Global climate models predict warming in response to increasing GHG concentrations, partly due to decreased tropical low-level cloud cover and reflectance. We use satellite observations that discriminate stratocumulus from shallow cumulus clouds to separately evaluate their sensitivity to warming and constrain the tropical contribution to low-cloud feedback. We find an observationally inferred low-level cloud feedback two times smaller than a previous estimate. Shallow cumulus clouds are insensitive to warming, whereas global climate models exhibit a large positive cloud feedback in shallow cumulus regions. In contrast, stratocumulus clouds show sensitivity to warming and the tropical inversion layer strength, controlled by the tropical Pacific sea surface temperature gradient. Models fail to reproduce the historical sea surface temperature gradient trends and therefore changes in inversion strength, generating an overestimate of the positive stratocumulus cloud feedback. Continued weak east Pacific warming would therefore produce a weaker low-cloud feedback and imply a more moderate climate sensitivity (3.47 ± 0.33 K) than many models predict.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Open Access 30 November 2022
Nature Communications Open Access 19 November 2022
Climate Dynamics Open Access 19 September 2022
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The CALIPSO-GOCCP CASCCAD statistical datasets (Cesana et al.2) can be downloaded from the GISS website (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/clouds/casccad/). CERES-EBAF 4.0 SW TOA fluxes were downloaded from the CERES website (https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/#energy-balanced-and-filled-ebaf). The CMIP6 GCM outputs were downloaded from the ESGF (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/). ERA5 files were downloaded from climserv (https://climserv.ipsl.polytechnique.fr/fr/les-donnees/era-5.html). HadISST1.1 files were downloaded from https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/. ERSSTv5 files were downloaded from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information website (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/netcdf/). NCEP/DOE reanalysis2, NCEP-NCAR reanalysis1 and NOAA/CIRES/DOE 20th Century Reanalysis V3 were downloaded from the NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division website (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/).
The codes used to produce the figures and to compute the different derivatives and feedbacks are available from the corresponding author on request.
Zelinka, M. D., Zhou, C. & Klein, S. A. Insights from a refined decomposition of cloud feedbacks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 9259–9269 (2016).
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).
Vial, J., Dufresne, J. L. & Bony, S. On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates. Clim. Dynam. 41, 3339–3362 (2013).
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).
Wyant, M. C., Bretherton, C. S., Rand, H. A. & Stevens, D. E. Numerical simulations and a conceptual model of the stratocumulus to trade cumulus transition. J. Atmos. Sci. 54, 168–192 (1997).
Qu, X., Hall, A., Klein, S. A. & Caldwell, P. M. On the spread of changes in marine low cloud cover in climate model simulations of the 21st century. Clim. Dynam. 42, 2603–2626 (2014).
Brient, F. & Schneider, T. Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection. J. Clim. 29, 5821–5835 (2016).
Klein, S. A., Hall, A., Norris, J. R. & Pincus, R. Low-cloud feedbacks from cloud-controlling factors: a review. Surv. Geophys. 38, 1307–1329 (2017).
Vial, J., Bony, S., Stevens, B. & Vogel, R. Mechanisms and model diversity of trade-wind shallow cumulus cloud feedbacks: a review. Surv. Geophys. 38, 1331–1353 (2017).
Bretherton, C. S. Insights into low-latitude cloud feedbacks from high-resolution models. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140415 (2015).
Narenpitak, P. & Bretherton, C. S. Understanding negative subtropical shallow cumulus cloud feedbacks in a near-global aquaplanet model using limited area cloud-resolving simulations. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 1600–1626 (2019).
Cesana, G., Del Genio, A. D. & Chepfer, H. The Cumulus And Stratocumulus CloudSat-CALIPSO Dataset (CASCCAD). Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1745–1764 (2019).
Wood, R. & Bretherton, C. S. On the relationship between stratiform low cloud cover and lower-tropospheric stability. J. Clim. 19, 6425–6432 (2006).
Myers, T. A. & Norris, J. R. Reducing the uncertainty in subtropical cloud feedback. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2144–2148 (2016).
Seager, R. et al. Strengthening tropical pacific zonal sea surface temperature gradient consistent with rising greenhouse gases. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 517–522 (2019).
Coats, S. & Karnauskas, K. B. Are simulated and observed twentieth century tropical pacific sea surface temperature trends significant relative to internal variability? Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9928–9937 (2017).
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).
Nuijens, L., Medeiros, B., Sandu, I. & Ahlgrimm, M. The behavior of trade-wind cloudiness in observations and models: the major cloud components and their variability. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 7, 600–616 (2015).
Cesana, G. et al. Evaluating models’ response of tropical low clouds to SST forcings using CALIPSO observations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 2813–2832 (2019).
Andrews, T. & Webb, M. J. The dependence of global cloud and lapse rate feedbacks on the spatial structure of tropical pacific warming. J. Clim. 31, 641–654 (2018).
Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D. & Klein, S. A. Impact of decadal cloud variations on the Earth’s energy budget. Nat. Geosci. 9, 871–874 (2016).
Richter, I. Climate model biases in the eastern tropical oceans: causes, impacts and ways forward. WIREs Clim. Change 6, 345–358 (2015).
Marvel, K., Pincus, R., Schmidt, G. A. & Miller, R. L. Internal variability and disequilibrium confound estimates of climate sensitivity from observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1595–1601 (2018).
Tselioudis, G., Rossow, W., Zhang, Y. & Konsta, D. Global weather states and their properties from passive and active satellite cloud retrievals. J. Clim. 26, 7734–7746 (2013).
Bony, S., Dufresne, J. L., Le Treut, H., Morcrette, J. J. & Senior, C. On dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes. Clim. Dynam. 22, 71–86 (2004).
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A. A. & Hegerl, G. C. Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity. Nat. Geosci. 10, 727–736 (2017).
Zelinka, M. D. et al. Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085782 (2020).
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).
Soden, B. J. et al. Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J. Clim. 21, 3504–3520 (2008).
Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T. & Shields, C. A. Using the radiative kernel technique to calculate climate feedbacks in NCAR’s Community atmospheric model. J. Clim. 21, 2269–2282 (2008).
Gregory, J. M. et al. A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03205 (2004).
G.V.C. and A.D.D. were supported by a CloudSat-CALIPSO RTOP at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. We thank NASA and CNES for giving access to CALIPSO and CloudSat observations, and Climserv for giving access to CALIPSO-GOCCP observations and CMIP6 model outputs and for providing computing resources. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Tables 1 and 3) for producing and making available their model output. G.V.C. thanks M. Richardson for proofreading the first draft of the manuscript and providing useful comments and M. Zelinka for providing an updated version of supplementary table 1 of his study27.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Casey Wall and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Cesana, G.V., Del Genio, A.D. Observational constraint on cloud feedbacks suggests moderate climate sensitivity. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 213–218 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00970-y
This article is cited by
Nature Communications (2022)
Climate Dynamics (2022)
Nature Climate Change (2021)