Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth's Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget
Open accessAbstract
Despite recent improvements in satellite instrument calibration and the algorithms used to determine reflected solar (SW) and emitted thermal (LW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes, a sizeable imbalance persists in the average global net radiation at the TOA from satellite observations. This imbalance is problematic in applications that use earth radiation budget (ERB) data for climate model evaluation, estimate the earth’s annual global mean energy budget, and in studies that infer meridional heat transports. This study provides a detailed error analysis of TOA fluxes based on the latest generation of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) gridded monthly mean data products [the monthly TOA/surface averages geostationary (SRBAVG-GEO)] and uses an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their range of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system. The 5-yr global mean CERES net flux from the standard CERES product is 6.5 W m−2, much larger than the best estimate of 0.85 W m−2 based on observed ocean heat content data and model simulations. The major sources of uncertainty in the CERES estimate are from instrument calibration (4.2 W m−2) and the assumed value for total solar irradiance (1 W m−2). After adjustment, the global mean CERES SW TOA flux is 99.5 W m−2, corresponding to an albedo of 0.293, and the global mean LW TOA flux is 239.6 W m−2. These values differ markedly from previously published adjusted global means based on the ERB Experiment in which the global mean SW TOA flux is 107 W m−2 and the LW TOA flux is 234 W m−2.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
All radiative metrics but one were given a 1σ tolerance to error of ±5 W/m2 for an observational uncertainty of about 4 W/m2 for the CERES-EBAF L3b satellite product.
“All the radiative metrics but one were given a 1σ tolerance to error of ±5 W/m2 for an observational uncertainty of about 4 W/m2 for the CERES-EBAF L3b satellite product used as target”
From Toward machine-assisted tuning avoiding the underestimation of uncertainty in climate change projections (2023) · cites this paper as [46]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., et al. (2020) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2019rg000678 · Cited by 1,254 · see citing works
A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance: FRONTIER
Kopp, G., & Lean, J. L. (2011) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2010gl045777 · Cited by 1,049 · see citing works
The Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6)
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerny, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2019jd030943 · Cited by 786 · see citing works
Hourdin, F., Foujols, M.-A., Codron, F., Guemas, V., Dufresne, J.-L., Bony, S., Denvil, S., Guez, L., Lott, F., Ghattas, J., et al. (2013) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1411-3 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Hourdin, F., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Rio, C., Bony, S., Jam, A., Cheruy, F., Rochetin, N., Fairhead, L., Idelkadi, A., Musat, I., et al. (2013) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1343-y · Cited by 299 · see citing works
LMDZ6A: The Atmospheric Component of the IPSL Climate Model With Improved and Better Tuned Physics
Hourdin, F., Rio, C., Grandpeix, J., Madeleine, J., Cheruy, F., Rochetin, N., Jam, A., Musat, I., Idelkadi, A., Fairhead, L., et al. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001892 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Fiedler, S., Crueger, T., D’Agostino, R., Peters, K., Becker, T., Leutwyler, D., Paccini, L., Burdanowitz, J., Buehler, S. A., Cortes, A. U., et al. (2020) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-19-0404.1 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Anthropogenic aerosol indirect effects in cirrus clouds
Penner, J. E., Zhou, C., Garnier, A., & Mitchell, D. L. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2018jd029204 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Hourdin, F., Williamson, D., Rio, C., Couvreux, F., Roehrig, R., Villefranque, N., Musat, I., Fairhead, L., Diallo, F. B., & Volodina, V. (2021) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2020ms002225 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
The influence of cloud feedbacks on equatorial Atlantic variability.
Bellomo, K., Clement, A. C., Mauritsen, T., Rädel, G., & Stevens, B. (2015) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00495.1 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Hourdin, F., Ferster, B., Deshayes, J., Mignot, J., Musat, I., & Williamson, D. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adf2758 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“All the radiative metrics but one were given a 1σ tolerance to error of ±5 W/m(2) for an observational uncertainty of about 4 W/ m(2) for the CERES-EBAF L3b satellite product used as target (46).”
MethodSimulating the Regional Impact of Dust on the Middle East Climate and the Red Sea
Osipov, S., & Stenchikov, G. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans · doi:10.1002/2017jc013335 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Convective Boundary Layer Control of the Sea Surface Temperature in the Tropics
Hourdin, F., Rio, C., Jam, A., Traore, A., & Musat, I. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001988 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
- Authors
- Loeb, N. G., Wielicki, B. A., Doelling, D. R., Smith, G. L., Keyes, D. F., Kato, S., Manalo-Smith, N., & Wong, T.
- Affiliations
- Langley Research Center (US)
- National Institute of Aerospace (US)
- Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Hampton, Virginia
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2009-02-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 748-766
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2015320755
- Cited by
- 960
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 57
- FWCI
- 17.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Calibration and Measurement Techniques
- Keywords
- Earth radiation budget, top-of-atmosphere radiation budget, Ceres, total solar irradiance, ocean heat content, thermal energy storage, climate model evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
