Author
Listed:
- Raphaela Vogel
(Sorbonne Université, CNRS
Universität Hamburg)
- Anna Lea Albright
(Sorbonne Université, CNRS)
- Jessica Vial
(Sorbonne Université, CNRS)
- Geet George
(Max Planck Institute for Meteorology)
- Bjorn Stevens
(Max Planck Institute for Meteorology)
- Sandrine Bony
(Sorbonne Université, CNRS)
Abstract
Shallow cumulus clouds in the trade-wind regions cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation. The response of trade cumulus clouds to climate change is a key uncertainty in climate projections1–4. Trade cumulus feedbacks in climate models are governed by changes in cloud fraction near cloud base5,6, with high-climate-sensitivity models suggesting a strong decrease in cloud-base cloudiness owing to increased lower-tropospheric mixing5–7. Here we show that new observations from the EUREC4A (Elucidating the role of cloud-circulation coupling in climate) field campaign8,9 refute this mixing-desiccation hypothesis. We find the dynamical increase of cloudiness through mixing to overwhelm the thermodynamic control through humidity. Because mesoscale motions and the entrainment rate contribute equally to variability in mixing but have opposing effects on humidity, mixing does not desiccate clouds. The magnitude, variability and coupling of mixing and cloudiness differ markedly among climate models and with the EUREC4A observations. Models with large trade cumulus feedbacks tend to exaggerate the dependence of cloudiness on relative humidity as opposed to mixing and also exaggerate variability in cloudiness. Our observational analyses render models with large positive feedbacks implausible and both support and explain at the process scale a weak trade cumulus feedback. Our findings thus refute an important line of evidence for a high climate sensitivity10,11.
Suggested Citation
Raphaela Vogel & Anna Lea Albright & Jessica Vial & Geet George & Bjorn Stevens & Sandrine Bony, 2022.
"Strong cloud–circulation coupling explains weak trade cumulus feedback,"
Nature, Nature, vol. 612(7941), pages 696-700, December.
Handle:
RePEc:nat:nature:v:612:y:2022:i:7941:d:10.1038_s41586-022-05364-y
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05364-y
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:612:y:2022:i:7941:d:10.1038_s41586-022-05364-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.