Computing and Partitioning Cloud Feedbacks Using Cloud Property Histograms. Part II: Attribution to Changes in Cloud Amount, Altitude, and Optical Depth

By M. Zelinka, Stephen A. Klein, D. Hartmann. 2012

314 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/654f57f9eca4e622206f8f2a9e9dee8a16aec47e

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

Connections Between Clouds, Radiation, and Midlatitude Dynamics: a Review (2015, background): “This negative SW feedback at mid to high latitudes and the associated cloud water increases are robust features of global warming model experiments [27, 30–32].”
The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): Experimental Protocol for CMIP6 (in open review: 10.5194/gmd-2016-88) (2016, methodology): “These will be used to estimate rapid adjustments by clouds using radiative kernels (Zelinka et al., 2012, 2014) that map changes in cloud properties into top-of-atmosphere radiative flux perturbations.”
Insights from a refined decomposition of cloud feedbacks (2016, methodology): “Because midlevel and high cloud feedbacks are considered together rather than distinctly in the refined decomposition, we recommend using it in concert with the standard breakdown of high, midlevel, and low cloud feedbacks [Zelinka et al., 2012a].”
The Atmospheric Energy Constraint on Global-Mean Precipitation Change (2014, background): “Simple calculations presented in section 3c indicate that these are all consistent with a reduction in cloud fraction of both low and high clouds (Zelinka et al. 2012).”
Low-Cloud Feedbacks from Cloud-Controlling Factors: A Review (2017, background): “However, the results are less clear when using observations of cloud fraction since cloud feedbacks may also result from changes in other cloud properties, especially the distribution of optical thickness (Zelinka et al. 2012).”
Contributions of Different Cloud Types to Feedbacks and Rapid Adjustments in CMIP5 (2012, methodology): “…increased cloud-top altitude as the troposphere deepens (Zelinka andHartmann 2010; Zelinka et al. 2012b) and an increase in high-latitude cloud optical depth resulting from increases in cloud water content and phase changes (Senior and Mitchell 1993; Tsushima et al. 2006; Zelinka et al. 2012b).”
Mixed‐phase cloud physics and Southern Ocean cloud feedback in climate models (2015, background): “The cloud fraction contributes the majority of the decrease equatorward of 45°S, consistent with more refined estimates of the cloud fraction feedback utilizing radiative kernels [Zelinka et al., 2012a, 2013].”
Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models (2017, unknown): “We refer the reader to Andrews et al. 43 and Kamae et al. 44 for a thorough discussion of rapid cloud adjustments in GCMs.”
Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models (2020, background): “…models becomes available, more detailed analysis of the cloud feedback will be possible (Cesana et al., 2019; Gordon & Klein, 2014; Terai et al., 2016; Tsushima et al., 2016; Zelinka et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2016), permitting better understanding of why the low cloud feedback has strengthened.”
The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6. (2016, methodology): “…of clouds using A-train instantaneous observations (Konsta et al., 2012), quality control and low-cloud diagnostics (Nam et al., 2012; Nam and Quaas, 2012), sensitivity of low cloud cover to estimated inversion strength and SST (Qu et al., 2014) and cloud-radiative kernels (Zelinka et al., 2012b).”