Published December 5, 2022 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Observed and CMIP6 Modeled Internal Variability Feedbacks and Their Relation to Forced Climate Feedbacks

Description

Abstract

Inter model variations in global temperature response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
stem mostly from uncertainties in modeled climate feedbacks. To study potential reductions in model feedback
uncertainties, we estimate observed feedbacks in response to internal variability using changes in Top Of
the Atmosphere energy balance with temperature. We compare those observations with internal variability
feedbacks from historical simulations of coupled and atmosphere-only experiments from the sixth phase of
the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) to identify that simulated feedbacks exhibit biases in the
tropics, subtropics, and the Southern Ocean. Furthermore, we find a relation between simulated longwave and
shortwave internal variability feedbacks and those where atmospheric carbon dioxide is abruptly quadrupled. In
the model range of internal variability feedbacks, the observations are more consistent with moderately negative
longwave feedback, and weak shortwave feedback, but the observations can't be used to rule out any models or
their long-term feedback.

 

Plain Language Summary

We investigate how Earth's radiation balance changes during natural
variations of temperature, comparing satellite observations to global climate models. Around the globe, we
find predominant negative radiative feedbacks, that is, that the temperature perturbation is dampened by the
longwave radiation emitted from Earth, as well as positive feedbacks from reduced reflected of sunlight during
warmer periods. The magnitudes of feedback vary across latitudes, particularly in the tropics and subtropics,
something which we can relate mostly to clouds. When compared to observations, models in the latest
generation as a group continue to misrepresent the negative longwave feedbacks in the tropics, subtropics, and
the shortwave feedback in the Southern Ocean, although a few of the new models now match the observed.
Moreover, we show that the shortwave and longwave internal variability feedbacks are related to the long-term
feedback to increasing carbon dioxide. Among the models, some underestimate and some overestimate the
negative longwave feedback range indicated by observations. In the shortwave, the observational range is less
consistent with the strongest positive and strongest negative model estimates.

 

Data Availability Statement

The CERES EBAF-TOA Ed4.1, CERES-MODIS/VIIRS, and GEO, data sets used for estimating observed TOA
fluxes and cloud properties are available at the NASA Langley Research Center via https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
data/. The Gridded temperature anomalies HadCRUT (5) data set used to estimate observed internal variability
feedbacks can be obtained from the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets at https://www.metoffice.
gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/. Used CMIP6 models can be found in Table S1 in Supporting Information S1 and are
available from ESGF at https://esgf-node.llnl.gov.

Notes

Acknowledgments: The study was supported by the European Research Council project highECS (Grant 770765), the Swedish Research Council (Grant 2018-04274), and the European Union's Horizon 2020 program projects CONSTRAIN (Grant 820829) and Next-GEMS (Grant 101003470). We thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments to the manuscript.

Files

Files (3.3 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:212b616a1ac3dc764088285abcd41d64
3.3 MB Download

Additional details

Funding

highECS – Reining in the upper bound on Earth’s Climate Sensitivities 770765
European Commission
NextGEMS – Next Generation Earth Modelling Systems 101003470
European Commission
CONSTRAIN – Constraining uncertainty of multi decadal climate projections 820829
European Commission

References

  • Arrhenius, S. (1896). On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the Earth. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 9(54), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/121158
  • Bloch-Johnson, J., Rugenstein, M., & Abbot, D. S. (2020). Spatial radiative feedbacks from internal variability using multiple regression. Journal of Climate, 33(10), 4121–4140. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0396.1
  • Bony, S., Colman, R., Kattsov, V. M., Allan, R. P., Bretherton, C. S., Dufresne, J.-L., et al. (2006). How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? Journal of Climate, 19(15), 3445–3482. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3819.1
  • Cess, R. D., Zhang, M. H., Ingram, W. J., Potter, G. L., Alekseev, V., Barker, H. W., et al. (1996). Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circula- tion models: An update. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(D8), 12791–12794. https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD00822
  • Chao, L.-W., & Dessler, A. E. (2021). An assessment of climate feedbacks in observations and climate models using different energy balance frameworks. Journal of Climate, 34(24), 9763–9773. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0226.1
  • Chung, E.-S., Soden, B. J., & Sohn, B.-J. (2010). Revisiting the determination of climate sensitivity from relationships between surface tempera- ture and radiative fluxes. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(10), L10703. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043051
  • Colman, R. (2003). A comparison of climate feedbacks in general circulation models. Climate Dynamics, 20(7), 865–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00382-003-0310-z
  • Colman, R., & Hanson, L. I. (2013). On atmospheric radiative feedbacks associated with climate variability and change. Climate Dynamics, 40(1), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1391-3
  • Croll, J. (1864). Xiii. on the physical cause of the change of climate during geological epochs. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 28(187), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786446408643733
  • Crook, J. A., Forster, P. M., & Stuber, N. (2011). Spatial patterns of modeled climate feedback and contributions to temperature response and polar amplification. Journal of Climate, 24(14), 3575–3592. https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3863.1
  • Dessler, A. E. (2013). Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000–10 and comparisons to climate models. Journal of Climate, 26(1), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1
  • Dessler, A. E., & Forster, P. M. (2018). An estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity from interannual variability. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(16), 8634–8645. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028481
  • Doelling, D. R., Sun, M., Nguyen, L. T., Nordeen, M. L., Haney, C. O., Keyes, D. F., & Mlynczak, P. E. (2016). Advances in geostationary-derived longwave fluxes for the ceres synoptic (syn1deg) product. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 33(3), 503–521. https://doi. org/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0147.1
  • Dong, Y., Proistosescu, C., Armour, K. C., & Battisti, D. S. (2019). Attributing historical and future evolution of radiative feedbacks to regional warming patterns using a green's function approach: The preeminence of the Western Pacific. Journal of Climate, 32(17), 5471–5491. https:// doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0843.1
  • Donohoe, A., Armour, K. C., Pendergrass, A. G., & Battisti, D. S. (2014). Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing Co2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(47), 16700–16705. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
  • Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., & Taylor, K. E. (2016). Overview of the coupled model inter- comparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geoscientific Model Development, 9(5), 1937–1958. https://doi. org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016
  • Feldl, N., & Roe, G. H. (2013). Four perspectives on climate feedbacks. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(15), 4007–4011. https://doi. org/10.1002/grl.50711
  • Forster, P. T., Storelvmo, T., Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J. L., Frame, D., et al. (Eds.). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group i to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (chap. 7). Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
  • Fueglistaler, S., & Silvers, L. (2021). The peculiar trajectory of global warming. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(4), e2020JD033629. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033629
  • Gregory, J. M., Ingram, W. J., Palmer, M. A., Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A., Thorpe, R. B., & Williams, K. D. (2004). A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3), L03205. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747
  • Grise, K. M., & Polvani, L. M. (2014). Southern hemisphere cloud? dynamics biases in CMIP5 models and their implications for climate projec- tions. Journal of Climate, 27(15), 6074–6092. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00113.1
  • Hartmann, D. L., & Larson, K. (2002). An important constraint on tropical cloud - Climate feedback. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(20), 12-1–12-4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015835
  • Hedemann, C., Mauritsen, T., Jungclaus, J., & Marotzke, J. (2022). Reconciling conflicting accounts of local radiative feedbacks in climate models. Journal of Climate, 35(10), 3131–3146. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0513.1
  • Lewis, N., & Mauritsen, T. (2021). Negligible unforced historical pattern effect on climate feedback strength found in hadisst-Based AMIP simu- lations. Journal of Climate, 34(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0941.1
  • Lindzen, R. S., Chou, M.-D., & Hou, A. Y. (2001). Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82(3), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082〈0417:DTEHAA〉2.3.CO;2
  • Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G., et al. (2018). Clouds and the Earth?s radiant energy system (CERES) energy balanced and filled (EBAF) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) edition-4.0 data product. Journal of Climate, 31(2), 895–918. https://doi. org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1
  • Lutsko, N. J., Popp, M., Nazarian, R. H., & Albright, A. L. (2021). Emergent constraints on regional cloud feedbacks. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(10), e2021GL092934. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092934
  • Lutsko, N. J., & Takahashi, K. (2018). What can the internal variability of CMIP5 models tell us about their climate sensitivity? Journal of Climate, 31(13), 5051–5069. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0736.1
  • Manabe, S., & Wetherald, R. T. (1967). Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 24(3), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024〈0241:TEOTAW〉2.0.CO;2
  • Mauritsen, T., & Stevens, B. (2015). Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models. Nature Geoscience, 8(5), 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2414
  • Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., Winn, J. P., Hogan, E., Killick, R. E., et al. (2021). An updated assessment of near-surface temper- ature change from 1850: The HadCRUT5 data set. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(3), e2019JD032361. https://doi. org/10.1029/2019JD032361
  • NRC. (1979). Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12181
  • Pierrehumbert, R. T. (1995). Thermostats, radiator fins, and the local runaway greenhouse. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 52(10), 1784– 1806. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052〈1784:TRFATL〉2.0.CO;2
  • Proistosescu, C., Donohoe, A., Armour, K. C., Roe, G. H., Stuecker, M. F., & Bitz, C. M. (2018). Radiative feedbacks from stochastic variability in surface temperature and radiative imbalance. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(10), 5082–5094. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077678
  • Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S., Boucher, O., Bretherton, C., Forster, P. M., Gregory, J. M., & Stevens, B. (2015). Adjustments in the forcing-feedback framework for understanding climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1175/ BAMS-D-13-00167.1
  • Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., et al. (2020). An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence. Reviews of Geophysics, 58(4), e2019RG000678. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678
  • Soden, B. J., Broccoli, A. J., & Hemler, R. S. (2004). On the use of cloud forcing to estimate cloud feedback. Journal of Climate, 17(19), 3661–3665. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017〈3661:OTUOCF〉2.0.CO;2
  • Stommel, H. (1961). Thermohaline convection with two stable regimes of flow. Tellus, 13(2), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1961. tb00079.x
  • Trenberth, K. E., Zhang, Y., Fasullo, J. T., & Taguchi, S. (2015). Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120(9), 3642–3659. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022887
  • Williamson, M. S., Thackeray, C. W., Cox, P. M., Hall, A., Huntingford, C., & Nijsse, F. J. M. M. (2021). Emergent constraints on climate sensi- tivities. Reviews of Modern Physics, 93(2), 025004. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025004
  • Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D., Dessler, A. E., & Klein, S. A. (2015). The relationship between interannual and long-term cloud feedbacks. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(23), 10463–10469. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066698
  • Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D., & Klein, S. A. (2017). Analyzing the dependence of global cloud feedback on the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature change with a green's function approach. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 9(5), 2174–2189. https://doi. org/10.1002/2017MS001096