Articles | Volume 15, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-3001-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-3001-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Radiative sensitivity quantified by a new set of radiation flux kernels based on the ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5)
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montréal,
Canada
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montréal,
Canada
Related authors
No articles found.
Benedict Pery, Helen Brindley, Jonathan Murray, Sophie Mosselmans, Sanjeevani Panditharatne, Laura Warwick, Robin Hogan, Yi Huang, Benjamin Riot-Bretêcher, Hilke Oetjen, Dirk Schuettemeyer, and Tristan L'Ecuyer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2443, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2443, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
Short summary
Short summary
The Polar Radiant Energy in the Far-InfraRed Experiment (PREFIRE) satellite mission measures the Earth in a rarely measured part of the electromagnetic spectrum. To build confidence in these new measurements, we test them with an experiment observing the same atmosphere as PREFIRE but from the ground. We find that the PREFIRE measurements agree with what we expect from our ground-based observations, with some unexplained differences needing further study.
Jie Gao, Yi Huang, Jonathon S. Wright, Ke Li, Tao Geng, and Qiurun Yu
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2569–2586, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2569-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2569-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol in the upper troposphere and stratosphere is highly variable, and its radiative effect is poorly understood. To estimate this effect, the radiative kernel is constructed and applied. The results show that the kernels can reproduce aerosol radiative effects and are expected to simulate stratospheric aerosol radiative effects. This approach reduces computational expense, is consistent with radiative model calculations, and can be applied to atmospheric models with speed requirements.
Lei Liu, Natalia Bliankinshtein, Yi Huang, John R. Gyakum, Philip M. Gabriel, Shiqi Xu, and Mengistu Wolde
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 471–485, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-471-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-471-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates and compares a new microwave hyperspectrometer with an infrared hyperspectrometer for clear-sky temperature and water vapor retrievals. The analysis reveals that the information content of the infrared hyperspectrometer exceeds that of the microwave hyperspectrometer and provides higher vertical resolution in ground-based zenith measurements. Leveraging the ground–airborne synergy between the two instruments yielded optimal sounding results.
Qiurun Yu, Dylan Jervis, and Yi Huang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3347–3366, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3347-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3347-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study estimated the effects of aerosols on GHGSat satellite methane retrieval and investigated the performance of simultaneously retrieving aerosol and methane information using a multi-angle viewing method. Results suggested that the performance of GHGSat methane retrieval improved when aerosols were considered, and the multi-angle viewing method is insensitive to the satellite angle setting. This performance assessment is useful for improving future GHGSat-like instruments.
Lei Liu, Natalia Bliankinshtein, Yi Huang, John R. Gyakum, Philip M. Gabriel, Shiqi Xu, and Mengistu Wolde
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2219–2233, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2219-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2219-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We conducted a radiance closure experiment using a unique combination of two hyperspectral radiometers, one operating in the microwave and the other in the infrared. By comparing the measurements of the two hyperspectrometers to synthetic radiance simulated from collocated atmospheric profiles, we affirmed the proper performance of the two instruments and quantified their radiometric uncertainty for atmospheric sounding applications.
Jing Feng and Yi Huang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 15493–15518, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15493-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15493-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of thermodynamic fields above tropical cyclones. Using a synergistic retrieval method, we develop the first infrared hyperspectra-based dataset of collocated temperature and water vapor profiles above deep convective clouds. It discloses the unique impacts of convective overshoots on the tropical tropopause layer (TTL). Challenging conventional views, our study suggests that convective hydration may be limited by the radiative balance above cyclones.
Jing Feng, Yi Huang, and Zhipeng Qu
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5717–5734, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5717-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5717-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
It is challenging to measure the atmospheric conditions above convective storms. In this study, a method of retrieving thermodynamic variables above convective storms using a combination of satellite-based observations from a hyperspectral infrared sounder and active sensors is developed. We find that this method captures the spatial distributions of thermodynamic anomalies above convective clouds well. This method is potentially applicable to observations from current and future satellites.
Cited articles
Block, K. and Mauritsen, T.: Forcing and feedback in the MPI-ESM-LR coupled
model under abruptly quadrupled CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 5, 676–691, 2013.
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y.,
Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bonnet, R., Bony, S., and Bopp, L.: Presentation
and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020.
Bright, R. M. and O'Halloran, T. L.: Developing a monthly radiative kernel for surface albedo change from satellite climatologies of Earth's shortwave radiation budget: CACK v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3975–3990, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3975-2019, 2019.
Chao, L.-W. and Dessler, A. E.: An assessment of climate feedbacks in
observations and climate models using different energy balance frameworks,
J. Climate, 34, 9763–9773, 2021.
Collins, W., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Sun, Y., Portmann, R. W.,
Fu, Q., Casanova, S., Dufresne, J. L., Fillmore, D. W., and Forster, P.:
Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: Estimates from climate
models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D14317, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006713,
2006.
Colman, R. and McAvaney, B.: A study of general circulation model climate
feedbacks determined from perturbed sea surface temperature experiments,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 19383–19402, 1997.
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J. F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D., DuVivier, A.,
Edwards, J., Emmons, L., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., and Gettelman, A.: The
community earth system model version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020.
Dessler, A. E.: A determination of the cloud feedback from climate
variations over the past decade, Science, 330, 1523–1527, 2010.
Doelling, D. R., Loeb, N. G., Keyes, D. F., Nordeen, M. L., Morstad, D.,
Nguyen, C., Wielicki, B. A., Young, D. F., and Sun, M.: Geostationary
enhanced temporal interpolation for CERES flux products, J.
Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 30, 1072–1090, 2013.
Dong, Y., Armour, K. C., Zelinka, M. D., Proistosescu, C., Battisti, D. S.,
Zhou, C., and Andrews, T.: Intermodel spread in the pattern effect and its
contribution to climate sensitivity in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, J.
Climate, 33, 7755–7775, 2020.
Donohoe, A., Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., Schweiger, A., and Rasch, P. J.:
The effect of atmospheric transmissivity on model and observational
estimates of the sea ice albedo feedback, J. Climate, 33, 5743–5765,
2020.
Döscher, R., Acosta, M., Alessandri, A., Anthoni, P., Arsouze, T., Bergman, T., Bernardello, R., Boussetta, S., Caron, L.-P., Carver, G., Castrillo, M., Catalano, F., Cvijanovic, I., Davini, P., Dekker, E., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Docquier, D., Echevarria, P., Fladrich, U., Fuentes-Franco, R., Gröger, M., v. Hardenberg, J., Hieronymus, J., Karami, M. P., Keskinen, J.-P., Koenigk, T., Makkonen, R., Massonnet, F., Ménégoz, M., Miller, P. A., Moreno-Chamarro, E., Nieradzik, L., van Noije, T., Nolan, P., O'Donnell, D., Ollinaho, P., van den Oord, G., Ortega, P., Prims, O. T., Ramos, A., Reerink, T., Rousset, C., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Le Sager, P., Schmith, T., Schrödner, R., Serva, F., Sicardi, V., Sloth Madsen, M., Smith, B., Tian, T., Tourigny, E., Uotila, P., Vancoppenolle, M., Wang, S., Wårlind, D., Willén, U., Wyser, K., Yang, S., Yepes-Arbós, X., and Zhang, Q.: The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
Graham, R. M., Hudson, S. R., and Maturilli, M.: Improved performance of
ERA5 in Arctic gateway relative to four global atmospheric reanalyses,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 6138–6147, 2019.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., and Schepers, D.:
The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol.
Soc., 146, 1999–2049, 2020.
Huang, H. and Huang, Y.: Nonlinear coupling between longwave radiative
climate feedbacks, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126,
e2020JD033995, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033995, 2021.
Huang, H. and Huang, Y.: Data for ERA5 radiative kernels, Mendeley [data set], https://doi.org/10.17632/vmg3s67568, 2023.
Huang, H., Huang, Y., and Hu, Y.: Quantifying the energetic feedbacks in
ENSO, Clim. Dynam., 56, 139–153, 2021.
Huang, Y.: On the longwave climate feedbacks, J. Climate, 26,
7603–7610, 2013.
Huang, Y. and Wang, Y.: How does radiation code accuracy matter?, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 10742–10752, 2019.
Huang, Y., Ramaswamy, V., and Soden, B.: An investigation of the sensitivity
of the clear-sky outgoing longwave radiation to atmospheric temperature and
water vapor, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D05104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006906, 2007.
Huang, Y., Xia, Y., and Tan, X.: On the pattern of CO2 radiative forcing and
poleward energy transport, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
122, 10578–10593, 2017.
Huang, Y., Chou, G., Xie, Y., and Soulard, N.: Radiative control of the
interannual variability of Arctic sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46,
9899–9908, 2019.
Huang, Y., Huang, H., and Shakirova, A.: The nonlinear radiative feedback
effects in the Arctic warming, Front. Earth Sci., 651, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.693779, 2021.
Jonko, A. K., Shell, K. M., Sanderson, B. M., and Danabasoglu, G.: Climate
feedbacks in CCSM3 under changing CO2 forcing. Part I: Adapting the linear
radiative kernel technique to feedback calculations for a broad range of
forcings, J. Climate, 25, 5260–5272, 2012.
Kolly, A. and Huang, Y.: The radiative feedback during the ENSO cycle:
Observations versus models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
123, 9097–9108, 2018.
Kramer, R. J., Soden, B. J., and Pendergrass, A. G.: Evaluating Climate
Model Simulations of the Radiative Forcing and Radiative Response at Earth's
Surface, J. Climate, 32, 4089–4102, 2019a.
Kramer, R. J., Matus, A. V., Soden, B. J., and L'Ecuyer, T. S.:
Observation-based radiative kernels from CloudSat/CALIPSO, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 5431–5444, 2019b.
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., Behrens, J., Bittner, M., Brokopf, R.,
Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., and Esch, M.: Developments in the
MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1. 2) and its response to
increasing CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 998–1038,
2019.
Mlawer, E. J., Taubman, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J., and Clough, S.
A.: Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated
correlated-k model for the longwave, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 16663–16682, 1997.
Myhre, G., Kramer, R., Smith, C., Hodnebrog, Ø., Forster, P., Soden, B.,
Samset, B., Stjern, C., Andrews, T., and Boucher, O.: Quantifying the
importance of rapid adjustments for global precipitation changes,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11399–11405, 2018.
Pendergrass, A. G. and Hartmann, D. L.: The atmospheric energy constraint on
global-mean precipitation change, J. Climate, 27, 757–768, 2014.
Pendergrass, A. G., Conley, A., and Vitt, F. M.: Surface and top-of-atmosphere radiative feedback kernels for CESM-CAM5, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 317–324, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-317-2018, 2018.
Pincus, R., Buehler, S. A., Brath, M., Crevoisier, C., Jamil, O., Franklin
Evans, K., Manners, J., Menzel, R. L., Mlawer, E. J., and Paynter, D.:
Benchmark calculations of radiative forcing by greenhouse gases, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2020JD033483, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033483, 2020.
Previdi, M.: Radiative feedbacks on global precipitation, Environ.
Res. Lett., 5, 025211, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/025211, 2010.
Riihelä, A., Bright, R. M., and Anttila, K.: Recent strengthening of
snow and ice albedo feedback driven by Antarctic sea-ice loss, Nat.
Geosci., 14, 832–836, 2021.
Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and Shields, C. A.: Using the radiative kernel
technique to calculate climate feedbacks in NCAR's Community Atmospheric
Model, J. Climate, 21, 2269–2282, 2008.
Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., and Sima, A.: The HadGEM3-GA7.1 radiative kernel: the importance of a well-resolved stratosphere, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2157–2168, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2157-2020, 2020.
Soden, B. J. and Held, I. M.: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled
ocean–atmosphere models, J. Climate, 19, 3354–3360, 2006.
Soden, B. J., Held, I. M., Colman, R., Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and
Shields, C. A.: Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels,
J. Climate, 21, 3504–3520, 2008.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and
the experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, 2012.
Thorsen, T. J., Kato, S., Loeb, N. G., and Rose, F. G.: Observation-based
decomposition of radiative perturbations and radiative kernels, J.
Climate, 31, 10039–10058, 2018.
Vargas Zeppetello, L., Donohoe, A., and Battisti, D.: Does surface
temperature respond to or determine downwelling longwave radiation?,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 2781–2789, 2019.
Vial, J., Dufresne, J.-L., and Bony, S.: On the interpretation of
inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates, Clim. Dynam.,
41, 3339–3362, 2013.
Voldoire, A., Saint-Martin, D., Sénési, S., Decharme, B., Alias, A.,
Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Guérémy, J. F., Michou, M., and Moine, M.
P.: Evaluation of CMIP6 deck experiments with CNRM-CM6-1, J.
Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2177–2213, 2019.
Wetherald, R. and Manabe, S.: Cloud feedback processes in a general
circulation model, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 1397–1416, 1988.
Williams, K., Copsey, D., Blockley, E., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Calvert, D.,
Comer, R., Davis, P., Graham, T., Hewitt, H., and Hill, R.: The Met Office
global coupled model 3.0 and 3.1 (GC3. 0 and GC3. 1) configurations, J.
Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 357–380, 2018.
Wright, J. S., Sun, X., Konopka, P., Krüger, K., Legras, B., Molod, A. M., Tegtmeier, S., Zhang, G. J., and Zhao, X.: Differences in tropical high clouds among reanalyses: origins and radiative impacts, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 8989–9030, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8989-2020, 2020.
Yue, Q., Kahn, B. H., Fetzer, E. J., Schreier, M., Wong, S., Chen, X., and
Huang, X.: Observation-based longwave cloud radiative kernels derived from
the A-Train, J. Climate, 29, 2023–2040, 2016.
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., and Hartmann, D. L.: Computing and
partitioning cloud feedbacks using cloud property histograms. Part I: Cloud
radiative kernels, J. Climate, 25, 3715–3735, 2012.
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M.,
Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of higher climate
sensitivity in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782,
2020.
Zhang, B., Kramer, R. J., and Soden, B. J.: Radiative feedbacks associated
with the Madden–Julian oscillation, J. Climate, 32, 7055–7065,
2019.
Zhang, M. and Huang, Y.: Radiative forcing of quadrupling CO2, J.
Climate, 27, 2496–2508, 2014.
Zhang, Y., Jin, Z., and Sikand, M.: The top-of-atmosphere, surface and
atmospheric cloud radiative kernels based on ISCCP-H datasets: method and
evaluation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126,
e2021JD035053, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035053, 2021.
Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D., Dessler, A. E., and Yang, P.: An analysis of the
short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26,
4803–4815, 2013.
Zhou, C., Liu, Y., and Wang, Q.: Calculating the climatology and anomalies
of surface cloud radiative effect using cloud property histograms and cloud
radiative kernels, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 39, 2124-2136, 2022.
Short summary
We present a newly generated set of ERA5-based radiative kernels and compare them with other published kernels for the top of the atmosphere and surface radiation budgets. For both, the discrepancies in sensitivity values are generally of small magnitude, except for temperature kernels for the surface, likely due to improper treatment in the perturbation experiments used for kernel computation. The kernel bias is not a major cause of the inter-GCM (general circulation model) feedback spread.
We present a newly generated set of ERA5-based radiative kernels and compare them with other...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint