the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying cloud masking in a single column
Abstract. We add idealized clouds into a single column model and show that the cloud radiative effects as observed from satellites can be reproduced by a combination of high and either low or mid-level clouds. To quantify all-sky climate sensitivity we define a "fixed-cloud-albedo" null hypothesis, which assumes an understanding of how cloud temperatures change, but assumes no change in cloud albedo. This null-hypothesis depends on how clouds are vertically distributed along the temperature profile and how this changes as the surface warms. Drawing only distributions which match the cloud radiative effects of present day observations yields a mean fixed-albedo (also keeping surface albedo fixed) climate sensitivity of 2.2 K, slightly smaller than its clear-sky value. This small number arises from two compensating effects: the dominance of cloud masking of the radiative response, primarily by mid-level clouds which are assumed not to change with temperature, and a reduction of the radiative forcing due to masking effect by high clouds. Giving more prominence to low-level clouds, which are assumed to change their temperature with warming, reduces estimates of the fixed-albedo climate sensitivity to 2.0 K. This provides a baseline to which changes in surface albedo, and a believed reduction in cloud albedo, would add to.
- Preprint
(1718 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3829', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Dec 2024
reply
Please see attached.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3829', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Jan 2025
reply
Kluft et al. set out to quantify the all-sky climate sensitivity of an RCE model, extending previous work where this has been done for clear-skies only. Their methodology is to conceptualize clouds as a trimodal system (low,middle,high clouds), which respond to climate change following a physically-plausible null hypothesis. That is, low clouds remain fixed in pressure, mid-level clouds remain at the freezing level, and high clouds move upwards following the level of maximum clear-sky convergence. The albedo of the clouds is assumed to be climate-invariant. This improves upon "cloud-locking" techniques where, high clouds are (unphysically) fixed in pressure coordinates.
For the most part, I found the study to be an interesting and enjoyable read. However, I was confused by some of the terminology and methods, and the final section of the paper introduced a lot of new ideas in quick succession which I found hard to follow. I agree with many of the comments posted by the first anonymous reviewer.
Comments:
Figure 1 is excellent, and it would be helpful to also include a schematic (spectral) representation of how clouds mask the radiative forcing.
Figure 3+4: Use the caption to explain what you mean by "No high cloud" etc
L34: I think this requires fixed relative humidity in temperature coordinates ?
L37: incorrect year of Jeevanjee paper
Table 1: Just write out the numbers again rather than using apostrophes
L87: How do you determine the convective top?
L94: Do you include prescribed ozone? This may affect the high clouds through artificial warming of the anvil layer
L102: This is not what "PHAT" stands for in the literature, please change this abbreviation. Also, although this isn't stated explicitly, it seems like your high clouds don't actually maintain a fixed anvil temperature (alluded to in L200)? The level of maximum clear-sky convergence should remain roughly around the same temperature, no? It would be helpful if you clarified this.
L143: You state that the ensemble mean is within the CERES range, but you don't actually show this anywhere. Could you include this in Figure 3?
L162: suggest amending to something like: "...can no longer be reconciled with the CERES data, and thus we do not plot bold lines in Figure 3 for the 'no high clouds' case."
L194: Why do you use such a big temperature increment? dT=6K feels somewhat arbitrary. I doubt it affects the results, but it was a bit distracting to me at first.
L205: I am missing something. I thought including Planckian clouds (BL ones) would increase the magnitude of \lambda? By allowing emission from wavenumbers where water vapor is optically thick? This is what Fig1 (final row) seems to suggest…
Section 4: This section, up to L223, on the masking of surface albedo changes was confusing to me. I struggled to understand how you got to these numbers and how they relate to the idealized RCE calculations you presented earlier.
L250: This isn’t considered in the final calculations presented in Figure 4 though, right?
Overall, I feel there is a tension between the statements in L250 and L223, in one you state that once cloud masking of surface albedo changes is included, the all-sky and clear-sky ECS are similar (for fixed cloud albedo), but in the other line you seem to say that including cloud masking of surface albedo changes enhances ECS. This issue somewhat spoiled the last section of the paper for me. If the authors could clarify this issue, the paper would be an easier read.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3829-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
150 | 63 | 5 | 218 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 150
- PDF: 63
- XML: 5
- Total: 218
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1