Explore the vast range of titles available.

New, definitive measures of precipitation frequency provided by CloudSat are used to assess the realism of global model precipitation. The character of liquid precipitation (defined as a combination of accumulation, frequency, and intensity) over the global oceans is significantly different from the character of liquid precipitation produced by global weather and climate models. Five different models are used in this comparison representing state‐of‐the‐art weather prediction models, state‐of‐the‐art climate models, and the emerging high‐resolution global cloud “resolving” models. The differences between observed and modeled precipitation are larger than can be explained by observational retrieval errors or by the inherent sampling differences between observations and models. We show that the time integrated accumulations of precipitation produced by models closely match observations when globally composited. However, these models produce precipitation approximately twice as often as that observed and make rainfall far too lightly. This finding reinforces similar findings from other studies based on surface accumulated rainfall measurements. The implications of this dreary state of model depiction of the real world are discussed.

Climate forcing, sensitivity, and feedback metrics are evaluated in both the United Kingdom's physical climate model HadGEM3‐GC3.1 at low (‐LL) and medium (‐MM) resolution and the United Kingdom's Earth System Model UKESM1. The effective climate sensitivity (EffCS) to a doubling of CO2 is 5.5 K for HadGEM3.1‐GC3.1‐LL and 5.4 K for UKESM1. The transient climate response is 2.5 and 2.8 K, respectively. While the EffCS is larger than that seen in the previous generation of models, none of the model's forcing or feedback processes are found to be atypical of models, though the cloud feedback is at the high end. The relatively large EffCS results from an unusual combination of a typical CO2 forcing with a relatively small feedback parameter. Compared to the previous U.K. climate model, HadGEM3‐GC2.0, the EffCS has increased from 3.2 to 5.5 K due to an increase in CO2 forcing, surface albedo feedback, and midlatitude cloud feedback. All changes are well understood and due to physical improvements in the model. At higher atmospheric and ocean resolution (HadGEM3‐GC3.1‐MM), there is a compensation between increased marine stratocumulus cloud feedback and reduced Antarctic sea‐ice feedback. In UKESM1, a CO2 fertilization effect induces a land surface vegetation change and albedo radiative effect. Historical aerosol forcing in HadGEM3‐GC3.1‐LL is −1.1 W m−2. In HadGEM3‐GC3.1‐LL historical simulations, cloud feedback is found to be less positive than in abrupt‐4xCO2, in agreement with atmosphere‐only experiments forced with observed historical sea surface temperature and sea‐ice variations. However, variability in the coupled model's historical sea‐ice trends hampers accurate diagnosis of the model's total historical feedback. Plain Language Summary A new generation of climate models—called HadGEM3‐GC3.1 and UKESM1—have been developed in the United Kingdom and will be used widely in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). Evaluating the models' benchmark climate sensitivity and feedback metrics is a useful first step to understanding their characteristic response to forcing. The effective climate sensitivities are found to be higher than that seen in the previous generation of models, in common with other recently developed climate models. Reasons for this are discussed. Key Points HadGEM3‐GC3.1 and UKESM1 have climate sensitivities of 5.5 and 5.4 K, respectively Our models' forcing and feedback processes are not atypical of models in general The relatively large climate sensitivity arises from an unusual combination of forcing and feedback

Arctic clouds play a key role in Arctic climate variability and change; however, contemporary climate models struggle to simulate cloud properties accurately. Model‐simulated cloud properties are determined by the physical parameterizations and their interactions within the model configuration. Quantifying effects of individual parameterization changes on model‐simulated clouds informs efforts to improve models and provides insights on climate system behavior. This study quantities the influence of parameterization scheme changes on Arctic low cloud properties within the Hadley Center Global Environmental Model 3 atmospheric model using a suite of experiments where individual parameterization packages are changed between the two configurations. The results indicate, surprisingly, that single parameterization changes explain most of the cloud property changes, whereas multiple parameterizations, including non‐cloud schemes, contribute to cloud radiative effect differences. Non‐cloud parameterizations are those not used to compute time step cloud properties. We employ a three‐term decomposition to quantify contributions from (a) regime independent, (b) regime dependent, and (c) the regime frequency of occurrence changes. Decomposition results indicate that cloud property changes vary by meteorological regime, each term contributes differently to each cloud property change, and non‐cloud parameterization changes make substantial contributions to the LW and SW cloud radiative effects by affecting clear‐sky fluxes. The analysis provides insights on the role of non‐cloud parameterizations for setting cloud radiative effects, a pathway for cloud‐atmosphere circulation interactions, raises questions on the importance of infrequently occurring regimes to climate simulations, and on useful observational approaches for improving models. Plain Language Summary Arctic clouds play a key role in Arctic climate variability and change; however, state‐of‐the‐art climate models struggle to accurately simulate clouds. Errors in model‐simulated clouds have known and unknown influences on the simulated climate and climate change projections. Model cloud properties are determined by the physical parameterizations and their interactions within the model. Thus, to improve model‐simulated clouds, we need to understand the effects of parameterization changes. We use a series of Hadley Center Global Environmental Model 3 atmospheric model simulations where individual parameterizations are changed one‐at‐a‐time. This approach allows us to isolate the influence of individual cloud parameterizations on model‐simulated cloud properties to inform model development and the observations needed to improve models. The results show that individual parameterizations are most important for specific cloud variables and that multiple parameterizations are important to determining the model‐simulated influence of clouds on the energy budget. We also find that changes in model‐simulated cloud properties respond differently under different weather conditions. The analysis provides insights on the role of non‐cloud parameterizations, defined as those that are not used to directly compute cloud properties, for setting cloud radiative effects, the ways that clouds and the atmosphere interact, raises questions on the importance of infrequently occurring weather conditions to climate simulations, and on useful observational approaches for improving models. Key Points Individual parameterization changes explain cloud property changes while multiple parameterizations explain cloud radiative effect changes The large‐scale cloud scheme accounts for most of the changes in Arctic meteorological regime frequency Non‐cloud parameterizations must be considered to understand the full influence of parameterization changes on cloud radiative effects

The concept of feedback is key in assessing whether a perturbation to a system is amplified or damped by mechanisms internal to the system. In polar regions, climate dynamics are controlled by both radiative and non-radiative interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, ice sheets and land surfaces. Precisely quantifying polar feedbacks is required for a process-oriented evaluation of climate models, a clear understanding of the processes responsible for polar climate changes, and a reduction in uncertainty associated with model projections. This quantification can be performed using a simple and consistent approach that is valid for a wide range of feedbacks, offering the opportunity for more systematic feedback analyses and a better understanding of polar climate changes. Estimating the magnitude of radiative and non-radiative feedbacks is key for understanding the climate dynamics of polar regions. Here the authors propose an inclusive methodology to quantify the influence of all those feedbacks, stimulating more systematic analyses in observational and model ensembles.

The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project Observational Simulator Package (COSP) gathers together a collection of observation proxies or “satellite simulators” that translate model-simulated cloud properties to synthetic observations as would be obtained by a range of satellite observing systems. This paper introduces COSP2, an evolution focusing on more explicit and consistent separation between host model, coupling infrastructure, and individual observing proxies. Revisions also enhance flexibility by allowing for model-specific representation of sub-grid-scale cloudiness, provide greater clarity by clearly separating tasks, support greater use of shared code and data including shared inputs across simulators, and follow more uniform software standards to simplify implementation across a wide range of platforms. The complete package including a testing suite is freely available.

The primary objective of CFMIP is to inform future assessments of cloud feedbacks through improved understanding of cloud–climate feedback mechanisms and better evaluation of cloud processes and cloud feedbacks in climate models. However, the CFMIP approach is also increasingly being used to understand other aspects of climate change, and so a second objective has now been introduced, to improve understanding of circulation, regional-scale precipitation, and non-linear changes. CFMIP is supporting ongoing model inter-comparison activities by coordinating a hierarchy of targeted experiments for CMIP6, along with a set of cloud-related output diagnostics. CFMIP contributes primarily to addressing the CMIP6 questions “How does the Earth system respond to forcing?” and “What are the origins and consequences of systematic model biases?” and supports the activities of the WCRP Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity.A compact set of Tier 1 experiments is proposed for CMIP6 to address this question: (1) what are the physical mechanisms underlying the range of cloud feedbacks and cloud adjustments predicted by climate models, and which models have the most credible cloud feedbacks? Additional Tier 2 experiments are proposed to address the following questions. (2) Are cloud feedbacks consistent for climate cooling and warming, and if not, why? (3) How do cloud-radiative effects impact the structure, the strength and the variability of the general atmospheric circulation in present and future climates? (4) How do responses in the climate system due to changes in solar forcing differ from changes due to CO2, and is the response sensitive to the sign of the forcing? (5) To what extent is regional climate change per CO2 doubling state-dependent (non-linear), and why? (6) Are climate feedbacks during the 20th century different to those acting on long-term climate change and climate sensitivity? (7) How do regional climate responses (e.g. in precipitation) and their uncertainties in coupled models arise from the combination of different aspects of CO2 forcing and sea surface warming?CFMIP also proposes a number of additional model outputs in the CMIP DECK, CMIP6 Historical and CMIP6 CFMIP experiments, including COSP simulator outputs and process diagnostics to address the following questions.How well do clouds and other relevant variables simulated by models agree with observations?What physical processes and mechanisms are important for a credible simulation of clouds, cloud feedbacks and cloud adjustments in climate models?Which models have the most credible representations of processes relevant to the simulation of clouds?How do clouds and their changes interact with other elements of the climate system?

The Southern Ocean is a pivotal component of the global climate system yet it is poorly represented in climate models, with significant biases in upper-ocean temperatures, clouds and winds. Combining Atmospheric and Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (AMIP5/CMIP5) simulations, with observations and equilibrium heat budget theory, we show that across the CMIP5 ensemble variations in sea surface temperature biases in the 40–60°S Southern Ocean are primarily caused by AMIP5 atmospheric model net surface flux bias variations, linked to cloud-related short-wave errors. Equilibration of the biases involves local coupled sea surface temperature bias feedbacks onto the surface heat flux components. In combination with wind feedbacks, these biases adversely modify upper-ocean thermal structure. Most AMIP5 atmospheric models that exhibit small net heat flux biases appear to achieve this through compensating errors. We demonstrate that targeted developments to cloud-related parameterisations provide a route to better represent the Southern Ocean in climate models and projections. The Southern Ocean is critically important for global climate yet poorly represented by climate models. Here the authors trace sea surface temperature biases in this region to cloud-related errors in atmospheric-model simulated surface heat fluxes and provide a pathway to improve the models.

Robust and physically understandable responses of the global atmospheric water cycle to a warming climate are presented. By considering interannual responses to changes in surface temperature ( T ), observations and AMIP5 simulations agree on an increase in column integrated water vapor at the rate 7 %/K (in line with the Clausius–Clapeyron equation) and of precipitation at the rate 2–3 %/K (in line with energetic constraints). Using simple and complex climate models, we demonstrate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is currently suppressing global precipitation ( P ) at ∼−0.15 %/decade. Along with natural variability, this can explain why observed trends in global P over the period 1988−2008 are close to zero. Regional responses in the global water cycle are strongly constrained by changes in moisture fluxes. Model simulations show an increased moisture flux into the tropical wet region at 900 hPa and an enhanced outflow (of smaller magnitude) at around 600 hPa with warming. Moisture transport explains an increase in P in the wet tropical regions and small or negative changes in the dry regions of the subtropics in CMIP5 simulations of a warming climate. For AMIP5 simulations and satellite observations, the heaviest 5-day rainfall totals increase in intensity at ∼15 %/K over the ocean with reductions at all percentiles over land. The climate change response in CMIP5 simulations shows consistent increases in P over ocean and land for the highest intensities, close to the Clausius−Clapeyron scaling of 7 %/K, while P declines for the lowest percentiles, indicating that interannual variability over land may not be a good proxy for climate change. The local changes in precipitation and its extremes are highly dependent upon small shifts in the large-scale atmospheric circulation and regional feedbacks.

Many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) models have exhibited a substantial cold bias in the global mean surface temperature (GMST) in the latter part of the 20th century. An overly strong negative aerosol forcing has been suggested as a leading contributor to this bias. An updated configuration of UK Earth System Model (UKESM) version 1, UKESM1.1, has been developed with the aim of reducing the historical cold bias in this model. Changes implemented include an improved representation of SO2 dry deposition, along with several other smaller modifications to the aerosol scheme and a retuning of some uncertain parameters of the fully coupled Earth system model. The Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK) experiments, a six-member historical ensemble and a subset of future scenario simulations are completed. In addition, the total anthropogenic effective radiative forcing (ERF), its components and the effective and transient climate sensitivities are also computed. The UKESM1.1 preindustrial climate is warmer than UKESM1 by up to 0.75 K, and a significant improvement in the historical GMST record is simulated, with the magnitude of the cold bias reduced by over 50 %. The warmer climate increases ocean heat uptake in the Northern Hemisphere oceans and reduces Arctic sea ice, which is in better agreement with observations. Changes to the aerosol and related cloud properties are a driver of the improved GMST simulation despite only a modest reduction in the magnitude of the negative aerosol ERF (which increases by +0.08 Wm-2). The total anthropogenic ERF increases from 1.76 Wm-2 in UKESM1 to 1.84 Wm-2 in UKESM1.1. The effective climate sensitivity (5.27 K) and transient climate response (2.64 K) remain largely unchanged from UKESM1 (5.36 and 2.76 K respectively).

Global warming results from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which upset the delicate balance between the incoming sunlight, and the reflected and emitted radiation from Earth. The imbalance leads to energy accumulation in the atmosphere, oceans and land, and melting of the cryosphere, resulting in increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather around the globe. Despite the fundamental role of the energy imbalance in regulating the climate system, as known to humanity for more than two centuries, our capacity to observe it is rapidly deteriorating as satellites are being decommissioned. Plain Language Summary Global warming is caused by the imbalance between the incoming radiation from the Sun and the reflected and outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth. The imbalance leads to energy accumulation in the atmosphere, oceans and land, and melting of the cryosphere, resulting in increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather around the globe according the the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Observations from space of the energy imbalance shows that it is rising much faster than expected, and in 2023 it reached values two times higher than the best estimate from IPCC. We argue that we must strive to better understand this fundamental change in Earth's climate state, and ensure our capacity to monitor it in the future. Key Points Earth's energy imbalance more than doubled in recent decades The large trend has taken us by surprise, and as a community we should strive to understand the underlying causes Our capability to observe the Earth's energy imbalance and budget terms is threatened as satellites are decommissioned