English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The lack of complete knowledge concerning the complex interactions among clouds, circulation, and climate hinders our ability to simulate the Earth’s climate correctly. This study contributes to a broader understanding of the implications of cloud and precipitation biases on the representation of coupled energy and water exchanges by bringing together a suite of cloud impact parameters (CIPs). These parameters measure the coupled impact of cloud systems on regional energy balance and hydrology by simultaneously capturing the absolute strength of the cloud albedo and greenhouse effects, the relative importance of these two radiative effects, and the efficiency of precipitating clouds to radiatively heat the atmosphere and cool the surface per unit of heating through rain production. Global distribution of these CIPs is derived using satellite observations from CloudSat and used to evaluate energy and water cycle coupling in four reanalysis datasets [both versions of the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA and MERRA-2); the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) interim reanalysis (ERA-Interim); and the Japanese 55-year Reanalysis (JRA-55)]. The results show that the reanalyses provide a more accurate representation of the three radiation-centric parameters than the radiative efficiencies. Of the four reanalyses, MERRA and ERA-Interim provide the best overall representation of the different cloud processes but can still show significant biases. JRA-55 exhibits some clear deficiencies in many parameters, while MERRA-2 seems to introduce biases that were not evident in MERRA.

Assessing the Coupled Influences of Clouds on the Atmospheric Energy and Water Cycles in Reanalyses with A-Train Observations