Search

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]

This paper presents the response to anthropogenic forcing in the GISS‐E2.1 climate models for the 21st century Shared Socioeconomic Pathways emission scenarios within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The experiments were performed using an updated and improved version of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) coupled general circulation model that includes two different versions for atmospheric composition: A non‐interactive version (NINT) with prescribed composition and a tuned aerosol indirect effect and the One‐Moment Aerosol model (OMA) version with fully interactive aerosols which includes a parameterized first indirect aerosol effect on clouds. The effective climate sensitivities are 3.0°C and 2.9°C for the NINT and OMA models, respectively. Each atmospheric version is coupled to two different ocean general circulation models: The GISS ocean model (E2.1‐G) and HYCOM (E2.1‐H). We describe the global mean responses for all future scenarios and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation for four of the marker scenarios: SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, SSP4‐6.0, and SSP5‐8.5. By 2100, global mean warming ranges from 1.5°C to 5.2°C relative to 1,850–1,880 mean temperature. Two high‐mitigation scenarios SSP1‐1.9 and SSP1‐2.6 limit the surface warming to below 2°C by the end of the 21st century, except for the NINT E2.1‐H model that simulates 2.2°C of surface warming. For the high emission scenario SSP5‐8.5, the range is 4.6–5.2°C at 2100. Due to about 15% larger effective climate sensitivity and stronger transient climate response in both NINT and OMA CMIP6 models compared to CMIP5 versions, there is a stronger warming by 2100 in the SSP emission scenarios than in the comparable Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios in CMIP5. Changes in sea ice area are highly correlated to global mean surface air temperature anomalies and show steep declines in both hemispheres, with the largest sea ice area decreases occurring during September in the Northern Hemisphere in both E2.1‐G (−1.21 × 106 km2/°C) and E2.1‐H models (−0.94 × 106 km2/°C). Both coupled models project decreases in the Atlantic overturning stream function by 2100. The largest decrease of 56%–65% in the 21st century overturning stream function is produced in the warmest scenario SSP5‐8.5 in the E2.1‐G model, comparable to the reduction in the corresponding CMIP5 GISS‐E2 RCP8.5 simulation. Both low‐end scenarios SSP1‐1.9 and SSP1‐2.6 also simulate substantial reductions of the overturning (9%–37%) with slow recovery of about 10% by the end of the 21st century (relative to the maximum decrease at the middle of the 21st century). Plain Language Summary: The projections of future climate change are uncertain because they are dependent on different possible scenarios of human‐caused emissions and their interaction with natural forcings, internal climate variability, and inter‐model differences. This paper presents the results of the climate model of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS‐E2.1, for the anthropogenically forced climate response for the twenty first century Shared Socioeconomic Pathways emission scenarios within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The sensitivity of the model response to different magnitudes of anthropogenic forcings in the twenty‐first‐century scenarios were performed using two different versions for the atmospheric composition and two different ocean general circulation models. Compared to CMIP5 GISS‐E2 versions, the CMIP6 GISS‐E2.1 climate model shows a stronger warming by 2100 in comparable scenarios due to larger effective climate sensitivity and transient climate response. Both climate models with two different ocean components project decreases in the Atlantic overturning stream function by 2100. Key Points: GISS E2.1 model with different configurations is used to carry out 134 Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) experimentsGISS‐E2.1 climate model shows a stronger warming by 2,100 in comparable Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios in CMIP5 due to larger effective climate sensitivity and stronger transient climate responseBoth coupled models, E2.1‐G and E2.1‐H, project decreases in the Atlantic overturning stream function by 2100 with the largest decrease in the warmest scenario SSP5‐8.5 in the E2.1‐G model [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Characteristics of, and fundamental differences between, the radiative‐convective equilibrium (RCE) climate states following the Radiative‐Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project (RCEMIP) protocols in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5) and version 6 (CAM6) are presented. This paper explores the characteristics of clouds, moisture, precipitation and circulation in the RCE state, as well as the tropical response to surface warming, in CAM5 and CAM6 with different parameterizations. Overall, CAM5 simulates higher precipitation rates that result in larger global average precipitation, despite lower outgoing longwave radiation compared to CAM6. Differences in the structure of clouds, particularly the amount and vertical location of cloud liquid, exist between the CAM versions and can, in part, be related to distinct representations of shallow convection and boundary layer processes. Both CAM5 and CAM6 simulate similar peaks in cloud fraction, relative humidity, and cloud ice, linked to the usage of a similar deep convection parameterization. These anvil clouds rise and decrease in extent in response to surface warming. More generally, extreme precipitation, aggregation of convection, and climate sensitivity increase with warming in both CAM5 and CAM6. This analysis provides a benchmark for future studies that explore clouds, convection, and climate in CAM with the RCEMIP protocols now available in the Community Earth System Model. These results are discussed within the context of realistic climate simulations using CAM5 and CAM6, highlighting the usefulness of a hierarchical modeling approach to understanding model and parameterization sensitivities to inform model development efforts. Plain Language Summary: Clouds, circulations and rainfall in the tropics play an important role in Earth's climate. However, global climate models differ in their representation of these features, contributing to uncertainty in future climate projections. One useful tool to better understand model differences and inform efforts to improve models is to analyze idealized configurations. We explore two different numerical representations of an idealized atmosphere relevant to tropical regions to determine the impact on the characteristics of clouds, rainfall and circulations as well as the tropical atmospheric response to warming. We show that our idealized models mirror differences in the low‐cloud structure in the deep tropics of more realistic models. This work also finds similarities between the two numerical representations, such as a decrease in the spatial extent of high altitude clouds with warming. As the surface is warmed, both versions also show increases in the clustering of clouds, the likelihood of extreme precipitation rates, and an estimate of how much warming would occur in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide. Key Points: A new radiative‐convective equilibrium (RCE) configuration is added to the official release of Community Earth System Model (CESM) to facilitate the use of Radiative‐Convective Equilibrium Model Intercomparison Project (RCEMIP) in the CESM hierarchyThe Community Atmosphere Model version 5 and Community Atmosphere Model version 6 (CAM6) RCEMIP climate states and variation across SST experiments are documented in the context of the CESM hierarchyDiffering parameterizations lead to a reduction of low‐level clouds in CAM6, consistent with differences in more realistic simulations [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]