Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: An update
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres1996Vol. 101(D8), pp. 12791–12794
Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 1996 papers
R. D. Cess, Minghua Zhang, William Ingram, G. L. Potter, V. N. Alekseev, Howard W. Barker, Emmanuelle Cohen‐Solal, Robert Colman, D. A. Dazlich, Anthony D. Del Genio, Martin Dix, Valentin Dymnikov, Monika Esch, Laura D. Fowler, J. R. Fraser, V. Ya. Galin, W. Lawrence Gates, James J. Hack, J. T. Kiehl, Hervé Le Treut, Kenneth Kam‐Wing Lo, B. J. McAvaney, V. P. Meleshko, Jean‐Jacques Morcrette, David A. Randall, E. Roeckner, J.‐F. Royer, Michael E. Schlesinger, P. V. Sporyshev, Bertrand Timbal, E. M. Volodin, Karl E. Taylor, Wenshan Wang, R. T. Wetherald
Abstract
Six years ago, we compared the climate sensitivity of 19 atmospheric general circulation models and found a roughly threefold variation among the models; most of this variation was attributed to differences in the models' depictions of cloud feedback. In an update of this comparison, current models showed considerably smaller differences in net cloud feedback, with most producing modest values. There are, however, substantial differences in the feedback components, indicating that the models still have physical disagreements.
Related Papers
- → On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates(2013)547 cited
- → Observational constraints on low cloud feedback reduce uncertainty of climate sensitivity(2021)248 cited
- → Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming(2021)184 cited
- → Quantifying the Sources of Intermodel Spread in Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity(2015)135 cited
- → Cloud Adjustment and its Role in CO2 Radiative Forcing and Climate Sensitivity: A Review(2011)66 cited