Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Impact of decadal cloud variations on the Earth’s energy budget

Abstract

Feedbacks of clouds on climate change strongly influence the magnitude of global warming1,2,3. Cloud feedbacks, in turn, depend on the spatial patterns of surface warming4,5,6,7,8,9, which vary on decadal timescales. Therefore, the magnitude of the decadal cloud feedback could deviate from the long-term cloud feedback4. Here we present climate model simulations to show that the global mean cloud feedback in response to decadal temperature fluctuations varies dramatically due to time variations in the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature. We find that cloud anomalies associated with these patterns significantly modify the Earth’s energy budget. Specifically, the decadal cloud feedback between the 1980s and 2000s is substantially more negative than the long-term cloud feedback. This is a result of cooling in tropical regions where air descends, relative to warming in tropical ascent regions, which strengthens low-level atmospheric stability. Under these conditions, low-level cloud cover and its reflection of solar radiation increase, despite an increase in global mean surface temperature. These results suggest that sea surface temperature pattern-induced low cloud anomalies could have contributed to the period of reduced warming between 1998 and 2013, and offer a physical explanation of why climate sensitivities estimated from recently observed trends are probably biased low4.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Evolution of decadal net and cloud feedbacks from CAM5.3 simulations.
Figure 2: Evolution of selected nine-year moving averaged quantities from CAM5.3 simulations.
Figure 3: Comparison of recent Ts and LCC trends in AMIP (1980–2005), CMIP5-historical (1980–2005) and satellite observations (1983–2005).

References

  1. Dufresne, J.-L. & Bony, S. An assessment of the primary sources of spread of global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere–ocean models. J. Clim. 21, 5135–5144 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Webb, M. J. et al. On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Clim. Dynam. 27, 17–38 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caldwell, P. M., Zelinka, M. D., Taylor, K. E. & Marvel, K. Quantifying the sources of intermodel spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 29, 513–524 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gregory, J. M. & Andrews, T. Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback parameters during the historical period. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 3911–3920 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Xie, S.-P., Kosaka, Y. & Okumura, Y. M. Distinct energy budgets for anthropogenic and natural changes during global warming hiatus. Nat. Geosci. 9, 29–33 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armour, K. C., Bitz, C. M. & Roe, G. H. Time-varying climate sensitivity from regional feedbacks. J. Clim. 26, 4518–4534 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Andrews, T. Using an AGCM to diagnose historical effective radiative forcing and mechanisms of recent decadal climate change. J. Clim. 27, 1193–1209 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M. & Webb, M. J. The dependence of radiative forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in climate models. J. Clim. 28, 1630–1648 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D., Dessler, A. E. & Klein, S. A. The relationship between interannual and long-term cloud feedbacks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 10463–10469 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, P. T., Li, W., Li, L. & Ming, Y. Top-of-atmosphere radiative contribution to unforced decadal global temperature variability in climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5175–5183 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Neale, R. B. et al. Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0) NCAR/TN-486+STR (National Centre for Atmospheric Research, 2012)

  13. Wood, R. & Bretherton, C. S. On the relationship between stratiform low cloud cover and lower-tropospheric stability. J. Clim. 19, 6425–6432 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bony, S. & Dufresne, J. L. Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of tropical cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L20806 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Soden, B. J. & Vecchi, G. A. The vertical distribution of cloud feedback in coupled ocean–atmosphere models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L12704 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S. & Dufresne, J.-L. Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature 505, 37–42 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Qu, X., Hall, A., Klein, S. A. & DeAngelis, A. M. Positive tropical marine low-cloud cover feedback inferred from cloud-controlling factors. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 7767–7775 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bretherton, C. S. & Blossey, P. N. Low cloud reduction in a greenhouse-warmed climate: results from Lagrangian LES of a subtropical marine cloudiness transition. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 91–114 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Qu, X., Hall, A., Klein, S. A. & Caldwell, P. M. The strength of the tropical inversion and its response to climate change in 18 CMIP5 models. Clim. Dynam. 45, 375–396 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sobel, A. H., Nilsson, J. & Polvani, L. M. The weak temperature gradient approximation and balanced tropical moisture waves. J. Atmos. Sci. 58, 3650–3665 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Seethala, C., Norris, J. R. & Myers, T. A. How has subtropical stratocumulus and associated meteorology changed since the 1980s? J. Clim. 28, 8396–8410 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Norris, J. R. & Evan, A. T. Empirical removal of artifacts from the ISCCP and PATMOS-x satellite cloud records. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 32, 691–702 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Watanabe, M. et al. Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 893–897 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Takahashi, C. & Watanabe, M. Pacific trade winds accelerated by aerosol forcing over the past two decades. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 768–772 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stephens, G. L. et al. An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nat. Geosci. 5, 691–696 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith, D. M. et al. Earth’s energy imbalance since 1960 in observations and CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 1205–1213 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Santer, B. D. et al. Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat. Geosci. 7, 185–189 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Estrada, F., Perron, P. & Martinez-Lopez, B. Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes. Nat. Geosci. 6, 1050–1055 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Soden, B. J. et al. Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J. Clim. 21, 3504–3520 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Noda, A. T. & Satoh, M. Intermodel variances of subtropical stratocumulus environments simulated in CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 7754–7761 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank J. Norris for providing the corrected ISCCP and PATMOS-x data, and thank J. Gregory, A. Dessler, A. Hall, H. Su, X. Qu, C. Terai and A. DeAngelis for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program of the Office of Science at the US Department of Energy (DOE) under the project ‘Identifying Robust Cloud Feedbacks in Observations and Models’ and was performed under the auspices of DOE by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. IM Release #LLNL-JRNL-692260.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

C.Z. performed the analysis. C.Z. and M.D.Z. designed the experiments. S.A.K. proposed the cloud analyses. The paper was discussed and written by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 1746 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. & Klein, S. Impact of decadal cloud variations on the Earth’s energy budget. Nature Geosci 9, 871–874 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2828

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2828

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing