Using the Radiative Kernel Technique to Calculate Climate Feedbacks in NCAR’s Community Atmospheric Model

Climate models differ in their responses to imposed forcings, such as increased greenhouse gas concentrations, due to different climate feedback strengths. Feedbacks in NCAR’s Community Atmospheric Model (CAM) are separated into two components: the change in climate components in response to an imposed forcing and the “radiative kernel,” the effect that climate changes have on the top-of-theatmosphere (TOA) radiative budget. This technique’s usefulness depends on the linearity of the feedback processes. For the case of CO2 doubling, the sum of the effects of water vapor, temperature, and surface albedo changes on the TOA clearsky flux is similar to the clear-sky flux changes directly calculated by CAM. When monthly averages are used rather than values from every time step, the global average TOA shortwave change is underestimated by a quarter partially as a result of intra-month correlations of surface albedo with the radiative kernel. The TOA longwave flux changes do not depend on the averaging period. The longwave zonal averages are within 10% of the model-calculated values, while the global average differs by only 2%. Cloud radiative forcing (∆CRF) is often used as a diagnostic of cloud feedback strength. The net effect of the water vapor, temperature, and surface albedo changes on ∆CRF is -1.6 Wm, based on the kernel technique, while the total ∆CRF from CAM is -1.3 Wm, indicating these components contribute significantly to ∆CRF and make it more negative. Assuming linearity of the ∆CRF contributions, these results indicate that the net cloud feedback in CAM is positive.