This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Clouds play an important role in Earth’s radiation budget and hydrological cycle. However, current global climate models (GCMs) have difficulties in accurately simulating clouds and precipitation. To improve the representation of clouds in climate models, it is crucial to identify where simulated clouds differ from real world observations of them. This can be difficult, since significant differences exist between how a climate model represents clouds and what instruments observe, both in terms of spatial scale and the properties of the hydrometeors which are either modeled or observed. To address these issues and minimize impacts of instrument limitations, the concept of instrument “simulators”, which convert model variables into pseudo-instrument observations, has evolved with the goal to facilitate and to improve the comparison of modeled clouds with observations. Many simulators have been (and continue to be) developed for a variety of instruments and purposes. Finally, a community satellite simulator package, the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP; Bodas-Salcedo et al. 2011), contains several independent satellite simulators and is being widely used in the global climate modeling community to exploit satellite observations for model cloud evaluation (e.g., Kay et al. 2012; Klein et al. 2013; Suzuki et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2010).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: