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]