The Spectral Latent Heating (SLH) algorithm has been developed to estimate Q1-QR (hereinafter Q1R) and Q2 profiles for the TRMM PR (Shige, Takayabu et al. 2004, 2007, 2008) where QR is the radiative cooling/heating rate. The method uses PR information [precipitation top height (PTH), precipitation rates at the surface and melting level, and rain type] to select Q1R and Q2 profiles from lookup tables. Lookup tables for the three rain types—convective, shallow stratiform, and anvil rain (deep stratiform with a melting level)—were derived from numerical simulations of tropical cloud systems from the TOGA-COARE utilizing a cloud-resolving model (CRM). The SLH-retrieved Q1R [+ TRMM QR (L’Ecuyer and Stephens 2003)] and Q2 profiles for the SCSMEX NESA are in good agreement with sounding-based ones from Johnson and Ciesielski (2002). Differences of Q1R and Q2 profiles between western Pacific and Atlantic estimated by the SLH algorithm are also consistent with those from the budget study (e.g., Thompson et al. 1979). The two-dimensional (“2D”) version of the Goddard Cumulus Ensemble (GCE) model was used in the previous studies. The availability of exponentially increasing computer capabilities has resulted in three-dimensional (“3D”) CRM simulations for multiday periods with large horizontal domains becoming increasing prevalent. Although real clouds and cloud systems are three-dimensional, a 3D CRM does not automatically give more realistic simulation than a 2D one. This is because the results of the simulation depend very strongly on incomplete and uncertain parameterizations of ice-microphysical processes. In this study, we compare performance of the SLH algorithm using look-up tables from the two- and three-dimensional CRM simulations. The lookup table from 3D simulations leads to less agreement between the SLH-retrieved heating and sounding-based one for the SCSMEX NESA. The level of SLH-estimated maximum heating is lower than that of the sounding-derived one. This is explained by the fact that the 3D lookup table produces stronger convective heating and weaker stratiform heating above the melting level that 2D counterpart. Condensate generated in and carried over from the convective region is larger in 3D than in 2D, and condensate that is produced by the stratiform region’s own upward motion is smaller in 3D than 2D.