Articles | Volume 14, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5355-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5355-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
31 Aug 2021
Model evaluation paper |
| 31 Aug 2021
| 31 Aug 2021
Cloud Feedbacks from CanESM2 to CanESM5.0 and their influence on climate sensitivity
Department of Geography & Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Christopher G. Fletcher
Department of Geography & Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Jason N. S. Cole
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Knut von Salzen
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Toni Mitovski
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Ministry of Health, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Related authors
Michael Sigmond, James Anstey, Vivek Arora, Ruth Digby, Nathan Gillett, Viatcheslav Kharin, William Merryfield, Catherine Reader, John Scinocca, Neil Swart, John Virgin, Carsten Abraham, Jason Cole, Nicolas Lambert, Woo-Sung Lee, Yongxiao Liang, Elizaveta Malinina, Landon Rieger, Knut von Salzen, Christian Seiler, Clint Seinen, Andrew Shao, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Libo Wang, and Duo Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6553–6591, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new activity which aims to organize the analysis of biases in the Canadian Earth System model (CanESM) in a systematic manner. Results of this “Analysis for Development” (A4D) activity includes a new CanESM version, CanESM5.1, which features substantial improvements regarding the simulation of dust and stratospheric temperatures, a second CanESM5.1 variant with reduced climate sensitivity, and insights into potential avenues to reduce various other model biases.
Samaneh Sabetghadam, Christopher G. Fletcher, and Andre Erler
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 887–902, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-887-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-887-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Snow water equivalent (SWE) is an environmental variable that represents the amount of liquid water if all the snow cover melted. This study evaluates the potential of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to estimate the daily values of SWE over the mountainous South Saskatchewan River Basin in Canada. Results show that high-resolution WRF simulations can provide reliable SWE values as an accurate input for hydrologic modeling over a sparsely monitored mountainous catchment.
Tyler C. Herrington, Christopher G. Fletcher, and Heather Kropp
The Cryosphere, 18, 1835–1861, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-1835-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-1835-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Here we validate soil temperatures from eight reanalysis products across the pan-Arctic and compare their performance to a newly calculated ensemble mean soil temperature product. We find that most product soil temperatures have a relatively large RMSE of 2–9 K. It is found that the ensemble mean product outperforms individual reanalysis products. Therefore, we recommend the ensemble mean soil temperature product for the validation of climate models and for input to hydrological models.
Neha Kanda and Christopher G. Fletcher
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-639, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-639, 2024
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
For improved water management in snow-dominated regions like Northern Canada, accurate estimates of Snow Water Equivalent (SWE), a metric that quantifies the water in a snowpack are crucial. Our study aims to improve the SWE estimates which were found to be underestimated, particularly in the mountains. We tested four correction techniques and found Random Forest (RF) to be the most effective technique that significantly reduced the errors.
Michael Sigmond, James Anstey, Vivek Arora, Ruth Digby, Nathan Gillett, Viatcheslav Kharin, William Merryfield, Catherine Reader, John Scinocca, Neil Swart, John Virgin, Carsten Abraham, Jason Cole, Nicolas Lambert, Woo-Sung Lee, Yongxiao Liang, Elizaveta Malinina, Landon Rieger, Knut von Salzen, Christian Seiler, Clint Seinen, Andrew Shao, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Libo Wang, and Duo Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6553–6591, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new activity which aims to organize the analysis of biases in the Canadian Earth System model (CanESM) in a systematic manner. Results of this “Analysis for Development” (A4D) activity includes a new CanESM version, CanESM5.1, which features substantial improvements regarding the simulation of dust and stratospheric temperatures, a second CanESM5.1 variant with reduced climate sensitivity, and insights into potential avenues to reduce various other model biases.
Mohsen Soltani, Bert Hamelers, Abbas Mofidi, Christopher G. Fletcher, Arie Staal, Stefan C. Dekker, Patrick Laux, Joel Arnault, Harald Kunstmann, Ties van der Hoeven, and Maarten Lanters
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 931–953, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-931-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-931-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The temporal changes and spatial patterns in precipitation events do not show a homogeneous tendency across the Sinai Peninsula. Mediterranean cyclones accompanied by the Red Sea and Persian troughs are responsible for the majority of Sinai's extreme rainfall events. Cyclone tracking captures 156 cyclones (rainfall ≥10 mm d-1) either formed within or transferred to the Mediterranean basin precipitating over Sinai.
Ulla Wandinger, Athena Augusta Floutsi, Holger Baars, Moritz Haarig, Albert Ansmann, Anja Hünerbein, Nicole Docter, David Donovan, Gerd-Jan van Zadelhoff, Shannon Mason, and Jason Cole
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 2485–2510, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2485-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2485-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an aerosol classification model that has been developed for the Earth Clouds, Aerosols and Radiation Explorer (EarthCARE). The model provides a consistent description of microphysical, optical, and radiative properties of common aerosol types such as dust, sea salt, pollution, and smoke. It is used for aerosol classification and assessment of radiation effects based on the synergy of active and passive observations with lidar, imager, and radiometer of the multi-instrument platform.
Chih-Chun Chou, Paul J. Kushner, Stéphane Laroche, Zen Mariani, Peter Rodriguez, Stella Melo, and Christopher G. Fletcher
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4443–4461, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4443-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4443-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aeolus is the first satellite that provides global wind profile measurements. The mission aims to improve the weather forecasts in the tropics, but also, potentially, in the polar regions. We evaluate the performance of the instrument over the Canadian North and the Arctic by comparing its measured winds in both cloudy and non-cloudy layers to wind data from forecasts, reanalysis, and ground-based instruments. Overall, good agreement was seen, but Aeolus winds have greater dispersion.
Hengqi Wang, Yiran Peng, Knut von Salzen, Yan Yang, Wei Zhou, and Delong Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2949–2971, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol activation scheme is an important part of the general circulation model, but evaluations using observed data are mostly regional. This research introduced a numerically efficient aerosol activation scheme and evaluated it by using stratus and stratocumulus cloud data sampled during multiple aircraft campaigns in Canada, Chile, Brazil, and China. The decent performance indicates that the scheme is suitable for simulations of cloud droplet number concentrations over wide conditions.
Davide Zanchettin, Claudia Timmreck, Myriam Khodri, Anja Schmidt, Matthew Toohey, Manabu Abe, Slimane Bekki, Jason Cole, Shih-Wei Fang, Wuhu Feng, Gabriele Hegerl, Ben Johnson, Nicolas Lebas, Allegra N. LeGrande, Graham W. Mann, Lauren Marshall, Landon Rieger, Alan Robock, Sara Rubinetti, Kostas Tsigaridis, and Helen Weierbach
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2265–2292, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides metadata and first analyses of the volc-pinatubo-full experiment of CMIP6-VolMIP. Results from six Earth system models reveal significant differences in radiative flux anomalies that trace back to different implementations of volcanic forcing. Surface responses are in contrast overall consistent across models, reflecting the large spread due to internal variability. A second phase of VolMIP shall consider both aspects toward improved protocol for volc-pinatubo-full.
Ulas Im, Kostas Tsigaridis, Gregory Faluvegi, Peter L. Langen, Joshua P. French, Rashed Mahmood, Manu A. Thomas, Knut von Salzen, Daniel C. Thomas, Cynthia H. Whaley, Zbigniew Klimont, Henrik Skov, and Jørgen Brandt
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10413–10438, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10413-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10413-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Future (2015–2050) simulations of the aerosol burdens and their radiative forcing and climate impacts over the Arctic under various emission projections show that although the Arctic aerosol burdens are projected to decrease significantly by 10 to 60 %, regardless of the magnitude of aerosol reductions, surface air temperatures will continue to increase by 1.9–2.6 ℃, while sea-ice extent will continue to decrease, implying reductions of greenhouse gases are necessary to mitigate climate change.
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates multi-model response to idealized geoengineering (high CO2 with solar reduction) across two different generations of climate models. We find that, with the exception of a few cases, the results are unchanged between the different generations. This gives us confidence that broad conclusions about the response to idealized geoengineering are robust.
Cited articles
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Forcing, feedbacks
and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607, 2012. a, b
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., and Webb, M. J.: The dependence of radiative
forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in
climate models, J. Climate, 28, 1630–1648, 2015. a
Andrews, T., Andrews, M. B., Bodas‐Salcedo, A., Jones, G. S., Kuhlbrodt, T., Manners, J., Menary, M. B., Ridley, J., Ringer, M. A., Sellar, A. A., Senior, C. A., and Tang, Y.:
Forcings, feedbacks, and climate sensitivity in HadGEM3-GC3. 1 and UKESM1,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4377–4394, 2019. a, b, c
Arora, V., Boer, G., Christian, J., Curry, C., Denman, K., Zahariev, K., Flato,
G., Scinocca, J., Merryfield, W., and Lee, W.: The effect of terrestrial
photosynthesis down regulation on the twentieth-century carbon budget
simulated with the CCCma Earth System Model, J. Climate, 22,
6066–6088, 2009. a
Arora, V., Scinocca, J., Boer, G., Christian, J., Denman, K., Flato, G.,
Kharin, V., Lee, W., and Merryfield, W.: Carbon emission limits required to
satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046270, 2011. a
Betts, A. K.: Thermodynamic constraint on the cloud liquid water feedback in
climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 92, 8483–8485,
1987. a
Bjordal, J., Storelvmo, T., Alterskjær, K., and Carlsen, T.: Equilibrium
climate sensitivity above 5 ∘C plausible due to state-dependent
cloud feedback, Nat. Geosci., 13, 718–721, 2020. a
Blossey, P. N., Bretherton, C. S., Zhang, M., Cheng, A., Endo, S., Heus, T.,
Liu, Y., Lock, A. P., de Roode, S. R., and Xu, K.-M.: Marine low cloud
sensitivity to an idealized climate change: The CGILS LES intercomparison,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 234–258, 2013. a
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John, V. O.: COSP: Satellite
simulation software for model assessment, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, 2011. a
Bouillon, S., Maqueda, M. A. M., Legat, V., and Fichefet, T.: An
elastic–viscous–plastic sea ice model formulated on Arakawa B and C grids,
Ocean Model., 27, 174–184, 2009. a
Brient, F. and Schneider, T.: Constraints on climate sensitivity from
space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection, J. Climate, 29,
5821–5835, 2016. a
Caldwell, P. M., Zelinka, M. D., Taylor, K. E., and Marvel, K.: Quantifying the
sources of intermodel spread in equilibrium climate sensitivity, J. Climate, 29, 513–524, 2016. a
Ceppi, P., Brient, F., Zelinka, M. D., and Hartmann, D. L.: Cloud feedback
mechanisms and their representation in global climate models, Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8, e465, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.465, 2017. a
Charney, J. G., Arakawa, A., Baker, D. J., Bolin, B., Dickinson, R. E., Goody,
R. M., Leith, C. E., Stommel, H. M., and Wunsch, C. I.: Carbon Dioxide and
Climate: A Scientific Assessment, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.,
https://doi.org/10.17226/12181, 1979. a, b
Chung, E.-S. and Soden, B. J.: An assessment of direct radiative forcing,
radiative adjustments, and radiative feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere
models, J. Climate, 28, 4152–4170, 2015. a
Clement, A. C., Burgman, R., and Norris, J. R.: Observational and model
evidence for positive low-level cloud feedback, Science, 325, 460–464, 2009. a
Dufresne, J.-L. and Bony, S.: An assessment of the primary sources of spread of
global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere–ocean models, J. Climate, 21, 5135–5144, 2008. a
Eitzen, Z. A., Xu, K.-M., and Wong, T.: An estimate of low-cloud feedbacks from
variations of cloud radiative and physical properties with sea surface
temperature on interannual time scales, J. Climate, 24, 1106–1121,
2011. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a
Fichefet, T. and Maqueda, M. M.: Sensitivity of a global sea ice model to the
treatment of ice thermodynamics and dynamics, J. Geophys.
Res.-Oceans, 102, 12609–12646, 1997. a
Forster, P. M., Andrews, T., Good, P., Gregory, J. M., Jackson, L. S., and
Zelinka, M.: Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and
future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 1139–1150, 2013. a
Gettelman, A. and Sherwood, S.: Processes responsible for cloud feedback,
Current Climate Change Reports, 2, 179–189, 2016. a
Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Bacmeister, J. T., Neale, R. B., Pendergrass, A. G., Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Fasullo, J. T., Bailey, D. A., Lawrence, D. M., and Mills, M. J.: High climate sensitivity in the Community Earth System Model version
2 (CESM2), Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 8329–8337, 2019. a, b
Golaz, J.-C., Caldwell, P. M., Van Roekel, L. P., Petersen, M. R., Tang, Q., Wolfe, J. D., Abeshu, G., Anantharaj, V., Asay-Davis, X. S., Bader, D. C., Baldwin, S. A., Bisht, G., Bogenschutz, P. A., Branstetter, M., Brunke, M. A., Brus, S. R., Burrows, S. M., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Donahue, A. S., Deakin, M., Easter, R. C., Evans, K. J., Feng, Y., Flanner, M., Foucar, J. G., Fyke, J. G., Griffin, B. M., Hannay, C., Harrop, B. E., Hoffman, M. J., Hunke, E. C., Jacob, R. L., Jacobsen, D. W., Jeffery, N., Jones, P. W., Keen, N. D., Klein, S. A., Larson, V. E., Leung, L. R., Li, H.-Y., Lin, W., Lipscomb, W. H., Ma, P.-L., Mahajan, S., Maltrud, M. E., Mametjanov, A., McClean, J. L., McCoy, R. B., Neale, R. B., Price, S. F., Qian, Y., Rasch, P. J., Reeves Eyre, J. E. J., Riley, W. J., Ringler, T. D., Roberts, A. F., Roesler, E. L., Salinger, A. G., Shaheen, Z., Shi, X., B. Singh, Tang, J., Taylor, M. A., Thornton, P. E., Turner, A. K., Veneziani, M., Wan, H., Wang, H., Wang, S., Williams, D. N., Wolfram, P. J., Worley, P. H., Xie, S.,Yang, Y., Yoon, J.-H., Zelinka, M. D., Zender, C. S., Zeng, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Zhou, T., and Zhu, Q.: The DOE E3SM coupled model version 1: Overview and evaluation at
standard resolution, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11,
2089–2129, 2019. a
Gregory, J., Ingram, W., Palmer, M., Jones, G., Stott, P., Thorpe, R., Lowe,
J., Johns, T., and Williams, K.: A new method for diagnosing radiative
forcing and climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03205, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747, 2004. a, b
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Nazarenko, L., Lacis, A., Schmidt, G. A., Russell, G., Aleinov, I., Bauer, M., Bauer, S., Bell, N., Cairns, B., Canuto, V., Chandler, M., Cheng, Y., Del Genio, A., Faluvegi, G., Fleming, E., Friend, A., Hall, T., Jackman, C., Kelley, M., Kiang, N., Koch, D., Lean, J., Lerner, J., Lo, K., Menon, S., Miller, R., Minnis, P., Novakov, T., Oinas, V., Perlwitz, Ja., Perlwitz, Ju., Rind, D., Romanou, A., Shindell, D., Stone, P., Sun, S., Tausnev, N., Thresher, D., Wielicki, B., Wong, T., Yao, M., and Zhang, S.: Efficacy of climate
forcings, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D18104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005776, 2005. a
Khairoutdinov, M. and Kogan, Y.: A new cloud physics parameterization in a
large-eddy simulation model of marine stratocumulus, Mon. Weather Rev.,
128, 229–243, 2000. a
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A., and Hegerl, G. C.: Beyond equilibrium climate
sensitivity, Nat. Geosci., 10, 727–736, 2017. a
Madec, G.: NEMO ocean engine, version 3.4., Note du Pôle de
modélisation, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL), France, 367 pp., 2012. a
Mulcahy, J. P., Jones, C., Sellar, A., Johnson, B., Boutle, I. A., Jones, A., Andrews, T., Rumbold, S. T., Mollard, J., Bellouin, N., Johnson, C. E., Williams, K. D., Grosvenor, D. P., and McCoy, D. T.: Improved aerosol
processes and effective radiative forcing in HadGEM3 and UKESM1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2786–2805, 2018. a
Pendergrass, A. G., Conley, A., and Vitt, F. M.: Surface and top-of-atmosphere radiative feedback kernels for CESM-CAM5, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 317–324, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-317-2018, 2018. a
Pincus, R., Forster, P. M., and Stevens, B.: The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3447–3460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016, 2016. a, b
Pruppacher, H. R. and Klett, J. D.: Microphysics of clouds and precipitation,
Nature, 284, 88–88, 1980. a
Rieck, M., Nuijens, L., and Stevens, B.: Marine boundary layer cloud feedbacks
in a constant relative humidity atmosphere, J. Atmos.
Sci., 69, 2538–2550, 2012. a
Rose, B. E., Armour, K. C., Battisti, D. S., Feldl, N., and Koll, D. D.: The
dependence of transient climate sensitivity and radiative feedbacks on the
spatial pattern of ocean heat uptake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
1071–1078, 2014. a
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L., Hausfather, Z., von der Heydt, A. S., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris, J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska, K. B., and Zelinka, M. D.: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of
evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000678, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678, 2020. a
Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S., Boucher, O., Bretherton, C., Forster, P. M.,
Gregory, J. M., and Stevens, B.: Adjustments in the forcing-feedback
framework for understanding climate change, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 96, 217–228, 2015. a
Slingo, A.: A GCM parameterization for the shortwave radiative properties of
water clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 46, 1419–1427, 1989. a
Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., Soden, B. J., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Hodnebrog, Ø., Kasoar, M., Kharin, V., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Mülmenstädt, J., Olivié, D., Richardson, T., Samset, B. H., Shindell, D., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., and Watson-Parris, D.:
Understanding rapid adjustments to diverse forcing agents, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12–023, 2018. a
Smith, C. J.: HadGEM2 Radiative Kernels,
University of Leeds, https://doi.org/10.5518/406, 2018. a, b
Soden, B. J. and Held, I. M.: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled
ocean–atmosphere models, J. Climate, 19, 3354–3360, 2006. a
Soden, B. J., Broccoli, A. J., and Hemler, R. S.: On the use of cloud forcing
to estimate cloud feedback, J. Climate, 17, 3661–3665, 2004. a
Swart, N. C., Cole, J., Kharin, S., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J., Gillett, N., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W., Majaess, F., Saenko, O., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM) – v5.0.3 (v5.0.3), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3251114, 2019a. a
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019b. a, b, c
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., Winter, B., and Sigmond, M.: CCCma CanESM5 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20190429, Earth System Grid Federation [code], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1303, 2019c. a
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and the
experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, 2012. a
Verseghy, D. L.: The Canadian land surface scheme (CLASS): its history and
future, Atmosphere-Ocean, 38, 1–13, 2000. a
von Salzen, K., Scinocca, J. F., McFarlane, N. A., Li, J., Cole, J. N.,
Plummer, D., Verseghy, D., Reader, M. C., Ma, X., Lazare, M., et al.: The
Canadian fourth generation atmospheric global climate model (CanAM4). Part I:
representation of physical processes, Atmosphere-Ocean, 51, 104–125, 2013. a, b, c
Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., and Watanabe, M.: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 359–384, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017, 2017. a
Wood, R.: Drizzle in stratiform boundary layer clouds. Part II: Microphysical
aspects, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3034–3050, 2005. a
Zahariev, K., Christian, J. R., and Denman, K. L.: Preindustrial, historical,
and fertilization simulations using a global ocean carbon model with new
parameterizations of iron limitation, calcification, and N2 fixation,
Prog. Oceanogr., 77, 56–82, 2008. a
Zelinka, M. D. and Hartmann, D. L.: Why is longwave cloud feedback positive?,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D16117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD013817, 2010. a
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Taylor, K. E., Andrews, T., Webb, M. J., Gregory,
J. M., and Forster, P. M.: Contributions of different cloud types to
feedbacks and rapid adjustments in CMIP5, J. Climate, 26, 5007–5027,
2013. a
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M.,
Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of higher climate
sensitivity in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020. a, b, c
Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D., and Klein, S. A.: Analyzing the dependence of global
cloud feedback on the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature change with
a Green's function approach, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy.,
9, 2174–2189, 2017. a
Short summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity, or the amount of warming the Earth would exhibit a result of a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is a common metric used in assessments of climate models. Here, we compare climate sensitivity between two versions of the Canadian Earth System Model. We find the newest iteration of the model (version 5) to have higher climate sensitivity due to reductions in low-level clouds, which reflect radiation and cool the planet, as the surface warms.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity, or the amount of warming the Earth would exhibit a result of a...
Special issue