Cloud feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review

This paper offers a critical review of the topic of cloud-climate feedbacks and exposes some of the underlying reasons for the inherent lack of understanding of these feedbacks and why progress might he expected on this important climate problem in the coming decade. Although many processes and related parameters come under the influence of clouds, it is argued that atmospheric processes fundamentally govern the cloud feedbacks via the relationship between he atmospheric circulations, cloudiness, and the radiative and latent heating of the atmosphere. It is also shown how perturbations to the atmospheric radiation budget that are induced by cloud changes in response to climate forcing dictate the eventual response of the global-mean hydrological cycle of the climate model to climate forcing. This suggests that cloud feedbacks are likely to control the bulk precipitation efficiency and associated responses of the planet's hydrological cycle to climate radiative forcings. The paper provides a brief overview of the effects of clouds on the radiation budget of the earth-atmosphere system and a review of cloud feedbacks as they have been defined in simple systems, one being a system in radiative-convective equilibrium (RCE) and others relating to simple feedback ideas that regulate tropical SSTs. The systems perspective is reviewed as it has served as the basis for most feedback analyses. What emerges is the importance of being clear about the definition of the system. It is shown how different assumptions about the system produce very different conclusions about the magnitude and sign of feedbacks. Much more diligence is called for in terms of defining the system and justifying assumptions. In principle, there is also neither any theoretical basis to justify the system that defines feedbacks in terms of global-time-mean changes in surface temperature nor is there any compelling empirical evidence to do so. The lack of maturity of feedback analysis methods also suggests that progress ill understanding climate feedback will require development of alternative methods of analysis. It has been argued that, in view of the complex nature of the climate system, and the cumbersome problems encountered in diagnosing feedbacks, understanding cloud feedback will be gleaned neither from observations nor proved from simple theoretical argument alone. The blueprint for progress must follow a more arduous path that requires a carefully orchestrated and systematic combination of model and observations. Models provide the tool for diagnosing processes anal quantifying feedbacks while observations provide the essential test of the model's credibility in representing these processes. While GCM climate and NWP models represent the most complete description of all the interactions between the processes that presumably establish the main cloud feedbacks. the weak link in the use of these models lies in the cloud parameterization imbedded in them. Aspects of these parameterizations remain worrisome, containing levels of empiricism and assumptions that are hard to evaluate with current global observations. Clearly observationally based methods for evaluating cloud parameterizations are all important element in the road map to progress. Although progress in understanding the cloud feedback problem has been slow and confused by past analysis, there are legitimate reasons outlined in the paper that give hope for real progress in the future.