Implications of a Pervasive Climate Model Bias for Low‐Cloud Feedback

Abstract How low clouds respond to warming constitutes a key uncertainty for climate projections. Here we observationally constrain low‐cloud feedback through a controlling factor analysis based on ridge regression. We find a moderately positive global low‐cloud feedback (0.45 W , 90% range 0.18–0.72 W ), about twice the mean value (0.22 W ) of 16 models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. We link this discrepancy to a pervasive model mean‐state bias: models underestimate the low‐cloud response to warming because (a) they systematically underestimate present‐day tropical marine low‐cloud amount, and (b) the low‐cloud sensitivity to warming is proportional to this present‐day low‐cloud amount. Our results hence highlight the importance of reducing model biases in both the mean state of clouds and their sensitivity to environmental factors for accurate climate change projections.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2024-10-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gl110525
Citations
20
Primary Topic
Climate variability and models
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.65

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Implications of a Pervasive Climate Model Bias for Low‐Cloud Feedback

Timothy A. Myers, Peer Johannes Nowack, Mark D. Zelinka, Casey J. Wall et al.
20 citations
Geophysical Research Letters
Climate variability and models
5.65
article

Implications of a Pervasive Climate Model Bias for Low‐Cloud Feedback

Timothy A. Myers, Peer Johannes Nowack, Mark D. Zelinka, Casey J. Wall, Paulo Ceppi
article en
20 citations

Abstract

Abstract How low clouds respond to warming constitutes a key uncertainty for climate projections. Here we observationally constrain low‐cloud feedback through a controlling factor analysis based on ridge regression. We find a moderately positive global low‐cloud feedback (0.45 W , 90% range 0.18–0.72 W ), about twice the mean value (0.22 W ) of 16 models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. We link this discrepancy to a pervasive model mean‐state bias: models underestimate the low‐cloud response to warming because (a) they systematically underestimate present‐day tropical marine low‐cloud amount, and (b) the low‐cloud sensitivity to warming is proportional to this present‐day low‐cloud amount. Our results hence highlight the importance of reducing model biases in both the mean state of clouds and their sensitivity to environmental factors for accurate climate change projections.

Geophysical Research LettersVol. 51(20)
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US), Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (US), University of Oslo (NO), University of Colorado Boulder (US), Imperial College London (GB)
Sight Research UK, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Climate variability and models
5.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.