolution. Comparison with two versions of the Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model highlight how the data can be used to assess updates to key model parameterizations.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Cited articles
Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation: 2. Multiple aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 6837–6844, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD901161, 2000.
Baran, A. J., Cotton, R., Furtado, K., Havemann, S., Labonnote, L.-C., Marenco, F., Smith, A., and Thelen, J.-C.: A self-consistent scattering model for cirrus. II: The high and low frequencies, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 140, 1039–1057, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2193, 2014.
Beare, R. J.: The Role of Shear in the Morning Transition Boundary Layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 129, 395–410, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-008-9324-8, 2008.
Bellouin, N., Rae, J., Jones, A., Johnson, C., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.: Aerosol forcing in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations by HadGEM2-ES and the role of ammonium nitrate, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D20206, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jd016074, 2011.
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J. L., Klein, S., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John, V. O.: COSP: satellite simulation software for model assessment, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1, 2011.
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Williams, K. D., Ringer, M. A., Beau, I., Cole, J. N. S., Dufresne, J.-L., Koshiro, T., Stevens, B., Wang, Z., and Yokohata, T.: Origins of the solar radiation biases over the Southern Ocean in CFMIP2 models, J. Clim., 27, 41–56, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00169.1, 2014.
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Hill, P. G., Furtado, K., Williams, K. D., Field, P. R., Manners, J. C., Hyder, P., and Kato, S.: Large contribution of supercooled liquid clouds to the solar radiation budget of the Southern Ocean, J. Clim., 29, 4213–4228, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0564.1, 2016.
Bony, S. and Dufresne, J. L.: Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20806, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023851, 2005.
Bony, S., Dufresne, J.-L., Le Treut, H., Morcrette, J.-J., and Senior, C. A.: On dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes, Clim. Dynam., 22, 71–86, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0369-6, 2004.
Boutle, I. A., Abel, S. J., Hill, P. G., and Morcrette, C. J.: Spatial variability of liquid cloud and rain: observations and microphysical effects, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 140, 583–594, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2140, 2014.
Chepfer, H., Bony, S., Winker, D., Chiriaco, M., Dufresne, J.-L., and Sèze, G.: Use of CALIPSO lidar observations to evaluate the cloudiness simulated by a climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L15704, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034207, 2008.
Chepfer, H., Bony, S., Winker, D., Cesana, G., Dufresne, J.-L., Minnis, P., Stubenrauch, C. J., and Zeng, S.: The GCM Oriented Calipso Cloud Product (CALIPSO-GOCCP), J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00H16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012251, 2010.
Chepfer, H., Cesana, G., Winker, D., Getzewich, B., Vaughan, M., and Liu, Z.: Comparison of Two Different Cloud Climatologies Derived from CALIOP-Attenuated Backscattered Measurements (Level 1): The CALIPSO-ST and the CALIPSO-GOCCP, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 30, 725–744, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00057.1, 2013.
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hölm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kallberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J. J., Park, P. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thêpaut, J. N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011.
Field, P. R. and Wood, R.: Precipitation and Cloud Structure in Midlatitude Cyclones, J. Clim., 20, 233–254, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3998.1, 2007.
Field, P. R., Heymsfield, A. J., and Bansemer, A.: Snow size distribution parameterization for midlatitude and tropical ice clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 4346–4365, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2344.1, 2007.
Field, P. R., Hill, A. A., Furtado, K., and Korolev, A.: Mixed-phase clouds in a turbulent environment, Part 2: Analytic treatment, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 140, 870–880, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2175, 2014.
Flato, G., Marotzke, J., Abiodun, B., Braconnot, P., Chou, S. C., Collins, W., Cox, P., Driouech, F., Emori, S., Eyring, V., Forest, C., Gleckler, P., Guilyardi, E., Jakob, C., Kattsov, V., Reason, C., and Rummukainen, M.: Evalutation of climate models, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, 741–866, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.020, 2013.
Gates, W.: The atmospheric model intercomparison project, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 73, 1962–1970, 1992.
Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., and Doutriaux, C.: Performance metrics for climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D06104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008972, 2008.
Govekar, P. D., Jakob, C., Reeder, M. J., and Haynes, J.: The three-dimensional distribution of clouds around Southern Hemisphere extratropical cyclones, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049091, 2011.
Haynes, J. M., Marchand, R. T., Luo, Z., Bodas-Salcedo, A., and Stephens, G. L.: A Multi-Purpose Radar Simulation Package: QuickBeam, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1723–1727, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-11-1723, 2007.
Khairoutdinov, M. F. and Kogan, Y. L.: A new cloud physics parameterization in a large-eddy simulation model of marine stratocumulus, Mon. Weather Rev., 128, 229–243, 2000.
Klein, S. A. and Hartmann, D. L.: The Seasonal Cycle of Low Stratiform Clouds, J. Clim., 6, 1587–1606, 1993.
Klein, S. A. and Jakob, C.: Validation and sensitivities of frontal clouds simulated by the ECMWF model, Mon. Weather Rev., 127, 2514–2531, 1999.
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., 118, 1329–1342, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50141, 2013.
Loeb, N. G., Wielicki, B. A., Doelling, D. R., Kato, S., Wong, T., Smith, G. L., Keyes, D. F., and Manalo-Smith, N.: Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth's Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget, J. Clim., 22, 748–766, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1, 2009.
Mace, G. G. and Wrenn, F. J.: Evaluation of the hydrometeor layers in the east and west Pacific within ISCCP cloud-top pressure–optical depth bins using merged CloudSat and CALIPSO data, J. Clim., 26, 9429–9444, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00207.1, 2013.
Mace, G. G. and Zhang, Q.: The CloudSat radar-lidar geometrical profile product (RL-GeoProf): Updates, improvements, and selected results, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 9441–9462, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021374, 2014.
Mann, G. W., Carslaw, K. S., Spracklen, D. V., Ridley, D. A., Manktelow, P. T., Chipperfield, M. P., Pickering, S. J., and Johnson, C. E.: Description and evaluation of GLOMAP-MODE: A modal global aerosol microphysics model for the UKCA composition-climate model, Geosci. Model Devel., 3, 519–551, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-519-2010, 2010.
Marchand, R., Mace, G. G., Ackerman, T., and Stephens, G. L.: Hydrometeor Detection Using Cloudsat – An Earth-Orbiting 94-GHz Cloud Radar, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 25, 519–533, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JTECHA1006.1, 2008.
Martin, G. M., Bellouin, N., Collins, W. J., Culverwell, I. D., Halloran, P. R., Hardiman, S. C., Hinton, T. J., Jones, C. D., McDonald, R. E., McLaren, A. J., O'Connor, F. M., Roberts, M. J., Rodriguez, J. M., Woodward, S., Best, M. J., Brooks, M. E., Brown, A. R., Butchart, N., Dearden, C., Derbyshire, S. H., Dharssi, I., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Edwards, J. M., Falloon, P. D., Gedney, N., Gray, L. J., Hewitt, H. T., Hobson, M., Huddleston, M. R., Hughes, J., Ineson, S., Ingram, W. J., James, P. M., Johns, T. C., Johnson, C. E., Jones, A., Jones, C. P., Joshi, M. M., Keen, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Lock, A. P., Maidens, A. V., Manners, J. C., Milton, S. F., Rae, J. G. L., Ridley, J. K., Sellar, A., Senior, C. A., Totterdell, I. J., Verhoef, A., Vidale, P. L., and Wiltshire, A.: The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model climate configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 723–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-723-2011, 2011.
Mittermaier, M.: A critical assessment of surface cloud observations and their use for verifying cloud forecasts, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 138, 1794–1807, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1918, 2012.
Myers, T. A. and Norris, J. R.: On the relationships between subtropical clouds in meteorology in observations and CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, J. Clim., 28, 2945–2967, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00475.1, 2015.
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.
Pincus, R., Batstone, C. P., Patrick-Hofmann, R. J., Taylor, K. E., and Gleckler, P. E.: Evaluating the present-day simulation of clouds, precipitation and radiation in climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 133, D14209, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009334, 2008.
Rossow, W. B. and Schiffer, R. A.: Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2261–2287, 1999.
Stephens, G. L., Vane, D. G., Boain, R. J., Mace, G. G., Sassen, K., Wang, Z., Illingworth, A. J., O'Connor, E. J., Rossow, W. B., Durden, S. L., Miller, S. D., Austin, R. T., Benedetti, A., Mitrescu, C., and The CloudSat Science Team: The CloudSat mission and the A-Train, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 83, 1771–1790, 2002.
Tselioudis, G., Rossow, W., Zhang, Y., and Konsta, D.: Global Weather States and their Properties from Passive and Active Satellite Cloud Retrievals, J. Clim., 26, 7734–7746, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00024.1, 2013.
Walters, D. N., Williams, K. D., Boutle, I. A., Bushell, A. C., Edwards, J. M., Field, P. R., Lock, A. P., Morcrette, C. J., Stratton, R. A., Wilkinson, J. M., Willett, M. R., Bellouin, N., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Brooks, M. E., Copsey, D., Earnshaw, P. D., Hardiman, S. C., Harris, C. M., Levine, R. C., MacLachlan, C., Manners, J. C., Martin, G. M., Milton, S. F., Palmer, M. D., Roberts, M. J., Rodríguez, J. M., Tennant, W. J., and Vidale, P. L.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 4.0 and JULES Global Land 4.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 361–386, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-361-2014, 2014.
Walters, D., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Melvin, T., Stratton, R., Vosper, S., Wells, H., Williams, K., Wood, N., Allen, T., Bushell, A., Copsey, D., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Gross, M., Hardiman, S., Harris, C., Heming, J., Klingaman, N., Levine, R., Manners, J., Martin, G., Milton, S., Mittermaier, M., Morcrette, C., Riddick, T., Roberts, M., Sanchez, C., Selwood, P., Stirling, A., Smith, C., Suri, D., Tennant, W., Vidale, P. L., Wilkinson, J., Willett, M., Woolnough, S., and Xavier, P.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 6.0/6.1 and JULES Global Land 6.0/6.1 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1487–1520, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1487-2017, 2017a.
Walters, D. N., Baran, A., Boutle, I., Brooks, M. E., Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulchay, J., Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Van Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Ashton, H., Essery, R., Gedney, N., Williams, K. D., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., in preparation, 2017b.
Webb, M., Senior, C., Bony, S., and Morcrette, J. J.: Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre, ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models, Clim. Dynam., 17, 905–922, 2001.
Williams, K. D. and Brooks, M. E.: Initial tendencies of cloud regimes in the Met Office Unified Model, J. Clim., 21, 833–840, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1900.1, 2008.
Williams, K. D. and Tselioudis, G.: GCM intercomparison of global cloud regimes: Present-day evaluation and climate change response, Clim. Dynam., 29, 231–250, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0232-2, 2007.
Williams, K. D. and Webb, M. J.: A quantitative performance assessment of cloud regimes in climate models, Clim. Dynam., 33, 141–157, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0443-1, 2009.
Williams, K. D., Ringer, M. A., and Senior, C. A.: Evaluating the cloud response to climate change and current climate variability, Clim. Dynam., 20, 705–721, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-002-0303-3, 2003.
Williams, K. D., Ringer, M. A., Senior, C. A., Webb, M. J., McAvaney, B. J., Andronova, N., Bony, S., Dufresne, J.-L., Emori, S., Gudgel, R., Knutson, T., Li, B., Lo, K., Musat, I., Wegner, J., Slingo, A., and Mitchell, J. F. B.: Evaluation of a component of the cloud response to climate change in an intercomparison of climate models, Clim. Dynam., 26, 145–165, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0067-7, 2006.
Williams, K. D., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Deque, M., Fermepin, S., Medeiros, B., Watanabe, M., Jakob, C., Klein, S. A., Senior, C. A., and Williamson, D. L.: The Transpose-AMIP II experiment and its application to the understanding of Southern Ocean cloud biases in climate models, J. Clim., 26, 3258–3274, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00429.1, 2013.
Winker, D. M., Pelon, J., Coakley Jr, J. A., Ackerman, S. A., Charlson, R. J., Colarco, P. R., Flamant, P., Fu, Q., Hoff, R. M., Kittaka, C., Kubar, T. L., Treut, H. L., McCormick, M. P., Mégie, G., Poole, L., Powell, K., Trepte, C., Vaughan, M. A., and Wielicki, B. A.: The CALIPSO Mission: A Global 3D View of Aerosols and Clouds, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 1211–1229, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3009.1, 2010.
WMO: Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation, Technical report WMO-8, World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva, 2008.
Wood, R. and Bretherton, C. S.: On the relationship between stratiform low cloud cover and lower tropospheric stability, J. Clim., 19, 6425–6432, 2006.
Zhang, Y. and Klein, S. A.: Factors Controlling the Vertical Extent of Fair-Weather Shallow Cumulus Clouds over Land: Investigation of Diurnal-Cycle Observations Collected at the ARM Southern Great Plains Site, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 1297–1315, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0131.1, 2013.
Short summary
The simulation of cloud is problematic for general circulation models. As clouds come in differing types, areal coverage, altitude and reflectivity, it is possible for a model to appear to perform well against a particular observational dataset through a compensation of errors. Here we evaluate a model's cloud simulation against a range of observational datasets, globally and across weather–climate timescales, in order to provide a comprehensive assessment.
The simulation of cloud is problematic for general circulation models. As clouds come in...
