DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Constraining the low-cloud optical depth feedback at middle and high latitudes using satellite observations

Abstract

The increase in cloud optical depth with warming at middle and high latitudes is a robust cloud feedback response found across all climate models. This study builds on results that suggest the optical depth response to temperature is timescale invariant for low-level clouds. The timescale invariance allows one to use satellite observations to constrain the models' optical depth feedbacks. Three passive-sensor satellite retrievals are compared against simulations from eight models from the Atmosphere Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) of the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This study confirms that the low-cloud optical depth response is timescale invariant in the AMIP simulations, generally at latitudes higher than 40°. Compared to satellite estimates, most models overestimate the increase in optical depth with warming at the monthly and interannual timescales. Many models also do not capture the increase in optical depth with estimated inversion strength that is found in all three satellite observations and in previous studies. The discrepancy between models and satellites exists in both hemispheres and in most months of the year. A simple replacement of the models' optical depth sensitivities with the satellites' sensitivities reduces the negative shortwave cloud feedback by at least 50% in the 40°–70°S latitude band andmore » by at least 65% in the 40°–70°N latitude band. Furthermore, based on this analysis of satellite observations, we conclude that the low-cloud optical depth feedback at middle and high latitudes is likely too negative in climate models.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1]; ORCiD logo [1]
  1. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1329360
Report Number(s):
LLNL-JRNL-688437
Journal ID: ISSN 2169-897X
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC52-07NA27344
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 121; Journal Issue: 16; Journal ID: ISSN 2169-897X
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES

Citation Formats

Terai, C. R., Klein, S. A., and Zelinka, M. D. Constraining the low-cloud optical depth feedback at middle and high latitudes using satellite observations. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1002/2016JD025233.
Terai, C. R., Klein, S. A., & Zelinka, M. D. Constraining the low-cloud optical depth feedback at middle and high latitudes using satellite observations. United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025233
Terai, C. R., Klein, S. A., and Zelinka, M. D. Fri . "Constraining the low-cloud optical depth feedback at middle and high latitudes using satellite observations". United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025233. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1329360.
@article{osti_1329360,
title = {Constraining the low-cloud optical depth feedback at middle and high latitudes using satellite observations},
author = {Terai, C. R. and Klein, S. A. and Zelinka, M. D.},
abstractNote = {The increase in cloud optical depth with warming at middle and high latitudes is a robust cloud feedback response found across all climate models. This study builds on results that suggest the optical depth response to temperature is timescale invariant for low-level clouds. The timescale invariance allows one to use satellite observations to constrain the models' optical depth feedbacks. Three passive-sensor satellite retrievals are compared against simulations from eight models from the Atmosphere Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) of the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This study confirms that the low-cloud optical depth response is timescale invariant in the AMIP simulations, generally at latitudes higher than 40°. Compared to satellite estimates, most models overestimate the increase in optical depth with warming at the monthly and interannual timescales. Many models also do not capture the increase in optical depth with estimated inversion strength that is found in all three satellite observations and in previous studies. The discrepancy between models and satellites exists in both hemispheres and in most months of the year. A simple replacement of the models' optical depth sensitivities with the satellites' sensitivities reduces the negative shortwave cloud feedback by at least 50% in the 40°–70°S latitude band and by at least 65% in the 40°–70°N latitude band. Furthermore, based on this analysis of satellite observations, we conclude that the low-cloud optical depth feedback at middle and high latitudes is likely too negative in climate models.},
doi = {10.1002/2016JD025233},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres},
number = 16,
volume = 121,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Aug 26 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Fri Aug 26 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 47 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Thermodynamic constraint on the cloud liquid water feedback in climate models
journal, January 1987


Observational evidence for a negative shortwave cloud feedback in middle to high latitudes: OBSERVED SHORTWAVE CLOUD FEEDBACK
journal, February 2016

  • Ceppi, Paulo; McCoy, Daniel T.; Hartmann, Dennis L.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 43, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015GL067499

Linear least‐squares fits with errors in both coordinates. II: Comments on parameter variances
journal, January 1992

  • Reed, B. Cameron
  • American Journal of Physics, Vol. 60, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1119/1.17044

Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre, ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models
journal, September 2001


The response of the Southern Hemispheric eddy-driven jet to future changes in shortwave radiation in CMIP5: CEPPI ET AL.
journal, May 2014

  • Ceppi, Paulo; Zelinka, Mark D.; Hartmann, Dennis L.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060043

The Standard Error of Time-Average Estimates of Climatic Means
journal, September 1973


Evaluation of the cloud thermodynamic phase in a climate model using CALIPSO-GOCCP: CALIPSO-GOCCP CLOUD THERMODYNAMIC PHASE
journal, July 2013

  • Cesana, Grégory; Chepfer, Hélène
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 14
  • DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50376

Cloud optical thickness feedbacks in the CO 2 climate problem
journal, January 1984

  • Somerville, Richard C. J.; Remer, Lorraine A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 89, Issue D6
  • DOI: 10.1029/JD089iD06p09668

Observational constraints on mixed-phase clouds imply higher climate sensitivity
journal, April 2016


On the relationships among cloud cover, mixed-phase partitioning, and planetary albedo in GCMs: CLOUD COVER, MIXED-PHASE, AND ALBEDO
journal, May 2016

  • McCoy, Daniel T.; Tan, Ivy; Hartmann, Dennis L.
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 8, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015MS000589

The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system
journal, April 2011

  • Dee, D. P.; Uppala, S. M.; Simmons, A. J.
  • Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 137, Issue 656
  • DOI: 10.1002/qj.828

Atmospheric component of the MPI-M Earth System Model: ECHAM6: ECHAM6
journal, April 2013

  • Stevens, Bjorn; Giorgetta, Marco; Esch, Monika
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 5, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/jame.20015

Mechanisms of marine low cloud sensitivity to idealized climate perturbations: A single-LES exploration extending the CGILS cases: LES OF BOUNDARY-LAYER CLOUD FEEDBACK
journal, May 2013

  • Bretherton, Christopher S.; Blossey, Peter N.; Jones, Christopher R.
  • Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 5, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/jame.20019

Emergent Constraints for Cloud Feedbacks
journal, October 2015


The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model climate configurations
journal, January 2011

  • Bellouin, N.; Collins, W. J.; Culverwell, I. D.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 4, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-4-723-2011

A review of cloud top height and optical depth histograms from MISR, ISCCP, and MODIS
journal, January 2010

  • Marchand, Roger; Ackerman, Thomas; Smyth, Mike
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, Issue D16
  • DOI: 10.1029/2009JD013422

A New Global Climate Model of the Meteorological Research Institute: MRI-CGCM3 ^|^mdash;Model Description and Basic Performance^|^mdash;
journal, January 2012

  • Yukimoto, Seiji; Adachi, Yukimasa; Hosaka, Masahiro
  • Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, Vol. 90A, Issue 0
  • DOI: 10.2151/jmsj.2012-A02

The Canadian Fourth Generation Atmospheric Global Climate Model (CanAM4). Part I: Representation of Physical Processes
journal, February 2013


Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed-phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. I: single-layer cloud
journal, April 2009

  • Klein, Stephen A.; McCoy, Renata B.; Morrison, Hugh
  • Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 135, Issue 641
  • DOI: 10.1002/qj.416

Multimodel evaluation of cloud phase transition using satellite and reanalysis data
journal, August 2015

  • Cesana, G.; Waliser, D. E.; Jiang, X.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, Issue 15
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022932

Evaluating and improving cloud phase in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 using spaceborne lidar observations: CAM Cloud Phase Evaluation with CALIPSO
journal, April 2016

  • Kay, Jennifer E.; Bourdages, Line; Miller, Nathaniel B.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 121, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024699

Large Contribution of Supercooled Liquid Clouds to the Solar Radiation Budget of the Southern Ocean
journal, June 2016


Low-cloud optical depth feedback in climate models: Optical Depth Feedback
journal, May 2014

  • Gordon, Neil D.; Klein, Stephen A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD021052

On the spread of changes in marine low cloud cover in climate model simulations of the 21st century
journal, September 2013


COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment
journal, August 2011

  • Bodas-Salcedo, A.; Webb, M. J.; Bony, S.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 92, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1

Processes controlling Southern Ocean shortwave climate feedbacks in CESM: CESM SOUTHERN OCEAN CLIMATE feedbacks
journal, January 2014

  • Kay, J. E.; Medeiros, B.; Hwang, Y. -T.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013GL058315

The Temperature Dependence of the Liquid Water Path of Low Clouds in the Southern Great Plains
journal, October 2000


The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model: description and basic evaluation
journal, January 2012


Works referencing / citing this record:

Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models: Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in GCMs
journal, May 2017

  • Ceppi, Paulo; Brient, Florent; Zelinka, Mark D.
  • Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 8, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1002/wcc.465

Observational Constraints on Cloud Feedbacks: The Role of Active Satellite Sensors
book, January 2017


Low-Cloud Feedbacks from Cloud-Controlling Factors: A Review
book, May 2016

  • Klein, Stephen A.; Hall, Alex; Norris, Joel R.
  • Shallow Clouds, Water Vapor, Circulation, and Climate Sensitivity
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-77273-8_7

Observational Constraints on Cloud Feedbacks: The Role of Active Satellite Sensors
journal, November 2017


Processes Responsible for Cloud Feedback
journal, October 2016


Mechanisms Behind the Extratropical Stratiform Low‐Cloud Optical Depth Response to Temperature in ARM Site Observations
journal, February 2019

  • Terai, C. R.; Zhang, Y.; Klein, S. A.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018jd029359

Quantifying climate feedbacks in polar regions
journal, May 2018


Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change
journal, March 2019


The importance of mixed-phase and ice clouds for climate sensitivity in the global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6-HAM2
journal, January 2018


Cloud feedbacks in extratropical cyclones: insight from long-term satellite data and high-resolution global simulations
journal, January 2019

  • McCoy, Daniel T.; Field, Paul R.; Elsaesser, Gregory S.
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 19, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-19-1147-2019

Elucidating ice formation pathways in the aerosol–climate model ECHAM6-HAM2
journal, January 2019

  • Dietlicher, Remo; Neubauer, David; Lohmann, Ulrike
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 19, Issue 14
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-19-9061-2019

Cloud property datasets retrieved from AVHRR, MODIS, AATSR and MERIS in the framework of the Cloud_cci project
journal, January 2017

  • Stengel, Martin; Stapelberg, Stefan; Sus, Oliver
  • Earth System Science Data, Vol. 9, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/essd-9-881-2017

The Cloud_cci simulator v1.0 for the Cloud_cci climate data record and its application to a global and a regional climate model
journal, January 2019

  • Eliasson, Salomon; Karlsson, Karl Göran; van Meijgaard, Erik
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 12, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-12-829-2019

A simulator for the CLARA-A2 cloud climate data record and its application to assess EC-Earth polar cloudiness
journal, January 2020

  • Eliasson, Salomon; Karlsson, Karl-Göran; Willén, Ulrika
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 13, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-13-297-2020

Low-Cloud Feedbacks from Cloud-Controlling Factors: A Review
journal, October 2017


Cloud property datasets retrieved from AVHRR, MODIS, AATSR and MERIS in the framework of the Cloud_cci project
posted_content, June 2017

  • Stengel, Martin; Stapelberg, Stefan; Sus, Oliver
  • Earth System Science Data Discussions
  • DOI: 10.5194/essd-2017-48

A simulator for the CLARA-A2 cloud climate data record and its application to assess EC-Earth polar cloudiness
posted_content, August 2019

  • Eliasson, Salomon; Karlsson, Karl-Göran; Willén, Ulrika
  • Geoscientific Model Development Discussions
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-2019-174