Contributions of Different Cloud Types to Feedbacks and Rapid Adjustments in CMIP5

By M. Zelinka, Stephen A. Klein, K. Taylor, T. Andrews, M. Webb, J. Gregory, Piers M. Forster. 2012

291 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/39fbca59a0b1c0a2c501d8141c93094f0ecc3410

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models (2017, unknown): “1 W m, depending on the analysis method and GCM set, and has been ascribed mainly to SW effects.(6,41,42) Accounting for this adjustment reduces the net and SW component of the cloud feedback.”
Quantifying components of aerosol‐cloud‐radiation interactions in climate models (2014, background): “The details of cloud responses to individual forcings are even more clearly elucidated in models that have implemented the ISCCP simulator (c.f. Figures 5–8) [see also Zelinka et al., 2013], and cloud responses in these models can be more readily compared with observations.”
The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6. (2016, methodology): “…for the first time in the multi-model context (Kamae and Watanabe, 2012; Ringer at al., 2014; Kamae et al., 2015) in conjunction with the CMIP5 sstClim/sstClim4xCO2 experiments which were based on climatological pre-industrial SSTs (Andrews et al., 2012; Zelinka et al., 2013; Vial et al., 2013).”
Mixed‐phase cloud physics and Southern Ocean cloud feedback in climate models (2015, background): “The uncertainties in the low cloud response are primarily due to lack of agreement as to how cloud albedo changes [Zelinka et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2013].”
Connections Between Clouds, Radiation, and Midlatitude Dynamics: a Review (2015, background): “Around the midlatitudes, changes in optical depth associated with the amount of cloud liquid water appear to be particularly relevant to the cloud feedback, driven by the SW effect of low clouds [27, 31, 32, 39, 40].”
Uncertainty in Model Climate Sensitivity Traced to Representations of Cumulus Precipitation Microphysics (2016, background): “…Bony et al. 2004; Bony and Dufresne 2005; Bony et al. 2006; Stephens 2005; Wyant et al. 2006; Webb et al. 2006; Soden and Held 2006; Dufresne and Bony 2008; Webb et al. 2013; Zelinka et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2013; Sherwood et al. 2014; Bretherton et al. 2014; Webb et al. 2015; Bretherton 2015).”
Insights from a refined decomposition of cloud feedbacks (2016, background): “This has led to useful insights regarding the cloud feedbacks that are robustly simulated across models and those exhibiting substantial intermodel spread [Zelinka et al., 2012b, 2013; Boucher et al., 2013].”
The role of cloud phase in Earth's radiation budget (2017, background): “MATUS AND L’ECUYER CLOUD PHASE IN EARTH’S RADIATION BUDGET 2559 in GCMs and has been attributed to a transition from ice-dominated to liquid-dominated mixed-phase clouds [Tsushima et al., 2006; Zelinka et al., 2013; Komurcu et al., 2014; Mccoy et al., 2015].”