Importance of the mixed-phase cloud distribution in the control climate for assessing the response of clouds to carbon dioxide increase: a multi-model study

We have conducted a multi-model intercomparison of cloud-water in five state-of-the-art AGCMs run for control and doubled carbon dioxide climates. The most notable feature of the differences between the control and doubled carbon dioxide climates is in the distribution of cloud-water in the mixed-phase temperature band. The difference is greatest at mid and high latitudes. We found that the amount of cloud ice in the mixed phase layer in the control climate largely determines how much the cloud-water distribution changes for the doubled carbon dioxide climate. Therefore evaluation of the cloud ice distribution by comparison with data is important for future climate sensitivity studies. Cloud ice and cloud liquid both decrease in the layer below the melting layer, but only cloud liquid increases in the mixed-phase layer. Although the decrease in cloud-water below the melting layer occurs at all latitudes, the increase in cloud liquid in the mixed-phase layer is restricted to those latitudes where there is a large amount of cloud ice in the mixed-phase layer. If the cloud ice in the mixed-phase layer is concentrated at high latitudes, doubling of carbon dioxide might shift the center of cloud water distribution poleward which could decrease solar reflection because solar insolation is less at higher latitude. The magnitude of this poleward shift of cloud water appears to be larger for the higher climate sensitivity models, and it is consistent with the associated changes in cloud albedo forcing. For the control climate there is a clear relationship between the differences in cloud-water and relative humidity between the different models, for both magnitude and distribution. On the other hand the ratio of cloud ice to cloud-water follows the threshold temperature which is determined in each model. Improved measurements of relative humidity could be used to constrain the modeled representation of cloud water. At the same time, comparative analysis in global cloud resolving model simulations is necessary for further understanding of the relationships suggested in this paper.     

On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles

Global and local feedback analysis techniques have been applied to two ensembles of mixed layer equilibrium CO₂ doubling climate change experiments, from the CFMIP (Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project) and QUMP (Quantifying Uncertainty in Model Predictions) projects. Neither of these new ensembles shows evidence of a statistically significant change in the ensemble mean or variance in global mean climate sensitivity when compared with the results from the mixed layer models quoted in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Global mean feedback analysis of these two ensembles confirms the large contribution made by inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks to those in climate sensitivity in earlier studies; net cloud feedbacks are responsible for 66% of the inter-model variance in the total feedback in the CFMIP ensemble and 85% in the QUMP ensemble. The ensemble mean global feedback components are all statistically indistinguishable between the two ensembles, except for the clear-sky shortwave feedback which is stronger in the CFMIP ensemble. While ensemble variances of the shortwave cloud feedback and both clear-sky feedback terms are larger in CFMIP, there is considerable overlap in the cloud feedback ranges; QUMP spans 80% or more of the CFMIP ranges in longwave and shortwave cloud feedback. We introduce a local cloud feedback classification system which distinguishes different types of cloud feedbacks on the basis of the relative strengths of their longwave and shortwave components, and interpret these in terms of responses of different cloud types diagnosed by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project simulator. In the CFMIP ensemble, areas where low-top cloud changes constitute the largest cloud response are responsible for 59% of the contribution from cloud feedback to the variance in the total feedback. A similar figure is found for the QUMP ensemble. Areas of positive low cloud feedback (associated with reductions in low level cloud amount) contribute most to this figure in the CFMIP ensemble, while areas of negative cloud feedback (associated with increases in low level cloud amount and optical thickness) contribute most in QUMP. Classes associated with high-top cloud feedbacks are responsible for 33 and 20% of the cloud feedback contribution in CFMIP and QUMP, respectively, while classes where no particular cloud type stands out are responsible for 8 and 21%.     

Diagnosing Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models

We review the methodologies used to quantify climate feedbacks in coupled models. The method of radiative kernels is outlined and used to illustrate the dependence of lapse rate, water vapor, surface albedo, and cloud feedbacks on (1) the length of the time average used to define two projected climate states and (2) the time separation between the two climate states. Except for the shortwave component of water vapor feedback, all feedback processes exhibit significant high-frequency variations and intermodel variability of feedback strengths for sub-decadal time averages. It is also found that the uncertainty of lapse rate, water vapor, and cloud feedback decreases with the increase in the time separation. The results suggest that one can substantially reduce the uncertainty of cloud and other feedbacks with the accumulation of accurate, long-term records of satellite observations; however, several decades may be required.     

A comparison of low-latitude cloud properties and their response to climate change in three AGCMs sorted into regimes using mid-tropospheric vertical velocity

Low-latitude cloud distributions and cloud responses to climate perturbations are compared in near-current versions of three leading U.S. AGCMs, the NCAR CAM 3.0, the GFDL AM2.12b, and the NASA GMAO NSIPP-2 model. The analysis technique of Bony et al. (Clim Dyn 22:71–86, 2004) is used to sort cloud variables by dynamical regime using the monthly mean pressure velocity ω at 500 hPa from 30S to 30N. All models simulate the climatological monthly mean top-of-atmosphere longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF) adequately in all ω-regimes. However, they disagree with each other and with ISCCP satellite observations in regime-sorted cloud fraction, condensate amount, and cloud-top height. All models have too little cloud with tops in the middle troposphere and too much thin cirrus in ascent regimes. In subsidence regimes one model simulates cloud condensate to be too near the surface, while another generates condensate over an excessively deep layer of the lower troposphere. Standardized climate perturbation experiments of the three models are also compared, including uniform SST increase, patterned SST increase, and doubled CO₂ over a mixed layer ocean. The regime-sorted cloud and CRF perturbations are very different between models, and show lesser, but still significant, differences between the same model simulating different types of imposed climate perturbation. There is a negative correlation across all general circulation models (GCMs) and climate perturbations between changes in tropical low cloud cover and changes in net CRF, suggesting a dominant role for boundary layer cloud in these changes. For some of the cases presented, upper-level clouds in deep convection regimes are also important, and changes in such regimes can either reinforce or partially cancel the net CRF response from the boundary layer cloud in subsidence regimes. This study highlights the continuing uncertainty in both low and high cloud feedbacks simulated by GCMs.