Moderate climate sensitivity due to opposing mixed-phase cloud feedbacks

Moderate climate sensitivity due to opposing mixed-phase cloud feedbacks

Introduction

How much will Earth ultimately warm in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations? The answer to this fundamental question about the climate sensitivity of Earth has plagued climate science for decades. Early estimates of Earth’s climate sensitivity spanned 3 °C, ranging from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C1. Global climate models (GCMs) participating in the Fifth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) have since estimated a narrower range spanning from 2.0 °C to 4.6 °C2. However, the range in climate sensitivity estimated by GCMs participating in the most recent Sixth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) has increased by 1.2 °C relative to CMIP5 and now spans from 1.8 °C to 5.6 °C3. Moreover, of the GCMs participating in CMIP6, 9 out of 27 of them estimate a climate sensitivity value that exceeds the upper range of 4.6 °C estimated by the GCMs participating in CMIP5. This “hot model problem”4 has since been reconciled with expert judgment based on data from the historical period and paleoclimate records resulting in a very likely (5–95%) range of 2.3 °C to 4.7 °C5. This range is comparable to but 0.6 °C narrower than the very likely range of 2 °C to 5 °C derived in the IPCC’s most recent Sixth Assessment Report6.

The representation of the surface temperature-mediated response of clouds in GCMs is a longstanding and dominant source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity6,7. Many studies have since focused on identifying sources of errors in the representation of clouds in GCMs that impact climate sensitivity in various latitudinal regions8,9,10,11,12,13. In the extratropical regions, transitions in the thermodynamic phase of hydrometeors within mixed-phase clouds in the ~−38 °C to 0 °C temperature range are a robust feature of global warming experiments performed by GCMs14. This cloud-phase feedback involves the replacement of ice with supercooled liquid within mixed-phase clouds due to the deepening of the troposphere in response to global warming15. Since liquid droplets are typically more abundant and smaller in size compared to ice crystals16, the transition to more liquid-dominated mixed-phase clouds in response to global warming reflects more sunlight back out to space17. The net result is a negative feedback that counteracts global warming, with pre-warmed climate states exhibiting lower supercooled liquid fractions within mixed-phase clouds leading to a more negative feedback due to the larger replacement of ice with liquid due to the cloud-phase feedback. Many of the GCMs participating in CMIP5 were found to underestimate the supercooled liquid fraction within mixed-phase clouds relative to satellite observations on a global scale18,19. When the supercooled liquid fractions of these GCMs were composited in temperature bins over the Southern Ocean, the temperature at which half of the clouds glaciated—termed T50—exhibited a spread of nearly 40 °C, with the majority of GCMs producing excessively warm T50 values that indicate an underestimate in the supercooled liquid fraction within mixed-phase clouds20.

Results

Evolution of cloud phase partitioning from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Several GCMs participating in CMIP6 have since improved their representation of mixed-phase clouds21,22,23. To examine how T50 evolved from CMIP5 and CMIP6, we systematically calculate T50 for the full ensemble of 61 GCMs with available data from experiments representative of preindustrial conditions (piControl)24,25. These calculations use cloud mixing ratios and local temperature in model grid cells. We focused on the extratropics (latitudes poleward of 60° in both hemispheres) as mixed-phase clouds are particularly ubiquitous in these regions26,27,28,29,30,31. We also calculate T50 produced by experiments holding sea surface temperature and sea ice constant to 1978 − 2006 conditions (AMIP)32. We additionally calculated T50 using occurrences of cloud liquid and ice produced by a lidar simulator designed to be consistent with an active satellite product, GCM-Oriented CALIPSO Cloud Product (GOCCP)33 derived from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) instrument34 within the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) framework35.

Overall, the ensemble mean T50 of the GCMs participating in CMIP6 is −21 °C and is 4.2 °C colder than the ensemble mean T50 of —15.8 °C of the GCMs participating in CMIP5 (Fig. 1). Observations of T50 derived from GOCCP yield a T50 estimate of −19.7 °C in the extratropics. This observed T50 value is comparable to the multimodel ensemble average of −21 °C in CMIP6, however, arises from averaging 18 GCMs that overestimate the fraction of supercooled liquid water within mixed-phase clouds and 17 GCMs that underestimate this fraction. This contrasts with the 21 out of 26 GCMs that underestimate the supercooled liquid fraction of mixed-phase clouds in participating in CMIP5. The spread in T50 in both generations of GCMs is equally large, spanning ≈30 °C.

Fig. 1: Histogram quantifying the evolution of T50 from CMIP5 to CMIP6.
Moderate climate sensitivity due to opposing mixed-phase cloud feedbacks

Counts represent the number of GCMs participating in CMIP5 (blue) and CMIP6 (orange) with extratropical T50 values within a 1 °C bin. The red, black, and blue dashed lines represent the average T50 across all GCMs participating in CMIP6, the observed T50 derived from GOCCP, and the average T50 across all GCMs participating in CMIP5, respectively.

Full size image

The generally enhanced proportion of supercooled liquid water within mixed-phase clouds simulated by the most recent generation of GCMs participating in CMIP6 (Fig. 1) is consistent with previous literature21,22,36,37; there are more GCMs with cold T50 values in CMIP6 than CMIP5, and several GCMs simulate T50 values close to the homogeneous freezing temperature of ≈−38 °C. This result is consistent across both piControl and AMIP experiments as most GCMs produce similar T50 values for both experiments (Fig. S1a). However, the COSP lidar simulator produces a dissimilar distribution of T50 values, with values that are ≥9 °C colder than those calculated using the raw cloud mass variables in half of the GCMs with data available (Fig. S1b). Indeed, a recent reexamination of the thresholds of layer-integrated depolarization ratio and layer-integrated attenuated backscatter of fully attenuating clouds that are incorporated in the CALIOP phase discrimination algorithm suggests a greater proportion of ice hydrometeors within mixed-phase clouds than originally reported38. For example, equatorward of 50°S in the Southern Ocean where mixed-phase clouds are ubiquitous, a T50 value of ≈ −26 °C was derived from the vantage point of ship-based lidar observations while the T50 value based on spaceborne lidar observations shows substantially more liquid and is ≈−31 °C39. Therefore, the lidar simulator potentially overestimates the fraction of supercooled liquid within mixed-phase clouds and we use the raw GCM cloud mass variables in our main analysis to maximize the number of GCMs in our analysis.

Cloud phase and cloud feedback relationships in GCMs

A negative linear relationship between T50 in the pre-warmed climate state and the shortwave (SW) cloud optical depth feedback (λτ) in response to global warming was demonstrated in an ensemble of perturbed cloud microphysics experiments in two GCMs40,41. The linear relationship was particularly prominent in the extratropics and was linked to the cloud-phase feedback. Given the greater proportion of mixed-phase cloud liquid mass in the piControl simulations in CMIP6 (Fig. 1), we examine whether the relationship between T50 and the SW λτ previously simulated by the ensemble of perturbed microphysics experiments extends to the full ensemble of GCMs participating in CMIP5 and CMIP6.

A negative linear correlation between T50 and the SW λτ in the extratropics emerges in 61 GCMs participating in CMIP5 and CMIP6 (Fig. 2a). This negative correlation is consistent with the cloud-phase feedback: GCMs with warmer T50 values contain relatively higher proportions of ice within mixed-phase clouds that become replaced with optically thicker and thus more reflective liquid droplets in response to global warming that in turn induce a more negative λτ. The negative relationship is stronger in CMIP5 than in CMIP6 (Fig. S2a, S2b). However, at the same time, a competing positive linear relationship between T50 and changes in cloud amount in response to a quadrupling of CO2, i.e. the SW cloud amount feedback (λamt) also emerges (Fig. 2b). This positive linear relationship is also stronger among the GCMs participating in CMIP5 (Fig. S2c) compared to the GCMs participating in CMIP6 (Fig. S2d) and has recently been attributed to a “supercooled cloud feedback”37. In this feedback, the supercooled liquid within clouds shift to warm liquid water clouds at temperatures above freezing in response to global warming. Since supercooled liquid water-containing clouds precipitate more efficiently than warm liquid water-containing clouds42,43,44, transitions from the former to the latter in response to global warming would result in increases in the coverage of reflective clouds and therefore a negative SW λamt. As such, T50 is positively correlated with λamt. This supercooled cloud feedback associated with λamt dominates the “cloud lifetime feedback”45,46 that would otherwise result in a negative relationship between T50 and λamt. This latter cloud lifetime feedback is associated with the extended longevity of mixed-phase clouds that are composed of larger amounts of cloud liquid due to the lower precipitation efficiency of liquid droplets compared to ice crystals.

Fig. 2: Relationship between extratropical T50 and SW extratropical cloud feedbacks in GCMs participating in CMIP5 and CMIP6.
figure 2

Linear relationship between (a) λτ and T50 and (b) λamt and T50. Each data point represents a GCM labeled in the legend. The least squares regression slope is displayed as the solid black line and the 95% confidence interval of the predicted value of the linear regression model is shaded in blue. The correlation coefficient is displayed in the top-right corner in each panel.

Full size image

Adjustment of climate sensitivity via mixed-phase clouds

Given the linear T50-λτ and T50-λamt relationships (Fig. 2), we now exploit these relationships to adjust the climate sensitivity of each individual GCM based on its bias in T50 relative to GOCCP observations. Our method is based on the forcing-feedback framework47, where the change in the net global mean radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere in response to radiative forcing, ΔN, can be expressed as

$$Delta N=F+lambda Delta {T}_{s},$$
(1)

where F is the global mean radiative forcing perturbation, λ is the climate radiative feedback parameter in response to F, and ΔTs is the change in global mean surface air temperature in response to F. λ can be decomposed into the summation of surface and air temperature feedbacks, the albedo feedback, the water vapor feedback, and the cloud feedback, each of which can be further decomposed into the sum of their SW and longwave contributions48. The cloud feedback can also be decomposed into a sum of contributions from cloud property changes including the SW λτ and λamt feedbacks that both exhibit a linear relationship with T50 (Fig. 2). However, T50 is a biased estimator of the observed T50 (Fig. 1). The bias of the extratropical T50 for every GCM can be calculated as

$$Delta T5{0}_{i}=T5{0}_{i}-T5{0}_{o},$$
(2)

where T50o is the observed extratropical T50 derived from GOCCP and the subscript i denotes an individual GCM. For CMIP5 and CMIP6, we analyzed 26 and 35 GCMs, respectively. Through the linear T50-λτ and T50-λamt relationships established in the GCMs participating in CMIP5 and CMIP6, the biases in λτ and λamt can correspondingly be calculated as

$$Delta {lambda }_{c,i}=mcdot Delta T5{0}_{i},$$
(3)

where the subscript c represents either τ or amt, and m represents the slope of the least squares regression fit in Fig. 2. Substituting Eq. (3) back into Eq. (1), and solving for ΔTs while assuming a vanishing value of ΔN at equilibrium yields the climate sensitivity of each individual GCM after adjusting for biases in T50,

$$EC{S}_{adj,i}=-frac{{F}_{i}}{{lambda }_{i}-wleft(Delta {lambda }_{tau ,i}+Delta {lambda }_{amt,i}right)}$$
(4)

where w ≈ 0.15 represents the areal fraction of the extratropics to that of the entire globe. F and λ were calculated as half the value of the y-intercept and the slope, respectively, of the least squares linear regression of the global annual mean change in the net radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere against the change in global annual mean surface temperature for 150 years of the piControl and abrupt4xCO2 experiments47. Our method assumes that all other feedbacks in the climate system are held constant in the adjustment process. This contrasts with other methods that have observationally constrained T50 by way of modifying the representations of cloud physical processes within a given model that in turn interacted with other model processes40,41,49.

The average climate sensitivity after adjusting for cloud feedback biases via their relationship with T50 based on 61 GCMs participating in both CMIP5 and CMIP6 is 3.63 K (Fig. 3). This value results from a downward adjustment of climate sensitivity from 3.28 K to 3.24 K based on the GCMs participating in CMIP5 (Fig. S3a) and essentially no change in the climate sensitivity of 3.86 K based on the GCMs participating in CMIP6 (Fig. S3b). In CMIP5, the downward adjustment in climate sensitivity results from upward adjustments via λτ (Fig. S3c) being overwhelmed by downward adjustments via λamt (Fig. S3e) while negligible adjustments in climate sensitivity occur due to λτ (Fig. S3e) and λamt in CMIP6 (Fig. S3f). Since the majority of the GCMs participating in CMIP5 underestimate the supercooled liquid fraction within mixed-phase clouds relative to the observations (Fig. 1) such that ΔT50 is positive for these GCMs, ECSadj,i in Eq. (4) for these GCMs is therefore adjusted to larger values from the adjustment of λi to more positive values via λτ,i. The upward adjustment of the climate sensitivity of the GCMs participating in CMIP5 due to the λτ alone, i.e. assuming a vanishing value of λamt, is consistent with previous studies of the influence of T50 on the cloud-phase feedback15,40. However, due to the steeper slope in the T50-λamt relationship of the opposite sign, ECSadj,i of these same GCMs will be adjusted to small values.

Fig. 3: Histogram of the climate sensitivity of GCMs and their climate sensitivity values after adjusting for biases in the partitioning of cloud thermodynamic phase in mixed-phase clouds in GCMs.
figure 3

The original climate sensitivity values are displayed in blue and adjusted climate sensitivity values are displayed in red. The black dashed line represents the mean of the original and adjusted ECS values, which are approximately equal. The black horizontal line represents the range in climate sensitivity derived using the 95% confidence intervals of the linear regressions in Fig. 2.

Full size image

In contrast, the lack of change in climate sensitivity in the GCMs participating in CMIP6 results from adjustments that are approximately canceled due to the equal number of GCMs that overestimate and underestimate the supercooled liquid fraction within mixed-phase clouds relative to observations. In contrast to the 26 GCMs participating in CMIP5, of the 35 GCMs considered (Fig. S4a), λτ was adjusted downward for approximately half of the GCMs while λτ was adjusted upward for the other half of the GCMs (Fig. S4b). The approximately equal number of GCMs that overestimate and underestimate T50 relative to observations results in a near-zero adjustment in the mean climate sensitivity from their original values via biases in λτ. Conversely, λamt was correspondingly adjusted upward for the GCMs that produced λτ values that were adjusted downward while λamt was correspondingly adjusted downward for the GCMs that produced λτ values that were adjusted upward. This similarly also resulted in a near-zero adjustment in the mean climate sensitivity from their original values via biases in λamt. We also note that despite the fact that we chose to analyze raw model cloud mass instead of COSP lidar simulator data to maximize the number of GCMs in our analysis, the fact that λτ and λamt have opposing effects on climate sensitivity ultimately leads to negligible material difference in our adjusted climate sensitivity estimate.

Discussion

The average adjusted climate sensitivity of 3.63 °C arising from corrections to biases in the thermodynamic phase partitioning within the mixed-phase clouds in GCMs participating in CMIP5 and CMIP6 suggests a moderate climate sensitivity that is within the very likely range based on two different assessments5,6. Our estimate is also in line with recent estimates of 3.56 ±0.72 K and 3.47 ±0.33 K derived from observational constraints on low-level clouds equatorward of 60° in both hemispheres11 and those confined to the subtropics12, respectively. Our results thus provide additional support for a moderate climate sensitivity based on complementary observational constraints on extratropical mixed-phase clouds in a total of 61 GCMs. While seemingly contradictory to previous literature showing a rise in climate sensitivity in GCMs when mixed-phase clouds are constrained by observations, the rise in climate sensitivity due to the cloud-phase feedback is consistent; rather, it is the role of λamt that unexpectedly emerges in GCMs causing a decrease in the average climate sensitivity in CMIP5. Namely, the positive relationship between T50 and λamt hypothesized to be due to the supercooled cloud feedback37 strongly opposes and dominates the negative relationship between T50 and λτ in CMIP5. This positive relationship between T50 and λamt albeit with a weaker magnitude was shown to exist in a single GCM (Fig. S240); however, is opposite in sign to the response attributed to entrainment of dry air into the boundary layer as a result of increasing the mixed-phase supercooled liquid fraction achieved by perturbing the GCM’s shallow convective detrainment scheme49. This suggests that the response of λamt to perturbations in T50 is sensitive to physical parameterizations in GCMs.

Our findings highlight the need to consider changes in the horizontal coverage of clouds in addition to their changes in opacity in response to global warming as they can have a strong opposing effect on climate sensitivity in some GCMs depending on their treatment of cloud physical processes.

Methods

Calculation of T50

The mass fraction of cloud water (‘clw’) and the mass fraction of cloud ice (‘cli’) were first vertically interpolated to the 17 and 19 standard pressure levels of CMIP5 and CMIP6, respectively. The ratio of ‘clw’ to the sum of ‘clw’ and ‘cli’ was then calculated and composited in 1 °C air temperature bins for grid cells at latitudes poleward of 60°. T50 was calculated as the median air temperature at which 0.48 ‘clcalipsoliq’ and ‘clcalipsoice’ in AMIP experiments in place of ‘clw’ and ‘cli’, respectively, however, these variables were only available for a limited number of GCMs participating in CMIP6. Since ‘clcalipsoliq’ and ‘clcalipsoice’ are provided in height coordinates, air temperature was instead vertically interpolated to height coordinates before calculating the ratio of ‘clcalipsoliq’ to the sum of ‘clcalipsoliq’ and ‘clcalipsoice’ and compositing this quantity in 1 °C air temperature bins for all grid cells at latitudes poleward of 60°.

The observed T50 value was also calculated following the same method using the frequency of liquid and ice cloud occurrences and the air temperature at the corresponding locations at 3 °C resolution that are provided by the GOCCP product. Both daytime and nighttime observations were used and the calculations were performed for the time period from 2007-2019, excluding 2016 due to missing data.

Calculation of λ
τ and λ
amt

The SW λτ and SW λamt values were calculated using the approximate partial radiative perturbation (APRP) method50 applied to the piControl and abrupt4xCO2 experiments. This method is a simplified version of the partial radiative perturbation method51. This simplified model assumes that the atmosphere is a single layer that scatters and absorbs radiation, but that incident radiation is only absorbed in its first transit through the layer. SW cloud feedbacks are obtained from the APRP method by first calculating the planetary albedo as a function of seven parameters detailed in ref. 50 that are based on the following variables: the cloud area fraction (including stratiform and convective clouds) defined for the whole atmospheric column, as seen from the surface or the top of the atmosphere (CMIP variable “clt”), incident SW radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere (CMIP variable “rsdt”), outgoing SW radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere (CMIP variable “rsut”), outgoing clear-sky SW radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere (CMIP variable “rsutcs”), downwelling SW radiative flux (CMIP variable “rsds”), downwelling clear-sky SW radiative flux (CMIP variable “rsdscs”), upwelling SW radiative flux (CMIP variable “rsus”), and upwelling clear-sky SW radiative flux (CMIP variable “rsuscs”). Akin to the PRP method, the process of calculating a feedback parameter with the APRP method involves running an offline radiative transfer model to calculate the change in radiative fluxes when the variable associated with the feedback parameter of interest from the perturbed climate state is substituted into the control climate state. For example, changes in cloud amount, C, in a control climate (state 1) due to a quadrupling of CO2 (state 2) would result in a cloud amount radiative feedback that would be calculated as R(C2, x1, y1, …) − R(C1, x1, y1, …) normalized by the change in surface air temperature, where x and y are other state variables on which the radiative fluxes, R depend.

To be consistent with previous studies, we take λτ to be the summation of the SW scattering and absorption feedbacks3 for clouds at all vertical levels. λamt represents the change in cloud amount at all vertical levels due to an abrupt quadrupling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Monthly anomalies of the extratropical cloud-induced SW radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere were linearly regressed against monthly anomalies of global mean surface air temperature to calculate SW λτ and SW λamt. The SW scattering feedback is calculated as the sum of the average values of a “forward calculation” and a “backward calculation” linearly regressed onto global mean surface air temperature anomalies. The “forward calculation” is the difference between the planetary albedo calculated with the scattering coefficient from the abrupt4xCO2 experiment and the planetary albedo calculated with all other fields in the piControl state. The “backward calculation” is the difference between the planetary albedo calculated with the scattering coefficient from the piControl experiment and the planetary albedo calculated with all other fields in the abrupt4xCO2 state. The absorption feedback and λamt are similarly calculated except with the absorption coefficient and cloud area fraction (“clt”), respectively, in place of the scattering coefficient. The reader is referred to Taylor et al.50 for details.

Quantifying uncertainty

The 95% confidence interval of the slope of the linear regression was used to resample the slope 2000 times using a bootstrapping method. This produces a distribution of 2000 additional Δλτ values following Eq. (3). The same procedure was repeated for the slope of the T50-λamt relationship to obtain a distribution of 2000 additional Δλamt values following Eq. (3). These Δλτ and Δλamt were then inserted into Eq. (4) to calculate a distribution of 2000 additional adjusted climate sensitivity values. The maximum and minimum of these 2000 additional adjusted climate sensitivity values were taken to represent the 5 to 95% confidence interval in Fig. 3.

Related Articles

Scale-dependent cloud enhancement from land restoration in West African drylands

Land restoration projects, including reforestation and area protection, are being implemented across African drylands such as the Sahel. In addition to biodiversity, livelihood and carbon sequestration benefits, restoration can also affect the local climate through land-atmosphere interaction. Yet, it remains unknown to what extent dryland restoration can affect cloud cover development and, ultimately, precipitation. Here, we use twenty years of high-resolution data from the Meteosat Second Generation satellite to study the impact of land restoration on cloud development in West African drylands. Results show that cloud cover frequency and convective initiation are higher above vegetated areas, particularly during the start and end of the wet seasons. Furthermore, we find a more pronounced cloud cover enhancement over protected areas larger than 121 km2, suggesting a scale-dependent relationship between project size and cloud cover development.

Bank lending and environmental quality in Gulf Cooperation Council countries

To achieve economies with net-zero carbon emissions, it is essential to develop a robust green financial intermediary channel. This study seeks empirical evidence on how domestic bank lending to sovereign and private sectors in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries impacts carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. We employ PMG-ARDL model to panel data comprising six countries in GCC over twenty years for carbon dioxide emissions and nineteen years for greenhouse gas emissions. Our findings reveal a long-term positive impact of both bank lending variables on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, lending to the government shows a negative short-term effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The cross-country results demonstrate the presence of a long-run effect of explanatory variables on both types of emissions, except for greenhouse gas in Saudi Arabia. The sort-term impact of the explanatory variables on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions is quite diverse. Not only do these effects differ across countries, but some variables have opposing effects on the two types of emissions within a single country. The findings of this study present a new perspective for GCC economies: neglecting total greenhouse gas emissions and concentrating solely on carbon dioxide emissions means missing critical information for devising effective strategies to combat threats of environmental degradation and achieve net-zero goals.

Anthropogenic sulfate-climate interactions suppress dust activity over East Asia

Observational evidences indicate a significant decline in dust storm frequencies over the East Asian arid-semiarid region during recent decades, which creates a strong contrast with a great increase in sulfate emissions over monsoonal Asia. However, the causes for decline of dust activities are still controversial. Through conducting a set of idealized sensitivity experiments of regional aerosol perturbations, here we show that anthropogenic sulfate aerosols over monsoonal Asia remarkably suppress the regional dust activities over East Asia. Southward shift of Asian westerly jet stream induced by sulfate aerosols results in increasing precipitation and weakening surface wind speeds over the arid-semiarid region, thereby suppressing local dust emission fluxes. Further, the latest Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project simulations indicate that anthropogenic aerosols partly drive the recent weakening in regional dust activities and that future change of regional dust activities will likely depend on emissions scenarios of Asian anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases.

A kinematic analysis of extratropical cyclones, warm conveyor belts and atmospheric rivers

Mid-latitude weather systems play a significant role in causing floods, wind damage, and related societal impacts. Advances in numerical modeling and observational methods have led to the development of numerous conceptual models in mid-latitude synoptic and dynamical research. As these models proliferate, integrating new insights into a cohesive understanding can be challenging. This paper uses a kinematic perspective to interpret mid-latitude research in a way that synthesises various concepts and create a schematic diagram of an atmospheric river lifecycle. Our analysis demonstrates that, despite varying methods, definitions, and terminology used to describe extratropical cyclones, warm conveyor belt airflows, and atmospheric rivers, the underlying mechanisms driving their formation and development are consistent. Thus, while studying these features independently is valuable, it is important to recognise that they are all part of a larger atmospheric flow pattern. We hope this kinematic approach will serve as a bridge to link research on these phenomena.

Insights of aerosol-precipitation nexus in the central Arctic through CMIP6 climate models

The Arctic is experiencing heightened precipitation, affected by aerosols impacting rainfall and snowfall. However, sparse aerosol observations in the central Arctic cryosphere contribute to uncertainties in simulating aerosol-precipitation two-way interaction. This study examines aerosol-precipitation co-variation in various climate models during the Arctic spring and summer seasons from 2003 to 2011, leveraging satellite-based aerosol data and various CMIP6 climate models. Findings reveal significant spatio-temporal biases between models and observations. Snowfall dominance occurs in models where total AOD surpasses the observation by 121% (57–186%, confidence interval), intensifying simulated snowfall by two times compared to rainfall during summer. Consequently, climate models tend to underestimate central Arctic rainfall to the total precipitation ratio, suggesting a positive bias towards snowfall dominance. This highlights the importance of constraining total AOD and associated aerosol schemes in climate models using satellite measurements, which potentially could lead to a substantial reduction in snowfall contribution to the total precipitation ratio in the central Arctic, contrary to current multi-model simulations across various spatiotemporal scales.

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *