Hindawi Publishing Corporation Advances in Meteorology Volume 2011, Article ID 872857, 15 pages doi:10.1155/2011/872857
Research Article Comparison between Satellite Water Vapour Observations and Atmospheric Models’ Predictions of the Upper Tropospheric Thermal Radiation J. R. Dim,1 T. Y. Nakajima,2 T. Takamura,3 and N. Kikuchi4 1 Earth
Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2-1-1 Sengen, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8505, Japan of Network and Computer Engineering, School of Information & Design Engineering, Tokai University, 2-28-4, Tomigaya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 151-0063, Japan 3 Center for Environmental Remote Sensing, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan 4 Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan 2 Department
Correspondence should be addressed to J. R. Dim,
[email protected] Received 14 October 2011; Accepted 12 December 2011 Academic Editor: Klaus Dethloff Copyright © 2011 J. R. Dim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Atmospheric profiles (temperature, pressure, and humidity) are commonly used parameters for aerosols and cloud properties retrievals. In preparation of the launch of the Global Change Observation Mission-Climate/Second-Generation GLobal Imager (GCOM-C/SGLI) satellite, an evaluation study on the sensitivity of atmospheric models to variations of atmospheric conditions is conducted. In this evaluation, clear sky and above low clouds water vapour radiances of the upper troposphere obtained from satellite observations and those simulated by atmospheric models are compared. The models studied are the Nonhydrostatic ICosahedral Atmospheric Model (NICAM) and the National Center for Environmental Protection/Department Of Energy (NCEP/DOE). The satellite observations are from the Terra/Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (Terra/MODIS) satellite. The simulations performed are obtained through a forward radiative transfer calculation procedure. The resulting radiances are transformed into the upper tropospheric brightness temperature (UTBT) and relative humidity (UTRH). The discrepancies between the simulated data and the observations are analyzed. These analyses show that both the NICAM and the NCEP/DOE simulated UTBT and UTRH have comparable distribution patterns. However the simulations’ differences with the observations are generally lower with the NCEP/DOE than with the NICAM. The NCEP/DOE model outputs very often overestimate the UTBT and therefore present a drier upper troposphere. The impact of the lower troposphere instability (dry convection) on the upper tropospheric moisture and the consequences on the models’ results are evaluated through a thunderstorm and moisture predictor (the K-stability index). The results obtained show a positive relation between the instability and the root mean square error (RMSE: observation versus models). The study of the impact of convective clouds shows that the area covered by these clouds increases with the humidity of the upper troposphere in clear sky and above low clouds, and at the same time, the error between the observations and the models also increases. The impact of the above low clouds heat distribution on the models is studied through the relation between the low clouds cover and their effective emissivity. The models’ error appears to be high at midrange effective emissivity clouds.
1. Introduction For a reliable computation of the Earth radiation budget, the accuracy of the upper tropospheric relative humidity (UTRH) is essential. The UTRH is a widely varying parameter in the water vapour feedback of the climate as well as a major regulating factor of radiation exchanges between the
ground surface and the sun. Reducing current uncertainties involving water vapour in the climate system requires accurate global measurement modeling and long-term prediction of water vapour [1]. Water vapour in the upper troposphere, while insignificant by total mass of column water vapour, can have significant effects on climate, through the formation of clouds (longwave cloud forcing) or by direct absorption of
2 radiation [2]. The distribution of water vapour in the upper troposphere is generally influenced by two major processes: the atmospheric convection and subsidence. The relation between these processes and the UTRH may be positive or negative depending on cloud movements, position, optical and physical properties, and the general atmospheric circulation. Details of the rapid changes of water vapour quantities in the upper troposphere can only be obtained if frequent and high-resolution satellite observations are available; these satellite data should be integrated into atmospheric models to understand future climate changes and water vapour processes [1]. Various aspects of these processes in the upper troposphere can be examined with large or mesoscale atmospheric models. This explains the usage of these models’ outputs (as ancillary data) for clouds and aerosols properties retrievals. The quality of clouds and aerosols retrievals depends among other factors on the accuracy of these models and their ability to properly depict atmospheric phenomena. The future launch of the GCOM-C/SGLI satellite (successor of the ADEOS/GLI) is the incentive for the present study. The atmospheric models examined could serve as supporting data for clouds, aerosols, and water vapour retrievals from this satellite’s observation. The models discussed in this study are the NICAM and NCEP/DOE models. The NICAM belongs to the category of mesoscale atmospheric models. These kinds of models, designed for numerical weather predictions, have proven useful for diagnostic studies of the coupling between atmosphere dynamics and physical processes [3]. And they generally involve a cloud-resolving scheme generated by various techniques (e.g., icosahedral grid techniques) and a global cloud simulation [4]. Unlike general circulation models, cloud-resolving models cover a small domain but have fine horizontal and vertical resolutions that resolve convection and clouds [4]. The second model examined in this study is the NCEP/DOE model. It is a general circulation model producing atmospheric analyses (reanalysis-2 data) based on past and current observations. In the present study, the performance of the predictions of the NICAM and NCEP/DOE models is examined through a comparison of the models’ simulated atmospheric parameters (UTBT and UTRH) with observations from the Terra/MODIS satellite. Simulated emissions of outgoing radiances in the 6.7 μm channel (whose peak of sensitivity is in the upper troposphere), using the models’ parameters, are evaluated against the Terra/MODIS satellite observations. The radiances generated are then converted to UTBT (or BT6.7: Brightness Temperature at 6.7 μm wavelength) and UTRH. Clear sky and above low clouds satellite UTBT and the related UTRH are compared to the model simulations obtained through a forward radiative-transfer calculation procedure. The aim of this work is essentially to assess the degree of sensitivity of the NICAM and the NCEP/DOE UTBT and UTRH predictions under a variety of atmospheric conditions. To perform these simulations, the radiative transfer computations need thermal and humidity profiles outputs from the NICAM and the NCEP/DOE and MODIS geometrical parameters and spectral response. In brief, this work is organized as follows. The modeling environment (Section 1) then the major patterns of the distribution of the
Advances in Meteorology water vapour radiances observed (Section 2) are presented. In Section 3, comparisons between the observations and the model data are conducted. Section 4 consists of interpretations of the results (discrepancies) obtained in the previous chapter. The study ends with a general conclusion.
2. Models and Satellite Environment The atmospheric models data tested in this study are the NICAM and NCEP/DOE models. The capacity of the atmospheric profiles generated by these models to reproduce satellite observation data is tested. The NICAM-generated data have a horizontal spatial resolution of 3.5 × 3.5 km. The NICAM model is a global cloud-resolving model used to simulate cumulus convection and allowing direct coupling of the atmospheric circulation and clouds [5]. It uses a fully compressible nonhydrostatic system and an icosahedral grid with spring dynamics smoothing. The model description can be found in Tomita et al. [6]. Other reports on this model include Satoh et al. [7, 8] where precipitation statistics between the model simulations and observations from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Precipitation Radar (PR) are discussed. Nasuno et al. [9] use moist physics global numerical experiments to study the multiscale convective organization in the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) event that occurred during December 2006 and January 2007. The NCEP/DOE model, with its reanalysis-2 data, are based on the widely used National Center for Environmental Prediction/ National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) reanalysis with improved parameterizations of the physical processes (convective and cloud parameterization and relative humidity-cloud relationship) compared to the initial version [10]. The model produces a 4-time daily data set with a spatial resolution of 2.5 × 2.5 degrees. In this study, the NICAM and the NCEP/DOE data are selected at 00:00 UTC. The NICAM and NCEP/DOE predicted UTBT and UTRH are compared to observations from the 6.7 μm channel of Terra/MODIS. This channel, with its peak of sensitivity in the upper troposphere, is very useful for the study of atmospheric processes. The Terra/ MODIS polar orbiting satellite 6.7 μm channel has a spatial resolution of 0.01 × 0.01 degree at nadir. For a fair comparison between both the NICAM and NCEP/DOE models and the satellite observations, all the data were resized to a grid resolution of 0.5 × 0.5 pixel. The upper tropospheric radiances generated from the models’ outputs are obtained through a forward computation process performed with the radiative transfer code RSTAR6b. This code is a general package for simulating radiation fields in the atmosphereland-ocean system at wavelengths between 0.17 and 1000 μm [11, 12]. The code assumes a plane parallel atmosphere divided into several homogeneous sublayers with underlying ground or ocean surface. To calculate the radiance field, the radiative transfer code needs pressure, temperature, and humidity atmospheric profiles from the models, as well as the satellite 6.7 μm channel spectral response function and geometric parameters.
Advances in Meteorology
3 MODIS BT6.7, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
36N
MODIS BT6.7, 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 50 UTC
22N
39N 20N 36N
25W
18N
33N
MODIS BT6.7, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC
18N
36N
24W
27W
30W
33W
36W
39W
21W
220 225 230 235 240 245
MODIS BT6.7, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 10 UTC
16N
34N
14N
2N
18N
80E
70E
60E
50E
4N
20N
40E
6N
30E
22N
8N
20E
24N
MODIS BT6.7, 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 45 UTC
70S 72S 74S 76S 78S 80S 82S 84S 86S
10E
26N
245 240 235 230 225 220
10N
0
28N
10W
12N
245 240 235 230 225 220
20W
30N
30W
32N
EQ
EQ
16N
2S
14N
4S
16N
18N
20N
22N
24N
28N
30N
32N
26N
12W
14W
16W
18W
20W
22W
34W
168E
166E
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
154E
152E
150E
18S 148E
16S
2S 146E
14S
EQ
MODIS BT6.7, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC
MODIS BT6.7, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC 18S
4S
20S
6S
22S
8S
245 240 235 230 225 220
10S 12S 14S 16S
24S
245 240 235 230 225 220
26S 28S 30S 32S
18S
34S
20S
MODIS BT6.7, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
8W
10W
12W
14W
16W
20W
22W
24W
26W
28W
18W
3E
0
3W
6W
9W
56S
12W
54S
58S
15W
52S
56S
18W
50S
54S
21W
48S
52S
160E
46S
50S
155E
44S
48S
150E
42S
46S
145E
40S
44S
140E
38S
42S
135E
40S
130E
36S
27W
MODIS BT6.7, 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 55 UTC
38S
220 225 230 235 240 245
30W
32W
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
154E
152E
150E
148E
146E
142E
144E
36S
22S
24W
2S
34N
12S
2N
24W
4N
10S
26W
6N
245 240 235 230 225 220
8S
28W
8N
6S
30W
245 240 235 230 225 220
10N
MODIS BT6.7, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC
32W
12N
36N
38N
MODIS BT6.7, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC
18N
220 225 230 235 240 245
2S
162E
159E
156E
153E
150E
147E
144E
141E
138E
135E
16N
125E
42W
45W
170E
165E
160E
155E
150E
145E
135E
140E
16N
20E
24N
15E
26N
10E
42N
245 240 235 230 225 220
28N
5E
45N
30N
0
245 240 235 230 225 220
48N
5W
51N
52S 54S 56S 58S 60S 62S 64S 66S 68S 70S 72S 10W
32N
15W
34N
54N
20W
MODIS BT6.7, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 45 UTC 57N
220 225 230 235 240 245
Figure 1: Brightness temperature at 6.7 μm wavelength (BT6.7) in K, representing the upper tropospheric brightness temperature (UTBT) of MODIS scenes above the Pacific ocean (1st column) and the Atlantic ocean (2nd and 3rd Columns).
4
Advances in Meteorology
MODIS UTRH, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
36N
MODIS UTRH, 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 50 UTC
34N
22N 20N
25W
18N
33N
24W
21W
30W
33W
27W
39W
36W
42W
45W
170E
165E
160E
155E
150E
145E
140E
135E
16N
10
MODIS UTRH, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 10 UTC
MODIS UTRH, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC
20
30
40
60
70
80
90
16N
EQ
EQ
30
40
MODIS UTRH, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC
2S
14N 12N
4S
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
10N 8N 6N 4N 2N EQ
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
6S 8S 10S 12S 14S 16S
12W
14W
16W
18W
20W
22W
24W
26W
28W
30W
34W
168E
166E
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
154E
152E
150E
148E
146E
MODIS UTRH, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC
2S
32W
18S
2S
MODIS UTRH, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC 18S
4S
20S
6S
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
8S 10S 12S 14S 16S 18S
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
22S 24S 26S 28S 30S 32S 34S
20S
36S
MODIS UTRH, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
50
60
70
80
90
10
8W
10W
12W
14W
16W
18W
20W
22W
24W
26W
28W 20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
3E
0
40
3W
30
145E
135E 20
6W
56S 9W
54S
58S
12W
52S
56S
15W
50S
54S
18W
48S
52S
21W
46S
50S
24W
44S
48S
160E
42S
46S
155E
40S
44S
150E
38S
42S
140E
40S
130E
36S
27W
MODIS UTRH, 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 55 UTC
38S
10
30W
32W
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
154E
152E
150E
148E
146E
144E
142E
22S
Figure 2: Same as Figure 1 but for the upper tropospheric relative humidity (UTRH).
50
60
70
80
90
80E
20
16N
18N
20N
22N
24N
26N
28N
30N
32N
34N
36N
38N
MODIS UTRH, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC
16N
10
2S
162E
159E
156E
153E
150E
147E
144E
141E
135E
138E
16N
70E
2N
18N
50E
4N
60E
20N
6N
40E
22N
8N
MODIS UTRH, 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 45 UTC
70S 72S 74S 76S 78S 80S 82S 84S 86S
30E
24N
10N
20E
26N
12N
0 10E
28N
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
14N
10W
30N
20W
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
32N
30W
34N
125E
50
18N
36N
20E
36N
24N
15E
39N
26N
10E
42N
28N
0
45N
30N
5E
48N
5W
51N
52S 90 54S 80 56S 70 58S 60 60S 50 62S 40 64S 30 66S 20 68S 10 70S 72S
32N
10W
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
15W
54N
20W
MODIS UTRH, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 45 UTC 57N
Advances in Meteorology
2S
5 BT6.7 (South Pacific)
255
MODIS BT6.7, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC
4S 6S 245 240 235 230 225 220
10S 12S 14S 16S
BT6.7 (K)
250
8S
18S
Jul-06
Jan-06
Jul-05
Jan-05
Jul-04
Jan-04
Jul-03
142E 144E 146E 148E 150E 152E 154E 156E 158E 160E 162E 164E
235
Jan-03
240
20S 22S
245
Month BT6.7 Deseasonalized BT6.7 (a)
(b)
Figure 3: MODIS 6.7 μm brightness temperature (BT6.7) distribution (a) and monthly variation (b) for the period from Jan 2003 to Dec 2006, showing the seasonality of this parameter in the South Pacific. The black vertical lines of the right figure represent the difference between the monthly variation and the deseasonalized variation.
The simulations were performed for the years 2003 to 2006 (NCEP/DOE) and 2006 (NICAM). The data sets presented in this study are simulations corresponding to a variety of Terra/MODIS scenes of December 25, 26, and 27, 2006, located all along the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. The interpretations and conclusions obtained from these scenes are also valid for the scenes of the other years. Since even cirrus clouds are opaque at 6.7 μm, only clear sky pixels can be used for the analysis of upper tropospheric water vapor [3]. The atmospheres above low cloud areas can be used also, as the low clouds belong to the lower troposphere, that is, an area beyond the 6.7 μm channel sensitivity and not interfering with this channel. This principle was applied to this study. The 6.7 μm channel of the MODIS sensor is entirely sensitive in the atmospheric pressure range 500– 200 mb. These levels will be used in the weighting, necessary for the estimation of the UTRH. The retrieval algorithm used for the derivation of the UTRH is based on the relation developed by Soden and Bretherton [13], between the infrared radiances and the upper tropospheric humidity:
ln
UTRH = a + bBT6.7 , cos θ
(1)
where UTRH is a weighted mean of the fractional relative humidity in the upper troposphere, θ is the satellite zenith angle, ln is the natural logarithm, BT6.7 is the radiance expressed as brightness temperature in the 6.7 μm band, and a and b are regression coefficients determined from training data.
3. Satellite Observations In this work, the Terra/MODIS water vapour channel (6.7 μm) radiances are used to calculate the brightness temperature then the relative humidity of the upper troposphere through (1). The scenes selected are nighttime and daytime images. The geographical location of these scenes follows the descending and ascending paths of Terra/MODIS (along the Atlantic and Pacific oceans). Figures 1 and 2 present the distribution of the UTBT (BT6.7: brightness temperature at 6.7 μm wavelength) and UTRH, respectively, for some of the scenes examined. These images show large portions of cold UTBT and high UTRH on Dec 26 (00:50, 00:45, 00:10, and 00:05 UTC) and Dec 27 (00:00 UTC). These cold areas correspond to high or middle cloud areas and are generally major centers of convection. Complex heat and moisture flow patterns are characterized by a large variability of UTBT with a warm pool spreading northward and southward from the Atlantic (25 Dec 23:45∼23:55 UTC and 26 Dec 00:00∼ 00:15 UTC) and westward from the Pacific (26 Dec at 00:45 and 00:50 UTC and 27 Dec at 00:00, 00:05, and 00:15 UTC). Cold temperatures of around 200 K representing regions of radiation sinks, and moisture subsidence areas with warm temperatures of more than 250 K, can occur in a limited space (26 Dec at 00:50 UTC). This leads to the development of strong UTBT gradients. As expected, the polar areas show generally colder UTBT than tropical areas. Around convective areas, moist corners develop with UTRH of around 50%. Around strong subsidence regions of the subtropics, UTRH may fall below 10%. Substantial moisture gradients develop more frequently in tropical areas near
6
Advances in Meteorology BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NICAM), 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC
MODIS cloud types, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC
36N
36N
36N
34N
34N
34N
32N
32N
24N 22N
24N 22N
BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NICAM), 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC 16N 14N
14N
12N
12N
12N
10N
10N
BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NICAM), 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC 2S
2S
4S
4S
4S
6S
6S
6S
8S
8S
56S
56S
58S
58S
58S
0
5
10
140E
−10 −5
0
5
10
1
2
3
162E
159E
156E
153E
4
168E
166E
162E
164E
162E
160E
164E
160E
54S
56S
155E
54S
150E
52S
54S
125E
52S
160E
50S
52S
155E
50S
150E
48S
50S
145E
48S
135E
46S
48S
130E
46S
125E
44S
46S
160E
44S
155E
42S
44S
150E
40S
42S
145E
40S
42S
140E
40S
135E
38S
130E
38S
130E
MODIS cloud types, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NICAM), 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
38S
−10 −5
158E
142E
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
154E
152E
150E
148E
146E
144E
142E
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
22S
154E
22S 152E
20S
22S 150E
20S 148E
18S
20S 146E
18S
144E
16S
18S
142E
16S
BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NCEP/DOE), 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
150E
14S
16S
156E
14S
5 4 3 2 1
12S
145E
12S
10S
154E
14S
8S
10 5 0 −5 −10
10S
152E
12S
MODIS cloud types, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC
150E
10 5 0 −5 −10
10S
160E
146E
168E
166E
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
154E
152E
150E
148E
146E
168E
166E
164E
162E
160E
158E
156E
2S
154E
2S 152E
E0
2S 150E
EQ
148E
2N
EQ
146E
2N
158E
4N
2N
BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NCEP/DOE), 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC 2S
147E
6N
156E
4N
154E
6N
140E
4N
5 4 3 2 1
8N
152E
6N
10N
10 5 0 −5 −10
8N
148E
10 5 0 −5 −10
MODIS cloud types, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC
16N
14N
144E
135E
162E
159E
156E
153E
150E
147E
144E
141E
138E
135E
162E
159E
156E
153E
150E
147E
16N
144E
16N 141E
18N
16N 138E
18N
135E
18N
141E
20N
20N
8N
125E
26N
20N
BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NCEP/DOE), 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC 16N
5 4 3 2 1
28N
146E
22N
26N
138E
24N
28N
150E
26N
30N
10 5 0 −5 −10
144E
28N
32N
30N
10 5 0 −5 −10
135E
30N
148E
BT6.7 (MODIS-simulated NCEP/DOE), 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC
5
Figure 4: Differences between MODIS observed and NCEP/DOE simulated BT6.7 in K (1st column) then NICAM (2nd column), and the cloud types (3rd column) corresponding (1 = convective clouds, 2 = middle clouds, 3 = low clouds, 4 = thin cirrus clouds and 5 = clear sky).
the equator, with intensive upper flow UTBT taking place near highly moisturized areas. Low UTRH gradients occur mostly in the polar areas (25 Dec at 23:45 UTC) where UTBT spatial variability is relatively smooth. Warmer UTBTs near the equator indicate areas of relatively low water vapour amount in the upper troposphere. In such regions, the radiation to space is probably emitted from the lower troposphere. In the following section, a comparative analysis between the observation and model results is presented.
4. Comparison between Observations and Model Results In this section we present the differences between the UTBT observed and modeled. These differences translate comparatively well to UTRH differences. Prior to these comparisons, it was necessary to examine Terra/MODIS seasonal variations data. This satellite’s observations are known to be affected by seasonality issues. Figure 3 is an illustration of this
MODIS K-index
260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 220 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270
BT6.7 (K) 290 310 330 MODIS K-index 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 50 UTC
26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 MODIS K-index 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC 260
260 280 300 320 MODIS K-index 25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 45 UTC
255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 MODIS K-index 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC 260
270 320 MODIS K-index 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 45 UTC
255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 MODIS K-index 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC 260
BT6.7 (K)
260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 220
25 Dec 2006 at 23 : 55 UTC
240
BT6.7 (K)
BT6.7 (K) BT6.7 (K)
260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270
BT6.7 (K)
255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 MODIS K-index 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
BT6.7 (K)
26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 MODIS K-index 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 10 UTC 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 MODIS K-index 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC 260
7
BT6.7 (K)
BT6.7 (K)
BT6.7 (K)
BT6.7 (K)
BT6.7 (K)
Advances in Meteorology
290
310
MODIS K-index
330
255 250 245 240 235 230 225 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 MODIS K-index
MODIS
MODIS
MODIS
NCEP/DOE
NCEP/DOE
NCEP/DOE
NICAM
NICAM
NICAM
Figure 5: Variation of MODIS K-index with observed brightness temperature at 6.7 μm wavelength (BT6.7) in K. Obs-NCEP: difference between observations and NCEP/DOE, Obs-NICAM: difference between observations and NICAM.
effect: for example, the deseasonalized UTBT observations of Dec 2006 are higher by around 1.5 K than the initial observations. These changes are taken into account in the comparisons between the satellite observations and the model simulations. In this study, and for the data comparisons, positive differences mean warmer UTBT in the observations than model values. Differences between the observations and both models simulated water vapour generally show comparable patterns. Figure 4 presents the results of these differences
at clear sky and above low cloud areas. This figure shows that these discrepancies are generally wider with the NICAM data compared to those of the NCEP/DOE. The latter’s predictions are mostly negatively biased, that is, the model data are higher than the observed UTBT. These observations imply that the extent of the cold front propagation is generally limited in the NCEP/DOE representation of upper tropospheric radiances. The UTBT is, therefore, often overestimated. At very dry centers like the eastern central area of the scene of 26 Dec at 00:50 UTC (Figure 2) with UTBT
8
Advances in Meteorology
Table 1: Correlation coefficient (R) between observed and simulated UTBT (BT6.7) and UTRH during the year 2006. NCEP represents the NCEP/DOE data. Time 26 Dec at 00:15 26 Dec at 00:10 26 Dec at 00:05 26 Dec at 00:00 26 Dec at 23:55 26 Dec at 23:50 26 Dec at 23:45 26 Dec at 00:45 26 Dec at 00:50 27 Dec at 00:00 27 Dec at 00:05 27 Dec at 00:15
R (UTBT) NCEP 0.775 0.166 0.451 0.857 0.703 0.720 0.455 0.702 0.432 0.837 0.536 0.748
R (UTBT) NICAM 0.714 0.383 0.682 0.717 0.426 0.625 0.260 0.606 0.129 0.626 0.497 0.365
Table 2: RMSE (root mean square error) between the observation data and the NCEP/DOE, then the NICAM UTBT (TB6.7) and UTRH during the year 2006. NCEP represents the NCEP/DOE data. Time 26 Dec at 00:15 26 Dec at 00:10 26 Dec at 00:05 26 Dec at 00:00 26 Dec at 23:55 26 Dec at 23:50 26 Dec at 23:45 26 Dec at 00:45 26 Dec at 00:50 27 Dec at 00:00 27 Dec at 00:05 27 Dec at 00:15
RMSE NCEP UTBT/UTRH 5.333/14.613 8.384/25.382 10.253/18.892 4.915/10.735 4.468/14.428 5.544/23.295 6.543/25.952 4.011/13.06 5.918/13.562 12.150/29.729 11.363/23.139 3.581/12.246
RMSE NICAM UTBT/UTRH 7.400/18.036 10.506/31.710 10.144/16.309 10.251/29.046 6.955/28.331 4.423/20.055 3.605/20.201 5.266/22.292 11.260/17.219 6.949/19.306 8.321/18.433 5.076/18.800
>250 K, models UTBTs are largely underestimated. And this is more conspicuous with the NICAM predictions than with the NCEP/DOE. When moist centers are close to dry areas, that is, there is a rapid change of temperatures (high gradients) (scene of 26 Dec at 00:15 UTC), the dynamical force of the warm fronts seems to dominate that of the cold fronts in the models; the latter therefore tend to overestimate the UTBT compared to the observations. The models’ bias is then predominantly negative. It is also noticeable that the models fail to capture large humidity minima of the water vapour field. Tables 1 and 2 present, respectively, the correlation coefficient between the observations and the models’ results and the models’ RMSE for both the UTBT and UTRH. For the NCEP/DOE, the highest UTBT RMSE values are found around the equator of both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans (scenes of the 26th Dec 00:05 UTC and 00:10 UTC and the 27th Dec 00:00 UTC and 00:05 UTC).
R (UTRH) NCEP 0.752 0.207 0.205 0.800 0.632 0.588 0.661 0.820 0.592 0.733 0.482 0.660
R (UTRH) NICAM 0.729 0.497 0.530 0.637 0.316 0.248 0.658 0.711 0.306 0.500 0.306 0.302
These scenes generally show the lowest correlation coefficients. The situation is nearly similar with the NICAM model though the latter seems to behave better on scenes of the 27th Dec (reduced RMSE and better correlation coefficients). This improvement could be explained by the low start of the model initialization, that is, the change from a weak dynamic force reigning during the initial simulation day [3]. In the present study the initialization day of the NICAM simulations is the 26th Dec 2006. There may be a gradually stronger force on the next day, the 27th Dec 2006.
5. Results’ Interpretation and Discussion Reasons of the discrepancies noticed between the observations and the models’ results are examined in this section. Among these, we will mainly examine the impacts on models results of the lower troposphere clear sky instability, the development of convective clouds, and the low cloud heat and moisture distributions (expressed through the cloud effective emissivity). 5.1. Atmospheric Instability (Dry Convection). Convection processes are at the origin of most of the air instability in the atmosphere. They can occur with cloud formation (moist convection) or without it (dry convection). In this part of the study, we examine the impact of the lower troposphere dry convection on model results. In a later section, the moist convection influence will be examined. The contribution of the thermodynamic instability from the lower troposphere heat and moisture to the water vapour and temperature distributions in the upper troposphere and the models’ results can be assessed in various ways. One of them is the use of stability indicators. A commonly used indicator in this category is the K-index (KI). This index has demonstrated good capabilities to predict thunderstorms and convection areas for weather forecast. It is therefore a good measure of the precipitation and thunderstorm potential. The index uses the following parameters: the temperature difference, that is, the vertical temperature lapse rate between 850 hPa, or T850 hPa
Advances in Meteorology
9 273 < KI < 293
12
BT6.7 RMSE (K)
10 8 6 4 2 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Pixels (%) RMSE NCEP RMSE NICAM
(a)
(b)
KI > 293 K
12
BT6.7 RMSE (K)
10 8 6 4 2 0 0
20
40
60
80
100
Pixels (%) RMSE NCEP RMSE NICAM Linear (RMSE NCEP) Linear (RMSE NICAM)
y = 0.071x + 4.742 R2 = 0.574 y = 0.059x + 4.807 R2 = 0.493
(c)
Figure 6: Relationship between clear sky coverage (in %) in each K-index range, with the variation of the brightness temperature at 6.7 μm wavelength (BT6.7) RMSE (between observations and models). The three classes KI < 0, 0 < KI < 20, and KI > 20 are, respectively, represented by KI < 273 K, 273 < KI < 293, and KI > 293 K.
and 500 hPa or T500 hPa , the 850 hPa dew point temperature or Td850 hPa (provides information on the moisture content of the lower atmosphere), the 700 hPa dew point depression, that is, the difference between the temperature at 700 hPa or T700 hPa and the dew point temperature at 700 hPa or Td700 hPa [14]. It is expressed as follows: KI = (T850 hPa − T500 hPa ) + Td850 hPa − (T700 hPa − Td700 hPa ). (2) Compared to some other indicators, the K-index has the advantage of combining temperatures and humidity; it allows therefore a good distinction between dry and moist
atmospheres. For KI less or equal to 0 (i.e., 273 K), the atmosphere is generally stable. KI values between 0 and 20 (i.e., 273 K and 293 K) constitute the transition or mix zone between stable and unstable atmospheres. For KI > 20 (i.e., 293 K), the potential for convection and thunderstorms is high. Figure 5 presents the KI variation with the average UTBT (BT6.7) for all the scenes where KI covers the three stability ranges. The general pattern of the models’ variation is comparable to that of the observations. However, some divergences (between the observations and the models) can be seen on 26 Dec at 00:00, and 00:10 UTC, then 27 Dec at 00:00 UTC for both models. The overall impact of the KI on the models is illustrated by Figure 6. This figure presents
10
Advances in Meteorology
the variation of the number of pixels (% of data in clear sky areas) for the three major KI ranges identified earlier, with the UTBT RMSE between the observations and the models. A clear correlation is visible between these parameters for low KI (KI < 0) and high KI ranges (KI > 20). The RMSE between both models’ UTBT increases with the number of unstable areas’ pixels and vice versa. The closeness of the determination coefficients between both models (R2 = 0.57 with NCEP/DOE and 0.49 with NICAM) and the number of pixels of KI < 0 means the stability of the lower troposphere has a comparable effect on both models’ UTBT and UTRH predictions. However, the higher correlation with NICAM at KI > 20 may mean that the instability has a stronger effect on the latter model data than that of the NCEP/DOE. No visible correlation seems to exist in the transition zone of KI (0 < KI < 20) as data are more randomly distributed. 5.2. Convective Clouds Effects (Moist Convection). Moist convection involves the formation of clouds. The presence of convective clouds is a sign of a strong atmospheric instability. Clouds of the study area were classified according to their brightness temperature in the thermal IR (infrared) window (11 μm) and the water vapour IR (6.7 μm) channels. For this purpose, the MODIS cloud mask products, that is, the 11 and 6.7 μm radiances, are used. The simple classification scheme adopted is mostly based on the analysis of Roca et al. [15] and Chung et al. [16]. A cloud mask is added to these analyses to separate low clouds from clear sky areas. The classification steps are as follows. (a) The pixel flagged as clear sky by the MODIS cloud mask is assigned the number (5). (b) Then if the pixel is flagged as cloudy, it will belong to one of the following 4 classes: (1) if BT11 (Brightness temperature at 11 μm) 270 K and BT6.7 > 246 K, the pixel is a low cloud; (4) if BT11 > 270 K and BT6.7 < 246 K, the pixel is a thin cirrus cloud. An illustration of this distribution is given by the rightmost column of Figure 4. A large convective band covering almost half of the scene (West to East) of 26 Dec at 00:50 UTC shows the important propagation of these kinds of clouds. Conversely, very few convective cloud spots are seen on 27 Dec at 00:00 and 00:05 UTC. Figure 7(a) shows the average observed UTBT with the amount of convective cloud cover. The UTBT appears to decrease with the increase of the convective cloud cover. The overall convective clouds effect is the moistening of the upper troposphere. The general depiction of the moisture variation by the models is quite comparable to that of the observations. The effect of this process on the model results can be determined by
plotting the amount of convective clouds against the average UTBT difference (observation-model). Figure 7(b) shows this relationship. On one hand, a relatively good correlation is visible between the amount of convective clouds and the average difference (observation-NICAM), that is, there is a substantial increase of discrepancies with the amount of convective cloud cover. On the other hand, no clear correlation is noticeable with the NCEP/DOE results. In the following subsection, we will examine the effect of the low cloud effective emissivity on the heat distribution of the upper troposphere and the implications this may have on the model results. 5.3. Heat Distribution: Cloud Effective Emissivity. Cloud effective emissivity is the product of the cloud fraction and the cloud emissivity. The variation of effective emissivity through the vertical transmission of heat and humidity at the surface of low clouds can measurably influence changes of water vapour radiances of the upper troposphere. To analyze the impact of heat distribution above low clouds, the effective emissivity distribution of these clouds is examined. Before focusing on low clouds, we will first examine the effective emissivity of all clouds. Figure 8 shows the distribution patterns of all clouds areas’ effective emissivity for similar scenes to those of Figure 4. Scenes of 27 Dec at 00:00 and 00:05 UTC show an important amount of low values of effective emissivity areas (i.e., high amounts of broken clouds) among clusters of full clouds while the scenes of 26 Dec at 00:50 and 27 Dec at 00:15 UTC have fewer pixels of low effective emissivity for all the cloud types. For the latter two scenes, the low effective emissivity pixels are essentially aligned along the southwest-northeast and southeastnorthwest directions, respectively. A quick comparison of these scenes with the corresponding UTBT differences on Figure 4 (at the top and bottom rows, respectively) shows that strong discrepancies are along the major low emissivity paths (belonging to middle or high clouds). For low clouds only and clear sky areas, a quantitative evaluation of the differences is presented ahead, for all the scenes (Figure 9). On this figure are plotted the variations of the UTBT average difference (observation-models) with the effective emissivity (in 20% ranges). Clear sky areas are shown as 0% effective emissivity. The general patterns of these graphs show that the least differences occur at no emissivity (i.e., clear sky areas) and high emissivity areas (continuous clouds). The highest discrepancies are seen near intermediate effective emissivity values, around 40 to 60%. A succinct interpretation of these observations is provided by Figure 10. This figure shows the variation of the low clouds’ amount within the sum (clear sky and low clouds) with the UTBT RMSE for the three major classes of cloud effective emissivity (E) ranges selected (effective emissivity less than 40%, between 40 and 80%, and above 80%). There is an increase of the error (RMSE) with the increase of the amount of low clouds in the low and average effective emissivity ranges (E < 40% and 40 < E < 80%) while the error decreases with the increase of the amount of low clouds for the high effective emissivity range. This implies that both models’ depiction of the upper troposphere water
Advances in Meteorology
11
Convective clouds and BT6.7
255
Convective clouds and BT6.7 difference
10 R2 = 0.662 R2 = 0.451
BT6.7 average difference (K)
Average BT6.7 (K)
250
R2 = 0.782
245 240 235 230
R2 = 0.002
5
R2 = 0.369
0 0
20
40
60
80
100
−5
−10
225 −15
220 0
20
40
60
80
Convective clouds (%)
100
Convective clouds (%) MODIS NCEP/DOE NICAM
MODIS-NCEP/DOE MODIS-NICAM
Linear (MODIS) Linear (NCEP/DOE) Linear (NICAM)
(b)
(a)
Figure 7: Variation of the convective cloud cover (%) for each MODIS scene with the average observed brightness temperature at 6.7 μm wavelength (BT6.7) (a), then the BT6.7 difference (MODIS-NCEP/DOE and MODIS-NICAM) (b). The determination coefficients on the right of (a) are, respectively, for MODIS (upper), NCEP/DOE (middle), and NICAM (lower); for (b), they are for MODIS-NCEP/DOE (upper) and MODIS-NICAM (lower).
MODIS effective emissivity, 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC
MODIS effective emissivity, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC 16N
36N
14N
34N 12N
100 90
50 30
40 30
2N
146E
162E
159E
156E
153E
150E
147E
144E
2S 141E
16N 138E
EQ
135E
18N
MODIS effective emissivity, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC
168E
20
166E
20
164E
20N
50
4N
40
22N
60
162E
24N
70
6N
160E
60
158E
26N
80
8N
156E
70
154E
28N
90
152E
80
150E
30N
100
10N
148E
32N
MODIS effective emissivity, 27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
2S
38S 4S
40S
6S
100
8S
90 80
10S
70 60
12S
42S 44S 46S 48S
50
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 8: Distribution of the effective emissivity corresponding to similar scenes as those of Figure 4.
160E
155E
162E
160E
158E
156E
154E
152E
150E
148E
146E
58S 144E
56S
22S
142E
20S
150E
54S
145E
20
135E
52S
18S
140E
50S
30
130E
40
16S
125E
14S
Advances in Meteorology
60
80
100
40
60
80
100
BT6.7 average difference (K)
BT6.7 average difference (K)
26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 10 UTC
20
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
40
60
80
100
BT6.7 average difference (K)
26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC
20
Effective emissivity (%) 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC
20
40
60
80
Effective emissivity (%) Obs-NCEP Obs-NICAM
60
80
100
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
26 Dec 2006 at 23 : 50 UTC
20
40
60
80
100
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 50 UTC
20
40
60
80
100
Effective emissivity (%) 0
100
27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 00 UTC
−2 −4 −6 −8 −10 −12 0
50
100
−14
Effective emissivity (%)
BT6.7 average difference (K)
BT6.7 average difference (K)
BT6.7 average difference (K)
Effective emissivity (%) 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
40
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
Effective emissivity (%)
Effective emissivity (%)
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
20
BT6.7 average difference (K)
40
26 Dec 2006 at 23 : 55 UTC
Effective emissivity (%)
26 Dec 2006 at 23 : 45 UTC
20
40
60
80
0
100
BT6.7 average difference (K)
20
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
BT6.7 average difference (K)
26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
−2 0
27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 05 UTC 20
40
60
80
100
−4 −6 −8 −10 −12 −14
Effective emissivity (%)
Effective emissivity (%) 26 Dec 2006 at 00 : 45 UTC
20
40
60
80
Effective emissivity (%) Obs-NCEP Obs-NICAM
100
BT6.7 average difference (K)
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
BT6.7 average difference (K)
BT6.7 average difference (K)
12
10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 0 −4 −6 −8 −10
27 Dec 2006 at 00 : 15 UTC
20
40
60
80
Effective emissivity (%) Obs-NCEP Obs-NICAM
Figure 9: Effective emissivity against average brightness temperature difference at 6.7 μm (BT 6.7) wavelength.
100
Advances in Meteorology
13 E 80%
16
R2 = 0.129
14 BT6.7 RMSE (K)
40
R2 = 0.437
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0
20
60 40 Low cloud amount (%)
80
100
RMSE NCEP/DOE RMSE NICAM
Figure 10: Variation of the amount of low cloud (% of low clouds’ pixels to the sum of clear sky and low clouds) with the brightness temperature at 6.7 μm (BT6.7) wavelength RMSE for various cloud effective emissivity (E) ranges. The determination coefficients on the right in each frame are, respectively, for the relation between the low cloud amount and both the RMSE NCEP/DOE (upper) and RMSE NICAM (lower).
vapour above broken clouds is poor. Fewer errors are seen when clouds with a high effective emissivity are abundant, that is, when there is a wider spatial continuity. The determination coefficient is stronger with NICAM data than with NCEP/DOE predictions. Large inconsistencies are noticed between the observation and the model simulations for scenes having a high frequency of low clouds with low effective emissivity (Figure 8, scene of Dec 27 at 00:00 UTC). The NCEP/DOE UTBT RMSE was as high as 12 K for that scene
(Table 2). When only few low clouds with low effective emissivity are present (Table 2 and Figure 8, scene of 27 Dec 2006 at 00:15 UTC), the RMSE is low and the correlation coefficient for both models is high. In general and as shown by Figure 10, the effect of low cloud brokenness on the upper tropospheric humidity seems stronger (increase of UTBT discrepancies) with the NICAM than the NCEP/DOE models. Besides the reasons evoked so far to explain the discrepancies between the satellite observations and the model, there
14 is the degree of uncertainty related to the MODIS cloud mask. The errors in the cloud detection of the satellite sensor may lead to the lowering of the accuracy of the models’ data. Generally, ambiguities in the cloud detection of the satellite occur at the edges of the thick clouds and with some thin high clouds. Though the MODIS cloud mask algorithm uses various cloud detection tests to determine the confidence level of clear sky observations, some clouds may still be difficult to identify. A MODIS cloud detection algorithm and a ground-based combination Micropulse Lidar/Millimeter Cloud Radar (MPL/MMCR) study, reported by Ackerman et al. [17], shows that there is an agreement on the existence of clear or probably clear sky, 86% of the time, and, 92% of the time, a cloud is present. A visual examination of the images used in this study shows that cloud contamination may not appear to have significantly affected the results of the present study (comparisons between satellite observations and models’ simulations).
6. Conclusion In order to evaluate the performance of large and mesoscale atmospheric circulation models (NCEP/DOE and NICAM), respectively, and their capacity to reproduce satellite observations, water vapour radiances of Terra/MODIS 6.7 μm channel (whose peak of sensitivity is in the upper troposphere) are simulated. The products derived from these radiances (UTBT and UTRH) are compared with MODIS observations. The tests beds for the models’ evaluation are the atmosphere above the north and south of the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. Analyses of the models’ simulations show that they reproduce well enough the satellite observation patterns. The discrepancies between these models and the observations appear higher with the NICAM than with the NCEP/DOE (the latter shows generally lower RMSE values). The correlation coefficient between the observations and the models is generally better with the NCEP/DOE than the NICAM. However, for most of the scenes, the UTBT simulated by the NCEP/DOE is overestimated. This is particularly the case near the equator where the highest UTBT/UTRH RMSEs among the NCEP/DOE predictions are found. At very dry and warm pools, the NICAM results are often underestimated. Reasons of the discrepancies between the models and observations were examined and discussed in terms of the vertical heat and moisture movements in clear sky areas (dry convection) between the lower and the upper troposphere and above low cloud areas (cloud effective emissivity) and the convective clouds’ (moist convection) influence on heat distribution. The contribution of the lower troposphere instability to the upper tropospheric moisture and implications for the models’ results are analyzed through a thunderstorm and moisture predictor (the K-stability index). A positive correlation between the instability and the RMSE (observation versus models) is noticed with both models. The study of the effect of the convective clouds’ development on the models results shows that, as the area covered by these clouds increases, both the humidity in the upper troposphere and the UTBT RMSE between the
Advances in Meteorology observations and the NICAM model tend to increase also. The NCEP/DOE model is not as much affected as the NICAM model, by this phenomenon. Analyses of the impact of the heat distribution above low clouds areas are also conducted based on the cloud effective emissivity distribution. Areas with low values of cloud effective emissivity show the strongest discrepancies with the observations for both models. This effect seems to be much more noticeable with the NICAM than with the NCEP/DOE results. The most reliable results are obtained either in clear sky or continuous cloud areas. In order to improve the model data, corrections should include further adjustments of the cloud-resolving parameters, that is, the predictive capacity of the models in the integration of clouds and cloud microphysical properties.
Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Pr. M. Satoh of the University of Tokyo for providing the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), with the NICAM model outputs, used for this study.
References [1] B. Soden, S. Tjemkes, J. Schmetz et al., “An intercomparison of radiation codes for retrieving upper-tropospheric humidity in the 6.3-μm band: a report from the first GVaP workshop,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 797–808, 2000. [2] A. Gettelman, W. D. Collins, E. J. Fetzer et al., “Climatology of upper-tropospheric relative humidity from the Atmosphere Infrared Sounder and implication for climate,” Journal of Climate, vol. 19, no. 23, pp. 6104–6121, 2006. [3] D. A. Spangenberg, G. G. Mace, T. P. Ackerman, N. L. Seaman, and B. J. Soden, “Evaluation of model-simulated upper troposphere humidity using 6.7 μm satellite observations,” Journal of Geophysical Research D, vol. 102, no. 22, pp. 25737–25749, 1997. [4] X. Wu and X. Li, “A review of cloud-resolving model studies of convective processes,” Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 202–212, 2008. [5] H. Miura, M. Satoh, T. Nasuno, A. T. Noda, and K. Oouchi, “A Madden-Julian oscillation event realistically simulated by a global cloud-resolving model,” Science, vol. 318, no. 5857, pp. 1763–1765, 2007. [6] H. Tomita, H. Miura, S. Iga, T. Nasuno, and M. Satoh, “A global cloud-resolving simulation: preliminary results from an aqua planet experiment,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1–4, 2005. [7] M. Satoh, T. Matsuno, H. Tomita, H. Miura, T. Nasuno, and S. Iga, “Nonhydrostatic icosahedral atmospheric model (NICAM) for global cloud resolving simulations,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 227, no. 7, pp. 3486–3514, 2008. [8] M. Satoh, T. Nasuno, H. Miura, H. Tomita, S. Iga, and Y. Takayabu, “Precipitation statistics comparison between global cloud resolving simulation with NICAM and TRMM PR data,” in High Resolution Numerical Modelling of the Atmosphere and Ocean, K. Hamilton and W. Ohfuchi, Eds., pp. 99–112, Springer, 2008. [9] T. Nasuno, H. Miura, M. Satoh, A. T. Noda, and K. Oouchi, “Multi-scale organization of convection in a global numerical
Advances in Meteorology
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] [15]
[16]
[17]
simulation of the December 2006 MJO event using explicit moist processes,” Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 335–345, 2009. M. Kanamitsu, W. Ebisuzaki, J. Woollen et al., “NCEP-DOE AMIP-II reanalysis (R-2),” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 1631–1643, 2002. T. Nakajima and M. Tanaka, “Matrix formulations for the transfer of solar radiation in a plane-parallel scattering atmosphere,” Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 1986. T. Nakajima, M. Tsukamoto, Y. Tsushima, A. Numaguti, and T. Kimura, “Modeling of the radiative process in an atmospheric general circulation model,” Applied Optics, vol. 39, no. 27, pp. 4869–4878, 2000. B. J. Soden and F. P. Bretherton, “Upper tropospheric relative humidity from the GOES 6.7 μm channel: method and climatology for July 1987,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 98, no. 9, pp. 16669–16688, 1993. J. J. George, Weather Forecasting for Aeronautics, Academic Press, 1960. R. Roca, M. Viollier, L. Picon, and M. Desbois, “A multisatellite analysis of deep convection and its moist environment over the Indian Ocean during the winter monsoon,” Journal of Geophysical Research D, vol. 107, no. 19, article 8012, 2002. E. S. Chung, B. J. Sohn, and V. Ramanathan, “Moistening processes in the upper troposphere by deep convection: a case study over the tropical Indian Ocean,” Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 959–965, 2004. S. Ackerman, K. Strabala, P. Menzel et al., Discriminating clear-sky from cloud with MODIS algorithm. Theoretical basis document (MOD35), 2006, http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa/ .gov docs/atbd mod06.pdf.
15
Journal of
International Journal of
Ecology
Journal of
Geochemistry Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Mining
The Scientific World Journal
Scientifica Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Journal of
Earthquakes Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Paleontology Journal Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Journal of
Petroleum Engineering
Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com
Geophysics International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Advances in
Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Journal of
Mineralogy
Geological Research Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Advances in
Geology
Climatology
International Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Advances in
Journal of
Meteorology Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Atmospheric Sciences Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Oceanography Volume 2014
Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Oceanography Volume 2014
Applied & Environmental Soil Science Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
Journal of Computational Environmental Sciences Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014