Search

Downwelling radiation in six regional models from the Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison (ARCMIP) project is systematically biased negative in comparison with observations from the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) experiment, although the correlations with observations are relatively good. In this paper, links between model errors and the representation of clouds in these models are investigated. Although some modeled cloud properties, such as the cloud water paths, are reasonable in a climatological sense, the temporal correlation of model cloud properties with observations is poor. The vertical distribution of cloud water is distinctly different among the different models; some common features also appear. Most models underestimate the presence of high clouds, and, although the observed preference for low clouds in the Arctic is present in most of the models, the modeled low clouds are too thin and are displaced downward. Practically all models show a preference to locate the lowest cloud base at the lowest model grid point. In some models this happens also to be where the observations show the highest occurrence of the lowest cloud base; it is not possible to determine if this result is just a coincidence. Different factors contribute to model surface radiation errors. For longwave radiation in summer, a negative bias is present both for cloudy and clear conditions, and intermodel differences are smaller when clouds are present. There is a clear relationship between errors in cloud-base temperature and radiation errors. In winter, in contrast, clear-sky cases are modeled reasonably well, but cloudy cases show a very large intermodel scatter with a significant bias in all models. This bias likely results from a complete failure in all of the models to retain liquid water in cold winter clouds. All models overestimate the cloud attenuation of summer solar radiation for thin and intermediate clouds, and some models maintain this behavior also for thick clouds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A better understanding of the interannual variability in temperature and precipitation datasets used as forcing fields for hydrologic models will lead to a more complete description of hydrologic model uncertainty, in turn helping scientists study the larger goal of how the Arctic terrestrial systemis responding to global change. Accordingly, this paper investigates temporal and spatial variability in monthly mean (1992--2000) temperature and precipitation datasets over the Western Arctic Linkage Experiment (WALE) study region. The six temperature datasets include 1) the fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University--National Center for Atmospheric Research MesoscaleModel (MM5); 2) the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40); 3) the Advanced Polar Pathfinderall-sky temperatures (APP); 4) National Centers for Environmental Prediction--National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP--NCAR) reanalyses (NCEP1); 5) the Climatic Research Unit/University of East Anglia CRUTEM2v (CRU); and 6) the Matsuura and Wilmott 0.5° × 0.5° Global Surface Air Temperature and Precipitation (MW). Comparisons of monthly precipitation are examined for MM5, ERA-40, NCEP1, CRU, and MW. Results of the temporal analyses indicate significant differences between at least two datasets (for either temperature or precipitation) in almost every month. The largest number of significant differences for temperature occurs in October, when there are five separate groupings; for precipitation, there are four significantly different groupings from March through June, and again in December. Spatial analyses of June temperatures indicate that the greatest dissimilarity is concentrated in the central portion of the study region, with the NCEP1 and APP datasets showing the greatest differences. In comparison, the spatial analysis of June precipitation datasets suggests that the largest dissimilarity is concentrated in the eastern portion of the study region. These results indicate that the choice of forcing datasets likely will have a significant effecton the output from hydrologic models, and several different datasets should beused for a robust hydrologic assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]