Articles | Volume 25, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11991-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11991-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
02 Oct 2025
Research article |
| 02 Oct 2025
| 02 Oct 2025
The importance of stratocumulus clouds for projected warming patterns and circulation changes
Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Paulo Ceppi
Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Peer Nowack
Institute of Theoretical Informatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research (IMK-ASF), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Related authors
Philipp Breul, Paulo Ceppi, and Theodore G. Shepherd
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 39–47, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-39-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-39-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurately predicting the response of the midlatitude jet stream to climate change is very important, but models show a variety of possible scenarios. Previous work identified a relationship between climatological jet latitude and future jet shift in the southern hemispheric winter. We show that the relationship does not hold in separate sectors and propose that zonal asymmetries are the ultimate cause in the zonal mean. This questions the usefulness of the relationship.
Philipp Breul, Paulo Ceppi, and Theodore G. Shepherd
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 645–658, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-645-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-645-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding how the mid-latitude jet stream will respond to a changing climate is highly important. Unfortunately, climate models predict a wide variety of possible responses. Theoretical frameworks can link an internal jet variability timescale to its response. However, we show that stratospheric influence approximately doubles the internal timescale, inflating predicted responses. We demonstrate an approach to account for the stratospheric influence and recover correct response predictions.
Xiao Lu, Yiming Liu, Jiayin Su, Xiang Weng, Tabish Ansari, Yuqiang Zhang, Guowen He, Yuqi Zhu, Haolin Wang, Ganquan Zeng, Jingyu Li, Cheng He, Shuai Li, Teerachai Amnuaylojaroen, Tim Butler, Qi Fan, Shaojia Fan, Grant L. Forster, Meng Gao, Jianlin Hu, Yugo Kanaya, Mohd Talib Latif, Keding Lu, Philippe Nédélec, Peer Nowack, Bastien Sauvage, Xiaobin Xu, Lin Zhang, Ke Li, Ja-Ho Koo, and Tatsuya Nagashima
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 7991–8028, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7991-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7991-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes summertime ozone trends in East and Southeast Asia derived from a comprehensive observational database spanning from 1995 to 2019, incorporating aircraft observations, ozonesonde data, and measurements from 2500 surface sites. Multiple models are applied to attribute to changes in anthropogenic emissions and climate. The results highlight that increases in anthropogenic emissions are the primary driver of ozone increases both in the free troposphere and at the surface.
Kevin Debeire, Lisa Bock, Peer Nowack, Jakob Runge, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 607–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-607-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Projecting future precipitation is essential for preparing for climate change, but current climate models still have large uncertainties, especially over land. This study presents a new method to improve precipitation projections by identifying which models best capture key climate patterns. By giving more weight to models that better represent these patterns, our approach leads to more reliable future precipitation projections over land.
Richard G. Williams, Philip Goodwin, Paulo Ceppi, Chris D. Jones, and Andrew MacDougall
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-800, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-800, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How the climate system responds when carbon emissions cease is an open question: some climate models reveal a slight warming, whereas most models reveal a slight cooling. Their climate response is affected by how the planet takes up heat and radiates heat back to space, and how the land and ocean sequester carbon from the atmosphere. A framework is developed to connect the temperature response of the climate models to competing and opposing-signed thermal and carbon contributions.
Peer Nowack and Duncan Watson-Parris
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2365–2384, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2365-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2365-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In our article, we review uncertainties in global climate change projections and current methods using Earth observations as constraints, which is crucial for climate risk assessments and for informing society. We then discuss how machine learning can advance the field, discussing recent work that provides potentially stronger and more robust links between observed data and future climate projections. We further discuss the challenges of applying machine learning to climate science.
Jingyu Wang, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov, Blanca Ayarzagüena, William T. Ball, Mohamadou Diallo, Birgit Hassler, James Keeble, Peer Nowack, Clara Orbe, and Sandro Vattioni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-340, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed the ozone response under elevated CO2 using the data from CMIP6 DECK experiments. We then looked at the relations between ozone response and temperature and circulation changes to identify drivers of the ozone change. The climate feedback of ozone is investigated by doing offline calculations and comparing models with and without interactive chemistry. We find that ozone-climate interactions are important for Earth System Models, thus should be considered in future model development.
Henrik Auestad, Clemens Spensberger, Andrea Marcheggiani, Paulo Ceppi, Thomas Spengler, and Tim Woollings
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 1269–1286, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1269-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1269-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Latent heating due to condensation can influence atmospheric circulation by strengthening or weakening horizontal temperature contrasts. Strong temperature contrasts intensify storms and imply the existence of strong upper tropospheric winds called jets. It remains unclear whether latent heating preferentially reinforces or abates the existing jet. We show that this disagreement is attributable to how the jet is defined, confirming that latent heating reinforces the jet.
Sarah Wilson Kemsley, Paulo Ceppi, Hendrik Andersen, Jan Cermak, Philip Stier, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8295–8316, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8295-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8295-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Aiming to inform parameter selection for future observational constraint analyses, we incorporate five candidate meteorological drivers specifically targeting high clouds into a cloud controlling factor framework within a range of spatial domain sizes. We find a discrepancy between optimal domain size for predicting locally and globally aggregated cloud radiative anomalies and identify upper-tropospheric static stability as an important high-cloud controlling factor.
Philip Goodwin, Richard Williams, Paulo Ceppi, and B. B. Cael
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2307, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2307, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Climate feedbacks are normally evaluated by considering the change over time for Earth's energy balance and surface temperatures in the climate system. However, we only have around 1 degree Celsius of temperature change to utilise. Here, climate feedbacks are instead evaluated from the change in latitude of Earth's energy balance and surface temperatures, where we have around 70 degrees Celsius of temperature change to utilise.
Hendrik Andersen, Jan Cermak, Alyson Douglas, Timothy A. Myers, Peer Nowack, Philip Stier, Casey J. Wall, and Sarah Wilson Kemsley
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10775–10794, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10775-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10775-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses an observation-based cloud-controlling factor framework to study near-global sensitivities of cloud radiative effects to a large number of meteorological and aerosol controls. We present near-global sensitivity patterns to selected thermodynamic, dynamic, and aerosol factors and discuss the physical mechanisms underlying the derived sensitivities. Our study hopes to guide future analyses aimed at constraining cloud feedbacks and aerosol–cloud interactions.
Philipp Breul, Paulo Ceppi, and Theodore G. Shepherd
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 39–47, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-39-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-39-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurately predicting the response of the midlatitude jet stream to climate change is very important, but models show a variety of possible scenarios. Previous work identified a relationship between climatological jet latitude and future jet shift in the southern hemispheric winter. We show that the relationship does not hold in separate sectors and propose that zonal asymmetries are the ultimate cause in the zonal mean. This questions the usefulness of the relationship.
Xiang Weng, Grant L. Forster, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8385–8402, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We use machine learning to quantify the meteorological drivers behind surface ozone variations in China between 2015 and 2019. Our novel approaches show improved performance when compared to previous analysis methods. We highlight that nonlinearity in driver relationships and the impacts of large-scale meteorological phenomena are key to understanding ozone pollution. Moreover, we find that almost half of the observed ozone trend between 2015 and 2019 might have been driven by meteorology.
Philipp Breul, Paulo Ceppi, and Theodore G. Shepherd
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 645–658, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-645-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-645-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding how the mid-latitude jet stream will respond to a changing climate is highly important. Unfortunately, climate models predict a wide variety of possible responses. Theoretical frameworks can link an internal jet variability timescale to its response. However, we show that stratospheric influence approximately doubles the internal timescale, inflating predicted responses. We demonstrate an approach to account for the stratospheric influence and recover correct response predictions.
Peer Nowack, Lev Konstantinovskiy, Hannah Gardiner, and John Cant
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5637–5655, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Machine learning (ML) calibration techniques could be an effective way to improve the performance of low-cost air pollution sensors. Here we provide novel insights from case studies within the urban area of London, UK, where we compared the performance of three ML techniques to calibrate low-cost measurements of NO2 and PM10. In particular, we highlight the key issue of the method-dependent robustness in maintaining calibration skill after transferring sensors to different measurement sites.
Carl Thomas, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Gerald Lim, Joanna Haigh, and Peer Nowack
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 581–608, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-581-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-581-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric blocking events are complex large-scale weather patterns which block the path of the jet stream. They are associated with heat waves in summer and cold snaps in winter. Blocking is poorly understood, and the effect of climate change is not clear. Here, we present a new method to study blocking using unsupervised machine learning. We show that this method performs better than previous methods used. These results show the potential for unsupervised learning in atmospheric science.
Alexander Kuhn-Régnier, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Peer Nowack, Matthias Forkel, I. Colin Prentice, and Sandy P. Harrison
Biogeosciences, 18, 3861–3879, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3861-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3861-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Along with current climate, vegetation, and human influences, long-term accumulation of biomass affects fires. Here, we find that including the influence of antecedent vegetation and moisture improves our ability to predict global burnt area. Additionally, the length of the preceding period which needs to be considered for accurate predictions varies across regions.
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric ozone and water vapour are key components of the Earth system; changes to both have important impacts on global and regional climate. We evaluate changes to these species from 1850 to 2100 in the new generation of CMIP6 models. There is good agreement between the multi-model mean and observations, although there is substantial variation between the individual models. The future evolution of both ozone and water vapour is strongly dependent on the assumed future emissions scenario.
Abdul Malik, Peer J. Nowack, Joanna D. Haigh, Long Cao, Luqman Atique, and Yves Plancherel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15461–15485, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15461-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15461-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Solar geoengineering has been introduced to mitigate human-caused global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space. This research investigates the impact of solar geoengineering on the tropical Pacific climate. We find that solar geoengineering can compensate some of the greenhouse-induced changes in the tropical Pacific but not all. In particular, solar geoengineering will result in significant changes in rainfall, sea surface temperatures, and increased frequency of extreme ENSO events.
Cited articles
Andrews, T. and Webb, M. J.: The Dependence of Global Cloud and Lapse Rate Feedbacks on the Spatial Structure of Tropical Pacific Warming, J. Climate, 31, 641–654, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0087.1, 2018. a
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, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00545.1, 2015. a, b
Bellomo, K., Clement, A. C., Mauritsen, T., Rädel, G., and Stevens, B.: The Influence of Cloud Feedbacks on Equatorial Atlantic Variability, J. Climate, 28, 2725–2744, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00495.1, 2015. a
Breul, P.: Code accompanying the publication “egusphere-2025-221”, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15977831, 2025. a
Breul, P. and Ceppi, P.: Dataset accompanying the publication “egusphere-2025-221”, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16025001, 2025. a
Brown, P. T., Lozier, M. S., Zhang, R., and Li, W.: The necessity of cloud feedback for a basin-scale Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 3955–3963, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068303, 2016. a, b
Burgman, R. J., Kirtman, B. P., Clement, A. C., and Vazquez, H.: Model evidence for low-level cloud feedback driving persistent changes in atmospheric circulation and regional hydroclimate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 428–437, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071978, 2017. a
Ceppi, P. and Hartmann, D. L.: Clouds and the Atmospheric Circulation Response to Warming, J. Climate, 29, 783–799, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0394.1, 2016. a
Ceppi, P., Zappa, G., Shepherd, T. G., and Gregory, J. M.: Fast and Slow Components of the Extratropical Atmospheric Circulation Response to CO 2 Forcing, J. Climate, 31, 1091–1105, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0323.1, 2018. a
Ceppi, P., Myers, T. A., Nowack, P., Wall, C. J., and Zelinka, M. D.: Implications of a Pervasive Climate Model Bias for Low-Cloud Feedback, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2024GL110525, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL110525, 2024. a, b, c, d
Chalmers, J., Kay, J. E., Middlemas, E. A., Maroon, E. A., and DiNezio, P.: Does Disabling Cloud Radiative Feedbacks Change Spatial Patterns of Surface Greenhouse Warming and Cooling?, J. Climate, 35, 1787–1807, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0391.1, 2022. a
Danabasoglu, G., Bates, S. C., Briegleb, B. P., Jayne, S. R., Jochum, M., Large, W. G., Peacock, S., and Yeager, S. G.: The CCSM4 Ocean Component, J. Climate, 25, 1361–1389, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00091.1, 2012. a
Dong, Y., Proistosescu, C., Armour, K. C., and Battisti, D. S.: Attributing Historical and Future Evolution of Radiative Feedbacks to Regional Warming Patterns using a Green’s Function Approach: The Preeminence of the Western Pacific, J. Climate, 32, 5471–5491, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0843.1, 2019. a
Erfani, E. and Burls, N. J.: The Strength of Low-Cloud Feedbacks and Tropical Climate: A CESM Sensitivity Study, J. Climate, 32, 2497–2516, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0551.1, 2019. a, b
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
Fu, M. and Fedorov, A.: The Role of Bjerknes and Shortwave Feedbacks in the Tropical Pacific SST Response to Global Warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL105061, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105061, 2023. a, b, c
Gregory, J. M., Ingram, W. J., Palmer, M. A., Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A., Thorpe, R. B., Lowe, J. A., Johns, T. C., and Williams, K. D.: A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747, 2004. a
He, J. and Soden, B. J.: Anthropogenic Weakening of the Tropical Circulation: The Relative Roles of Direct CO2 Forcing and Sea Surface Temperature Change, J. Climate, 28, 8728–8742, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0205.1, 2015. a
Heede, U. K., Fedorov, A. V., and Burls, N. J.: Time Scales and Mechanisms for the Tropical Pacific Response to Global Warming: A Tug of War between the Ocean Thermostat and Weaker Walker, J. Climate, 33, 6101–6118, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0690.1, 2020. a
Held, I. M. and Shell, K. M.: Using Relative Humidity as a State Variable in Climate Feedback Analysis, J. Climate, 25, 2578–2582, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1, 2012. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., Chiara, G. D., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., Rosnay, P. d., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Hsiao, W.-T., Hwang, Y.-T., Chen, Y.-J., and Kang, S. M.: The Role of Clouds in Shaping Tropical Pacific Response Pattern to Extratropical Thermal Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098023, 2022. a, b
Janoski, T. P., Mitevski, I., Kramer, R. J., Previdi, M., and Polvani, L. M.: ClimKern v1.2: a new Python package and kernel repository for calculating radiative feedbacks, Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3065–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3065-2025, 2025. a
Kim, H., Kang, S. M., Kay, J. E., and Xie, S.-P.: Subtropical clouds key to Southern Ocean teleconnections to the tropical Pacific, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2200514119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200514119, 2022. a, b
Knutson, T. R. and Manabe, S.: Time-Mean Response over the Tropical Pacific to Increased C02 in a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model, J. Climate, 8, 2181–2199, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008<2181:TMROTT>2.0.CO;2, 1995. a
Lin, Y.-J., Hwang, Y.-T., Ceppi, P., and Gregory, J. M.: Uncertainty in the Evolution of Climate Feedback Traced to the Strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 12331–12339, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083084, 2019. a, b
Malik, A., Nowack, P. J., Haigh, J. D., Cao, L., Atique, L., and Plancherel, Y.: Tropical Pacific climate variability under solar geoengineering: impacts on ENSO extremes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15461–15485, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15461-2020, 2020. a
Middlemas, E. A., Clement, A. C., Medeiros, B., and Kirtman, B.: Cloud Radiative Feedbacks and El Niño–Southern Oscillation, J. Climate, 32, 4661–4680, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0842.1, 2019. a, b
Myers, T. A. and Mechoso, C. R.: Relative Contributions of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Coupled Processes to North Pacific and North Atlantic Variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086321, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086321, 2020. a
Myers, T. A., Zelinka, M. D., and Klein, S. A.: Observational Constraints on the Cloud Feedback Pattern Effect, J. Climate, 36, 6533–6545, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22-0862.1, 2023. a
Neale, R. B., Richter, J. H., Conley, A. J., Park, S., Lauritzen, P. H., Gettelman, A., Williamson, D. L., Rasch, P. J., Vavrus, S. J., Taylor, M. A., Collins, W. D., Zhang, M., and Lin, S.-J.: Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 4.0), NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-485+STR, 120 pp., 2010. a
Nowack, P. J., Braesicke, P., Luke Abraham, N., and Pyle, J. A.: On the role of ozone feedback in the ENSO amplitude response under global warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 3858–3866, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072418, 2017. a
Rädel, G., Mauritsen, T., Stevens, B., Dommenget, D., Matei, D., Bellomo, K., and Clement, A.: Amplification of El Niño by cloud longwave coupling to atmospheric circulation, Nat. Geosci., 9, 106–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2630, 2016. a, b, c, d
Rugenstein, M., Zelinka, M., Karnauskas, K., Ceppi, P., and Andrews, T.: Patterns of Surface Warming Matter for Climate Sensitivity, Eos, 104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EO230411, 2023. a
Rugenstein, M. A. A., Caldeira, K., and Knutti, R.: Dependence of global radiative feedbacks on evolving patterns of surface heat fluxes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9877–9885, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070907, 2016. a
Scott, R. C., Myers, T. A., Norris, J. R., Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Sun, M., and Doelling, D. R.: Observed Sensitivity of Low-Cloud Radiative Effects to Meteorological Perturbations over the Global Oceans, J. Climate, 33, 7717–7734, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-1028.1, 2020. a, b
Soden, B. J., Held, I. M., Colman, R., Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and Shields, C. A.: Quantifying Climate Feedbacks Using Radiative Kernels, J. Climate, 21, 3504–3520, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1, 2008. a, b
Stevens, B. and Brenguier, J.-L.: Cloud-controlling Factors: Low Clouds, in: Clouds in the Perturbed Climate System, edited by: Heintzenberg, J. and Charlson, R. J., The MIT Press, 173–196, ISBN 978-0-262-25544-8, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8300.003.0010, 2009. a
Tokinaga, H., Xie, S.-P., Deser, C., Kosaka, Y., and Okumura, Y. M.: Slowdown of the Walker circulation driven by tropical Indo-Pacific warming, Nature, 491, 439–443, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11576, 2012. a
Trenberth, K. E. and Stepaniak, D. P.: Indices of El Niño Evolution, J. Climate, 14, 1697–1701, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<1697:LIOENO>2.0.CO;2, 2001. a
Vecchi, G. A., Soden, B. J., Wittenberg, A. T., Held, I. M., Leetmaa, A., and Harrison, M. J.: Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing, Nature, 441, 73–76, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04744, 2006. a, b
Voigt, A. and Shaw, T. A.: Circulation response to warming shaped by radiative changes of clouds and water vapour, Nat. Geosci., 8, 102–106, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2345, 2015. a
Welch, P.: The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms, IEEE T. Acoust. Speech, 15, 70–73, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAU.1967.1161901, 1967. a
Wilks, D.: Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences, Elsevier Science, ISBN 978-0-12-816527-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-03921-6, 2019. a
Wilks, D. S.: “The Stippling Shows Statistically Significant Grid Points”: How Research Results are Routinely Overstated and Overinterpreted, and What to Do about It, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, 2263–2273, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00267.1, 2016. a
Wilson Kemsley, S., Ceppi, P., Andersen, H., Cermak, J., Stier, P., and Nowack, P.: A systematic evaluation of high-cloud controlling factors, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8295–8316, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8295-2024, 2024. a
Yang, L., Xie, S.-P., Shen, S. S. P., Liu, J.-W., and Hwang, Y.-T.: Low Cloud–SST Feedback over the Subtropical Northeast Pacific and the Remote Effect on ENSO Variability, J. Climate, 36, 441–452, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0902.1, 2022. a, b, c
Yuan, T., Oreopoulos, L., Platnick, S. E., and Meyer, K.: Observations of Local Positive Low Cloud Feedback Patterns and Their Role in Internal Variability and Climate Sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 4438–4445, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077904, 2018. 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, d
Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Qin, Y., and Myers, T. A.: Evaluating Climate Models’ Cloud Feedbacks Against Expert Judgment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2021JD035198, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035198, 2022. a
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, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001096 2017. a
Zhu, J. and Poulsen, C. J.: On the Increase of Climate Sensitivity and Cloud Feedback With Warming in the Community Atmosphere Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089143, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089143, 2020. a
Short summary
We explore how Pacific low-level clouds influence projections of regional climate change by adjusting a climate model to enhance low-cloud response to surface temperatures. We find significant changes in projected warming patterns and circulation changes under increased CO2 conditions. Our findings are supported by similar relationships across state-of-the-art climate models. These results highlight the importance of accurately representing clouds for predicting regional climate change impacts.
We explore how Pacific low-level clouds influence projections of regional climate change by...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint