Climate Dynamics

, Volume 47, Issue 1–2, pp 433–449 | Cite as

Shallowness of tropical low clouds as a predictor of climate models’ response to warming

  • Florent BrientEmail author
  • Tapio Schneider
  • Zhihong Tan
  • Sandrine Bony
  • Xin Qu
  • Alex Hall


How tropical low clouds change with climate remains the dominant source of uncertainty in global warming projections. An analysis of an ensemble of CMIP5 climate models reveals that a significant part of the spread in the models’ climate sensitivity can be accounted by differences in the climatological shallowness of tropical low clouds in weak-subsidence regimes: models with shallower low clouds in weak-subsidence regimes tend to have a higher climate sensitivity than models with deeper low clouds. The dynamical mechanisms responsible for the model differences are analyzed. Competing effects of parameterized boundary-layer turbulence and shallow convection are found to be essential. Boundary-layer turbulence and shallow convection are typically represented by distinct parameterization schemes in current models—parameterization schemes that often produce opposing effects on low clouds. Convective drying of the boundary layer tends to deepen low clouds and reduce the cloud fraction at the lowest levels; turbulent moistening tends to make low clouds more shallow but affects the low-cloud fraction less. The relative importance different models assign to these opposing mechanisms contributes to the spread of the climatological shallowness of low clouds and thus to the spread of low-cloud changes under global warming.


Low-clouds Climate sensitivity Tropics Convection Turbulence 



This work was supported by the Department of Energy’s Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program under the project “Identifying Robust Cloud Feedbacks in Observations and Model”. We thank Bjorn Stevens, Louise Nuijens, Steve Klein and Peter Caldwell for useful discussions on this topic and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the manuscript. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modeling groups (listed in Table 1) for producing and making available their model output.


  1. Anderson J et al (2004) The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2–LM2: evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. J Clim 17:4641–4673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arakawa A, Schubert WH (1974) Interaction of a cumulus cloud ensemble with the large-scale environment, part I. J Atmos Sci 31:674–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betts AK (1986) A new convective adjustment scheme. Part I: observational and theoretical basis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 112:677–691Google Scholar
  4. Blackadar AK (1962) The vertical distribution of wind and turbulent exchange in a neutral atmosphere. J Geophys Res 67:3095–3102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boer G (1993) Climate change and the regulation of the surface moisture and energy budgets. Clim Dyn 8:225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bony S, Dufresne J-L (2005) Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of tropical cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models. Geophys Res Lett 32:L20806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bony S, Dufresne J-L, LeTreut H, Morcrette J-J, Senior C (2004) On dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes. Clim Dyn 22:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bony S, Emanuel KA (2001) A parameterization of the cloudiness associated with cumulus convection; evaluation using TOGA COARE data. J Atmos Sci 58:3158–3183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bony S et al (2006) How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J Clim 19:3445–3482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bony S et al (2013) Carbon dioxide and climate: perspectives on a scientific assessment. Climate Science for Serving Society. Springer, Berlin, pp 391–413Google Scholar
  11. Bretherton C, Ferrari R, Legg S (2004) Climate process teams: a new approach to improving climate models. US CLIVAR Var 2:1–6Google Scholar
  12. Bretherton CS, Blossey PN, Jones CR (2013) Mechanisms of marine low cloud sensitivity to idealized climate perturbations: a single-LES exploration extending the CGILS cases. J Adv Model Earth Syst 5:316–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brient F, Bony S (2012) How may low-cloud radiative properties simulated in the current climate influence low-cloud feedbacks under global warming? Geophys Res Lett 39:L20807. doi: 10.1029/2012GL053265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brient F, Bony S (2013) Interpretation of the positive low-cloud feedback predicted by a climate model under global warming. Clim Dyn 40:2415–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brinkop S, Roeckner E (1995) Sensitivity of a general circulation model to parameterizations of cloud-turbulence interactions in the atmospheric boundary layer. Tellus A 47:197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cess R et al (1996) Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: an update. J Geophys Res 101:12 791–12 794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cess RD et al (1990) Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J Geophys Res 95(601):216Google Scholar
  18. Charney JG et al (1979) Carbon dioxide and climate: a scientific assessment. National Academy of Sciences, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Chepfer H, Bony S, Winker D, Cesana G, Dufresne J, Minnis P, Stubenrauch C, Zeng S (2010) The GCM-oriented CALIPSO cloud product (CALIPSO-GOCCP). J Geophys Res 115Google Scholar
  20. Chikira M, Sugiyama M (2010) A cumulus parameterization with state-dependent entrainment rate. Part I: description and sensitivity to temperature and humidity profiles. J Atmos Sci 67:2171–2193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cuijpers J, Bechtold P (1995) A simple parameterization of cloud water related variables for use in boundary layer models. J Atmos Sci 52:2486–2490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dee D et al (2011) The ERA-interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Del Genio A, Yao M (1993) Efficient cumulus parameterization for long-term climate studies: the GISS scheme. The representation of cumulus convection in numerical models. Meteorol Monogr 46:181–184Google Scholar
  24. Del Genio A, Yao M, Kovari W (1996) A prognostic cloud water parameterization for global climate models. J Clim 9:270–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donner LJ et al (2011) The dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component AM3 of the GFDL global coupled model CM3. J Clim 24:3484–3519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dufresne J-L, Bony S (2008) An assessment of the primary sources of spread of global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere-ocean models. J Clim 21:5135–5144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. EarthCARE Mission Advisory Group (2006) Earthcare mission requirement document. Technical report, ESA.
  28. Emanuel K (1991) A scheme for representing cumulus convection in large-scale models. J Atmos Sci 48:2313–2329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Emanuel K (1993) A cumulus representation based on the episodic mixing model: the importance of mixing and microphysics in predicting humidity. AMS Meteorol Monogr 24:185–192Google Scholar
  30. Emori S, Nozawa T, Numaguti A, Uno I (2001) Importance of cumulus parameterization for precipitation simulation over East Asia in June. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 79:939–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forster PM, Andrews T, Good P, Gregory JM, Jackson LS, Zelinka M (2013) Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models. J Geophys Res 118:1139–1150Google Scholar
  32. Gettelman A, Kay J, Shell K (2012) The evolution of climate sensitivity and climate feedbacks in the community atmosphere model. J Clim 25:1453–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gregory D, Rowntree P (1990) A mass flux convection scheme with representation of cloud ensemble characteristics and stability-dependent closure. Mon Weather Rev 118:1483–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gregory J, Webb M (2008) Tropospheric adjustment induces a cloud component in \(\text{ CO }_2\) forcing. J Clim 21:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hack JJ (1994) Parameterization of moist convection in the National Center for Atmospheric Research community climate model (CCM2). J Geophys Res 99:5551–5568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hartmann DL, Larson K (2002) An important constraint on tropical cloud-climate feedback. Geophys Res Lett 29:1951–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Held IM (1982) On the height of the tropopause and the static stability of the troposphere. J Atmos Sci 39:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Held IM, Soden BJ (2006) Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J Clim 19:5686–5699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hourdin F et al (2013) LMDZ5B: the atmospheric component of the IPSL climate model with revisited parameterizations for clouds and convection. Clim Dyn 40:2193–2222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jam A, Hourdin F, Rio C, Couvreux F (2013) Resolved versus parametrized boundary-layer plumes. Part III: derivation of a statistical scheme for cumulus clouds. Boundary Layer Meteorol 147:421–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kamae Y, Watanabe M (2012) On the robustness of tropospheric adjustment in CMIP5 models. Geophys Res Lett 39:L23808. doi: 10.1029/2012GL054275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kamae Y, Watanabe M (2013) Tropospheric adjustment to increasing CO2: its timescale and the role of land-sea contrast. Clim Dyn 41:3007–3024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kawai H (2012) Examples of mechanisms for negative cloud feedback of stratocumulus and stratus in cloud parameterizations. Sci Online Lett Atmos 8:150–154Google Scholar
  44. Laval K, Sadourny R, Serafini Y (1981) Land surface processes in a simplified general circulation model. Geophys Astrophys Fluid Dyn 17:129–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Le Treut H, Li Z (1991) Sensitivity of an atmospheric general circulation model to prescribed sst changes: feedback effects associated with the simulation of cloud optical properties. Clim Dyn 5:175–187Google Scholar
  46. Lock A, Brown A, Bush M, Martin G, Smith R (2000) A new boundary layer mixing scheme. Part I: scheme description and single-column model tests. Mon Weather Rev 128:3187–3199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Louis J (1979) A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere. Bound Layer Meteorol 17:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McFarlane NA, Boer G, Blanchet J, Lazare M (1992) The Canadian Climate Centre second-generation general circulation model and its equilibrium climate. J Clim 5:1013–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mellor GL, Yamada T (1974) A hierarchy of turbulence closure models for planetary boundary layers. J Atmos Sci 31:1791–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mellor GL, Yamada T (1982) Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev Geophys 20:851–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mitchell JF, Wilson C, Cunnington W (1987) On CO2 climate sensitivity and model dependence of results. Q J R Meteorol Soc 113:293–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moeng C-H, Sullivan PP (1994) A comparison of shear-and buoyancy-driven planetary boundary layer flows. J Atmos Sci 51:999–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moorthi S, Suarez MJ (1992) Relaxed Arakawa–Schubert—a parameterization of moist convection for general circulation models. Mon Weather Rev 120:978–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neale R, Richter J, Conley A, Lauritzen P, Gettelman A, Williamson D (2010) Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 4.0). National Center for Atmospheric Research Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  55. Nuijens L, Medeiros B, Sandu I, Ahlgrimm M (2015) The behavior of trade-wind cloudiness in observations and models: The major cloud components and their variability. J Adv Model Earth Syst 7:600–616.doi: 10.1002/2014MS000390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Gorman PA, Schneider T (2008) The hydrological cycle over a wide range of climates simulated with an idealized GCM. J Clim 21:3815–3832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pan D-M, Randall DD (1998) A cumulus parameterization with a prognostic closure. Q J R Meteorol Soc 124:949–981Google Scholar
  58. Pierrehumbert RT (2002) The hydrologic cycle in deep-time climate problems. Nature 419:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rieck M, Nuijens L, Stevens B (2012) Marine boundary layer cloud feedbacks in a constant relative humidity atmosphere. J Atmos Sci 69:2538–2550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneider T, O’Gorman PA, Levine XJ (2010) Water vapor and the dynamics of climate changes. Rev Geophys 48:RG3001. doi: 10.1029/2009RG000302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sherwood SC, Bony S, Dufresne J-L (2014) Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature 505:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Singh MS, O’Gorman PA (2012) Upward shift of the atmospheric general circulation under global warming: theory and simulations. J Clim 25:8259–8276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slingo J (1987) The development and verification of a cloud prediction scheme for the ECMWF model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 113:899–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith R (1990) A scheme for predicting layer clouds and their water content in a general circulation model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 116:435–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soden B, Broccoli AJ, Hemler RS (2004) On the use of cloud forcing to estimate cloud feedback. J Clim 17:3661–3665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stevens B et al (2013) Atmospheric component of the mpi-m earth system model: ECHAM6. J Adv Model Earth Syst 5:146–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sundqvist H, Berge E, Kristjansson J (1989) Condensation and cloud parameterization studies with a mesoscale numerical weather prediction model. Mon Weather Rev 117:1641–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thuburn J, Craig GC (1997) GCM tests of theories for the height of the tropopause. J Atmos Sci 54:869–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tiedtke M (1989) A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in large-scale models. Mon Weather Rev 117:1779–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tiedtke M (1993) Representation of clouds in large-scale models. Mon Weather Rev 121:3040–3061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tomassini L, Voigt A, Stevens B (2014) On the connection between tropical circulation, convective mixing, and climate sensitivity. Q J R Meteorol Soc 141:1404–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vial J, Dufresne J-L, Bony S (2013) On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates. Clim Dyn 41:3339–3362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Volodin E, Dianskii N (2004) El Nino in a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Russ Meteorol Hydrol 12:1Google Scholar
  75. von Salzen K, McFarlane N, Lazare M (2005) The role of shallow convection in the water and energy cycles of the atmosphere. Clim Dyn 25:671–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. von Salzen K et al (2013) The Canadian fourth generation atmospheric global climate model (CanAM4). Part I: representation of physical processes. Atmos Ocean 51:104–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Watanabe M, Emori S, Satoh M, Miura H (2009) A PDF-based hybrid prognostic cloud scheme for general circulation models. Clim Dyn 33:795–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watanabe M et al (2010) Improved climate simulation by MIROC5: mean states, variability, and climate sensitivity. J Clim 23:6312–6335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Watanabe M et al (2012) Using a multi-physics ensemble for exploring diversity in cloud-shortwave feedback in GCMs. J Clim 25:5416–5431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Webb M et al (2006) On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Clim Dyn 27:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Webb MJ, Lock AP (2013) Coupling between subtropical cloud feedback and the local hydrological cycle in a climate model. Clim Dyn 41:1923–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Winker D et al (2010) The CALIPSO mission: a global 3D view of aerosols and clouds. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 91:1211–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wu T et al (2010) The Beijing Climate Center atmospheric general circulation model: description and its performance for the present-day climate. Clim Dyn 34:123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wyant MC, Bretherton CS, Blossey PN (2009) Subtropical low cloud response to a warmer climate in a superparameterized climate model. Part I: regime sorting and physical mechanisms. J Adv Model Earth Syst 1:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yamada T (1983) Simulations of nocturnal drainage flows by a q2l turbulence closure model. J Atmos Sci 40:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yao M-S, Cheng Y (2012) Cloud simulations in response to turbulence parameterizations in the GISS Model E GCM. J Clim 25:4963–4974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yukimoto S et al (2011) Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 1 (MRI-ESM1)—model description. Technical Reports of the Meteorological Research Institute 1Google Scholar
  88. Zhang GJ, McFarlane NA (1995) Sensitivity of climate simulations to the parameterization of cumulus convection in the Canadian Climate Centre general circulation model. Atmos Ocean 33:407–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhang GJ, Mu M (2005) Effects of modifications to the Zhang-McFarlane convection parameterization on the simulation of the tropical precipitation in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model, version 3. J Geophys Res 110(D09):109Google Scholar
  90. Zhang MH et al (2013) CGILS: first results from an international project to understand the physical mechanisms of low cloud feedbacks in general circulation models. J Adv Model Earth Syst 5:826–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florent Brient
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tapio Schneider
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhihong Tan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandrine Bony
    • 3
  • Xin Qu
    • 4
  • Alex Hall
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.California Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD/IPSL)Université Pierre et Marie Curie, CNRSParisFrance
  4. 4.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations