Search

The cloud feedback may result in amplification or damping of Arctic warming. Two common techniques used to diagnose the top‐of‐the‐atmosphere cloud feedback are the Adjusted Cloud Radiative Effect (AdjCRE) method and the Cloud Radiative Kernel (CRK) method. We apply both to CMIP5 and CMIP6 model data, finding that the AdjCRE calculated Arctic shortwave cloud feedback is twice as correlated with sea ice loss in CMIP5, and four times in CMIP6, as the CRK method. We find that the CRK method produces Arctic all‐sky residual percentages exceeding 20% in 15 of 18 models. We use the CRK method to decompose the feedback in CMIP5 and CMIP6 finding that its median value changed from negative to positive driven by a less‐negative cloud optical depth feedback. Despite its lack of closure, we conclude that the CRK method is better suited for Arctic SW feedbacks as it is less impacted by surface albedo changes. Plain Language Summary: The cloud feedback is the process by which cloud property changes in a warming climate can either further enhance warming or damp it. The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe, and one of the largest sources of uncertainty in its climate projections is the cloud feedback. There are two popular methods to calculate the cloud feedback: the Adjusted Cloud Radiative Effect technique, and the Cloud Radiative Kernel technique. In this paper we compare the two methods in a suite of climate models by considering the extent to which changes in Arctic sea ice impact the cloud feedbacks. From this analysis we conclude that the Cloud Radiative Kernel method is less affected by sea ice loss. We then apply the Cloud Radiative Kernel technique to data from the two most recent generations of global climate models to investigate how polar day Arctic cloud feedbacks have changed between these generations. We find that the median value of these Arctic feedbacks is slightly positive in the newest generation of models, a change from slightly negative in the previous generation that is largely fueled by a weakening of the feedback associated with changes in cloud optical depth. Key Points: The Cloud Radiative Kernel method is less sensitive to surface albedo changes than the Adjusted Cloud Radiative Effect techniqueThe Cloud Radiative Kernel method provides poor radiative closure in a suite of global climate modelsThe median shortwave Arctic cloud feedback in recent climate models is slightly positive due to a weakened cloud optical depth feedback [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A reference or "no‐feedback" radiative response to warming is fundamental to understanding how much global warming will occur for a given change in greenhouse gases or solar radiation incident on the Earth. The simplest estimate of this radiative response is given by the Stefan‐Boltzmann law as −4σTe‾3≈−3.8 ${-}4\sigma {\overline{{T}_{e}}}^{3}\approx -3.8$ W m−2 K−1 for Earth's present climate, where Te‾ $\overline{{T}_{e}}$ is a global effective emission temperature. The comparable radiative response in climate models, widely called the "Planck feedback," averages −3.3 W m−2 K−1. This difference of 0.5 W m−2 K−1 is large compared to the uncertainty in the net climate feedback, yet it has not been studied carefully. We use radiative transfer models to analyze these two radiative feedbacks to warming, and find that the difference arises primarily from the lack of stratospheric warming assumed in calculations of the Planck feedback (traditionally justified by differing constraints on and time scales of stratospheric adjustment relative to surface and tropospheric warming). The Planck feedback is thus masked for wavelengths with non‐negligible stratospheric opacity, and this effect implicitly acts to amplify warming in current feedback analysis of climate change. Other differences between Planck and Stefan‐Boltzmann feedbacks arise from temperature‐dependent gas opacities, and several artifacts of nonlinear averaging across wavelengths, heights, and different locations; these effects partly cancel but as a whole slightly destabilize the Planck feedback. Our results point to an important role played by stratospheric opacity in Earth's climate sensitivity, and clarify a long‐overlooked but notable gap in our understanding of Earth's reference radiative response to warming. Plain Language Summary: Earth's climate is stable because a warmer planet loses more energy to space, at infrared wavelengths invisible to the naked eye. The rate of change of this energy loss as the planet warms provides an estimate how Earth's energy balance responds to warming, which is simple enough to write on a small piece of paper. When scientists investigate the warming predicted by climate models, they often start from a similar but not identical calculation of how Earth's energy balance responds to warming. This calculation, based on model output, is about 15% less stabilizing than the simple pencil‐and‐paper estimate. In this paper, we explore the causes of this 15% difference between the pencil‐and‐paper estimate and the calculations using climate models. We show that the difference is primarily caused by the lack of assumed warming in climate models high in Earth's atmosphere, where temperatures are not closely linked to surface warming. This lack of warming acts as a hidden destabilizing feedback in current analysis of climate models. Key Points: Earth's reference radiative response, or "Planck feedback," is ∼0.5 W m−2 K−1 less stabilizing than a Stefan‐Boltzmann estimateWe find this deviation is mostly due to the assumed lack of stratospheric warming in calculations of the Planck feedbackThe lack of stratospheric warming serves as an implicit positive feedback in analysis of climate model warming [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Water vapor in the Arctic can be attributed to local evaporation and transport from mid‐latitudes. Here we investigate the response of Arctic water vapor to declining sea ice in a climate model, using an idealized warming scenario in which the Arctic becomes ice free year‐round. We find distinct monthly patterns in water vapor change with warming, with a strong influence of sea ice loss on changes to evaporation, except in summer when transports dominate. Before the Arctic becomes ice‐free, total column water increases at a rate slower than that indicated by the Clausius‐Clapeyron relationship; once ice‐free, total column water increases at a rate equal to Clausius‐Clapeyron. The exception is summer when the increase is initially faster then becomes slower when ice‐free. The boundary layer structure changes, under global warming, from stratified to well mixed in all seasons except summer, which remains largely unchanged throughout the ice‐free transition. Plain Language Summary: Surface evaporation from the Arctic Ocean is limited by the presence of sea ice, which creates a natural barrier between the ocean and atmosphere above. We show the loss of Arctic sea ice, in a climate model affects atmospheric water vapor and find that this varies throughout the year. The greatest increase in atmospheric water vapor is in winter, during the Arctic night, whilst there is very little change in summer. There are two reasons why sea ice loss does not impact water vapor in the summer: first, the summer air temperature barely changes between ice‐covered and ice‐free, whereas in winter the loss of ice cover can increase air temperatures by at least 20°C; second the summer Arctic water budget is dominated by transport of water vapor from midlatitudes rather than local evaporation. We also show changes in the vertical structure of the near‐surface atmosphere and cloud types, with a transition from stable to turbulent regimes in autumn and winter. Key Points: As Arctic sea ice declines with increased warming, Arctic evaporation and water vapor increase most in autumn and winterArctic sea ice limits water vapor availability, but once the Arctic is ice‐free, it increases with the Clausius‐Clapeyron relationshipArctic boundary layer changes from stably stratified to well mixed, during winter and autumn, but less change in spring and summer [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Energy Exascale Earth System Model Atmosphere Model version 1, the atmospheric component of the Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model is described. The model began as a fork of the well‐known Community Atmosphere Model, but it has evolved in new ways, and coding, performance, resolution, physical processes (primarily cloud and aerosols formulations), testing and development procedures now differ significantly. Vertical resolution was increased (from 30 to 72 layers), and the model top extended to 60 km (~0.1 hPa). A simple ozone photochemistry predicts stratospheric ozone, and the model now supports increased and more realistic variability in the upper troposphere and stratosphere. An optional improved treatment of light‐absorbing particle deposition to snowpack and ice is available, and stronger connections with Earth system biogeochemistry can be used for some science problems. Satellite and ground‐based cloud and aerosol simulators were implemented to facilitate evaluation of clouds, aerosols, and aerosol‐cloud interactions. Higher horizontal and vertical resolution, increased complexity, and more predicted and transported variables have increased the model computational cost and changed the simulations considerably. These changes required development of alternate strategies for tuning and evaluation as it was not feasible to "brute force" tune the high‐resolution configurations, so short‐term hindcasts, perturbed parameter ensemble simulations, and regionally refined simulations provided guidance on tuning and parameterization sensitivity to higher resolution. A brief overview of the model and model climate is provided. Model fidelity has generally improved compared to its predecessors and the CMIP5 generation of climate models. Plain Language Summary: This study provides an overview of a new computer model of the Earth's atmosphere that is used as one component of the Department of Energy's latest Earth system model. The model can be used to help understand past, present, and future changes in Earth's behavior as the system responds to changes in atmospheric composition (like pollution and greenhouse gases), land, and water use and to explore how the atmosphere interacts with other components of the Earth system (ocean, land, biology, etc.). Physical, chemical, and biogeochemical processes treated within the atmospheric model are described, and pointers to previous and recent work are listed to provide additional information. The model is compared to present‐day observations and evaluated for some important tests that provide information about what could happen to clouds and the environment as changes occur. Strengths and weaknesses of the model are listed, as well as opportunities for future work. Key Points: A brief description and evaluation is provided for the atmospheric component of the Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System ModelModel fidelity has generally improved compared to predecessors and models participating in past international model evaluationsStrengths and weaknesses of the model, as well as opportunities for future work, are described [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]