PNNL

Abstract

The absorption of shortwave (SW) by clouds is a topic surrounded by contradictory reports and controversy. Some studies have shown large discrepancies between observed SW absorption and absorption predicted by models, while others have found no significant dfference. In this study, values of column SW absorptance obtained by combining collocated top-of atmosphere (TOA) and surface observations at an island site in the Tropical Western Pacific are compared to radiative transfer model (RTM) output. To compensate for the field of view difference between satellite and surface instruments, the surface data are averaged over time. Scatterplots and statistical measures show that there is a signficant discrepancy between models and observations with the RTMs apparently underestimating SW absorptance. In previous observational studies showing highly enhanced absorption compared to models, the slope of a linear fit to d*TOA/dT (the derivative of TOA albedo with respect to transmittance) was used to quantify cloud SW absorption while non-linearity of d*TOA/dT was interpreted as a sign of sampling issues. Here, the models produce a steeper slope (about -0.9) than observations (-0.6 to -0.8), indicating that models predict too little cloud SW absorption. However, when the surface observations are averaged over a longer period, their slope grows steeper and the root mean square di*erence between linear and quadratic fits to d*TOA/dT is reduced. This implies that insufficient averaging of surface data contributes to the observed SW absorption discrepancy. Reexamination of the observational data using the difference between cloud fraction estimated from satellite and surface measurements as an estimate of field of view mismatch supports this hypothesis. High mea sured absorptance values are shown to correspond to occasions of large field of view mismatch. When such data are excluded, the difference between the linear and quadratic fits is reduced and the slope of the best fit line becomes steeper. We conclude that averaging surface data over three hours or less is not always sufficient to eliminate sampling issues. However, the possibility that shortcomings of the RTMs contribute to the discrepancy in SW absorption values cannot be excluded.