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]

Model evaluation is difficult and generally relies on analysis that can mask compensating errors. This paper defines new metrics, using clusters generated from a machine learning algorithm, to estimate mean and compensating errors in different model runs. As a test case, we investigate the Southern Ocean shortwave radiative bias using clusters derived by applying self‐organizing maps to satellite data. In particular, the effects of changing cloud phase parameterizations in the MetOffice Unified Model are examined. Differences in cluster properties show that the regional radiative biases are substantially different than the global bias, with two distinct regions identified within the Southern Ocean, each with a different signed bias. Changing cloud phase parameterizations can reduce errors at higher latitudes but increase errors at lower latitudes of the Southern Ocean. Ranking the parameterizations often shows a contrast in mean and compensating errors, notably in all cases large compensating errors remain. Key Points: A novel method for climate model evaluation is used to identify both mean errors and potential compensating errorsAs an example, we apply this methodology to investigate the quality of different cloud parameterizations over the Southern OceanChanges to the cloud phase parameterizations can reduce shortwave radiative bias regionally, but large compensating errors remain [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]