ISSN 0001-4338, Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 2008, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 288–299.

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2007.

Original Russian Text © E.M. Volodin, 2008, published in Izvestiya AN. Fizika Atmosfery i Okeana, 2008, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 311–323.

Relation between Temperature Sensitivity to Doubled Carbon

Dioxide and the Distribution of Clouds in Current
Climate Models
E. M. Volodin
Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Gubkina 8, Moscow, 119991 Russia
e-mail: volodin@inm.ras.ru
Received February 22, 2007; in final form, May 24, 2007

Abstract—The paper considers a relation between equilibrium global warming at doubled carbon dioxide (cli-
mate sensitivity) and the distribution of clouds and relative humidity in 18 state-of-the-art climate models.
There is a strong correlation among three indices: (1) model climate sensitivity, (2) mean cloud amount change
due to global warming, and (3) the difference in cloud amount between the tropics and midlatitudes. In the sim-
ulation of the present-day current, models with high sensitivity produce smaller clouds amounts in the tropics
and larger cloud amounts over midlatitude oceans than models with low sensitivity. The relative humidity in the
tropics is smaller in models with high sensitivity than in models with low sensitivity. There is a similarity
between vertical profiles of cloud amount and relative humidity under global warming and vertical profiles of
the difference in these quantities averaged over the tropics and midlatitudes. Based on the correlations obtained
and observations of cloud amount and relative humidity, an estimate is made of the sensitivity of a real climate
system.
DOI: 10.1134/S0001433808030043

INTRODUCTION its sensitivity is impossible. Therefore, attempts are

One of the key problems in the modern science on
climate is that of determining the equilibrium sensitiv-
ity of a real climate system. To determine equilibrium
sensitivity, numerical experiments, as a rule, are per-
formed with an atmospheric model and a homoge-
neous 50-m layer of the ocean. The equilibrium cli-
mate response to a doubling of ëé2 is achieved in
such models during 15 to 20 years, in contrast to
atmospheric models with a deep ocean, where the
adjustment to the ëé2 concentration change may last
for hundreds of years. The magnitude of global warm-
ing in response to a doubling of ëé2 in 18 such mod-
els is listed in the table. Numerical experiments with
the models were performed in 2004–2005. Results of
these experiments were used in preparing the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report [1]. The models them-
selves will be referred to as the IPCC AR4 models.
According to the table, the sensitivity of climate in the
different models varies from 2.1 to 4.4 K. This interval
has remained nearly unchanged relative to the IPCC
Third Assessment results (2.0–4.5 K). This brings up
the question of what sensitivity a real climate system
should have.
A different cloud response to global warming pro-
vides the largest contribution to the scatter of model
estimates of climate sensitivity [2]. A direct experi-
ment with a real climate system on the estimation of
being made to determine sensitivity indirectly. One of
the approaches to this problem is to find a correspon-
dence between the model sensitivity and a simulation
in the model of certain parameters of the current cli-
mate. In [3], for example, a correlation is established
between the amplitude of the annual temperature
cycle and climate sensitivity in models with a 50-m
layer. However, for the IPCC AR4 models, the coeffi-
cient of correlation between the amplitude of the
annual temperature cycle and climate sensitivity does
not exceed 0.3 [3]. The surface short-wave radiation
budget is the another quantity that could be related to
climate sensitivity [4]. However, the data used in [4]
were those from the CMIP-2 [5], where the nonequi-
librium response to doubled ëé2 was determined for
models with a deep ocean, that is, a response to a
1% year–1 ëé2 increase until ëé2 doubling. In addi-
tion, such a response depends on which effective layer
of the ocean participates in global warming. Further-
more, since a major contribution to the discrepancy in
sensitivity comes from a different cloud response to
global warming, it is logical to consider a correspon-
dence between climate sensitivity and the distribution
of clouds in the model, but the CMIP-2 data archive
does not contain cloud data. The goal of this paper is
to determine a relation between the model distribution
of clouds derived from the simulation of the current
climate and the relative humidity linked to clouds and

288
 RELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY 289

the sensitivity of climate of the given model to a dou- Climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling for the IPCC AR4 models
bling of carbon dioxide concentration.
No. Model ∆T(ä)
1 UKMO-HadGEM1, UK 4.4
DATA
2 IPSL-CM4, France 4.4
Calculation is performed with data from the 18 3 MIROC3.2(hires), Japan 4.3
IPCC AR4 models for which the equilibrium sensitiv-
4 MIROC3.2(medres), Japan 4.0
ity is reported in [1]. The data used are total cloud
amounts on a model longitude–latitude grid; three- 5 CGCM3.1(T47), Canada 3.4
dimensional monthly mean cloud amounts on a model 6 CGCM3.1(T63), Canada 3.4
grid in longitude, latitude, and the vertical; and three- 7 ECHAM5/MPI-OM, Germany 3.4
dimensional monthly mean relative humidity on a 8 GFDL-CM2.1, USA 3.4
model grid in longitude and latitude and, as a rule, at
17 standard ê-levels in the vertical. The model data 9 UKMO-HadCM3, UK 3.3
were linearly interpolated to a 5° longitude 4° latitude 10 ECHO-G, Germany/South Korea 3.2
grid and, for three-dimensional fields, at 17 standard 11 MRI-CGCM2.3.2, Japan 3.2
P-levels in the vertical, where data were possibly 12 CSIRO-Mk3.0, Australia 3.1
taken from a control experiment with the atmospheric
model and a 50-m ocean layer and from an analogous 13 GFDL-CM2.0, USA 2.9
experiment in which a doubled ëé2 concentration 14 CCSM3, USA 2.7
was specified. For those models for which data from 15 GISS-EH, USA 2.7
the experiments with a 50-m ocean were not available, 16 GISS-ER, USA 2.7
the data were derived from a numerical experiment on 17 INM-CM3.0, Russia 2.1
the simulation of a preindustrial climate with the
atmospheric and deep-ocean model. In addition, the 18 PCM, USA 2.1
data were used that were obtained from an experiment Note: The models are listed in descending order of climate sensi-
with a 1% year–1 ëé2 increase relative to the prein- tivity. More details on the models can be found at
http://www.pcmdi-llnl.gov.
dustrial value until ëé2 doubling (70 years) and for
the next 150 years with a doubled ëé2 concentration.
To examine the mean state and response to CO2 dou- near-average sensitivity. This, in turn, provides a statis-
bling, calculations in this case used the last 20 years tically more significant calculation of D.
of this numerical experiment and the corresponding For comparison with model data, the ISCCP D2
years of the preindustrial experiment. data set [6] and ERA-15 three-dimensional relative
To determine discrepancies in climate models with humidity data [7] have been used.
different sensitivity, composites were constructed for
the given high- and low-sensitivity models. The com-
posite of a quantity ï for high-sensitivity models, XH, RESULTS
was calculated in the following way: Consider the change in total cloud amount with a
NH NH doubling of ëé2 for high- and low-sensitivity models
XH = ∑ X ( ∆T
i i – [ ∆T ] ) ∑ ( ∆T i – [ ∆T ] ), (Fig. 1). Models with high sensitivity produce a
decrease in cloud amount of 4–6% over most of the
i=1 i=1
tropics and midlatitudes. At high latitudes, on the con-
where NH is the number of models with above-average trary, the cloud amount increases by 4–8%. Models
sensitivity, ∆Ti is the sensitivity of the model i, and [∆T] with low sensitivity predict only small changes in
is the sensitivity averaged over all models (about 3.2 K). cloud amount. In most of the region, the cloud amount
Likewise, the composite of ï for models with low sen- decreases by 1–2%. The change in cloud radiative
sitivity, XL, was calculated as forcing caused by a doubling of ëé2 in temperate and
NL NL
tropical latitudes (52° S–52° N) is 2.7 W m–2 for mod-
els with high sensitivity and 0.2 W m–2 for models
XL = ∑ X ( [ ∆T ] – ∆T ) ∑ ( [ ∆T ] – ∆T ),
i i i with low sensitivity. The standard deviation (SD) of
i=1 i=1 this quantity for all models is 1.25 W m–2, i.e., half the
where NL is the number of models with below-average difference between models with high and low sensi-
sensitivity. The residual of ï for high- and low-sensi- tivity. Given that the radiative forcing at the top of the
tivity models is D = XH – XL. This method provides a atmosphere due to ëé2 doubling is about 3.7 W m–2,
larger contribution to XH and XL of models with a sensi- the radiative forcing caused by ëé2 doubling and by
tivity differing from the average relative to models with cloud variation is 6.4 W m–2 for models with high sen-

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

290 VOLODIN

(‡)
4 4
2 8 6
64 2 8 6 2 4
4 2
60N 0 0 0
–2 –2 –2 –4 –2
30N –6 –4 –2 –4
–4–6 –2
–6 –6 –4 –4 –2
0
EQ –2 –2 0
–4 –2 –6
–4
–2 –4
30S –4 –4 –2
–2 –2 –4
–6 –6
–4 –4
–2 –4 –2 –2
4
60S 846 20
4 4 86 0
8
2 4 6 2 6 8
4 4
0 60E 120E 180 120W 60W 0
(b)
0
0 0
0
60N 0 0
0
0
30N –2 –2
0
0 –2
0 0
2 0
–2 –2
EQ –2
0
0 0
–2
30S 0 0 0
–2
–2
60S 0
0 0
0
0 2
2
0 60E 120E 180 120W 60W 0

–6 –4 –2 2 4

Fig. 1. Change in cloud amount (%) due to CO2 doubling in models with (a) high and (b) low sensitivity.

sitivity and 3.9 W m–2 for models with low sensitivity; oceans and fewer clouds over the tropics. Hence, the
that is, the value of the latter is a factor of 1.65 less difference in cloud amount between temperate and
than the former, which explains why the sensitivity is tropical latitudes in the present-day climate can be
lower by approximately the same amount. Consider treated as an index that must be correlated with the
now how the simulation of cloudiness in the present- model climate sensitivity. Then, as can be seen in
day climate is related to model sensitivity. Figure 2 Fig. 2, it is most convenient to use averaging either
shows the difference in cloud amount between models over temperate oceans of both hemispheres or over the
with high and low sensitivity. Models with high sensi- entire area of temperate latitudes, but only in the
tivity tend to have more clouds over midlatitude Southern Hemisphere. Figure 3 shows that three quan-

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

 RELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY 291

–15 –15
–5
–15 –5–10 10
60N –10 –15 5
–10 –5 0
–10 5
0 –5 –5
5
30N 0 –5 –50
0 –10 –10 5
–5 0
–15 –5
–15
–5 –10 –10 –10
EQ –10 –10 –5
–15 –10
–20 –10
–5 –10 –10
–10 –5 –25 –10
0 –50 0 –10 –5
30S –5
5 5
5 10
10 –5
10 10 0
10 5
60S 5 05 0
0 –5
–10 5
–15 –20 –15 –20 –5 –5–10
–10
–25 –25 –15 –25 –15
–20 –25 –20
0 60E 120E 180 120W 60W 0

Fig. 2. Residual of cloud amount (%) between high- and low-sensitivity models. The residual exceeding the model SD is shaded
gray.

tities, (1) the difference in cloud amount between the
tropics and southern temperate latitudes, (2) climate
sensitivity, and (3) the change in cloud amount due to
a doubling of CO2, are strongly correlated with one
another in all of the models. The coefficient of corre-
lation between the difference of cloud amount over the
tropics and southern temperate latitudes and climate
sensitivity is –0.82. The coefficient of correlation
between climate sensitivity and the change in cloud
amount due to CO2 doubling in the models is –0.80.
Finally, the correlation between the change in cloud
amount due to CO2 doubling and the difference of
cloud amount over the tropics and southern temperate
latitudes is 0.75. It may be hypothesized that such a
high correlation is due to the fact that the change in
cloud amount in the climate system owing to temper-
ature variation is governed by approximately the same
mechanism as that caused by CO2 doubling and occur-
ring from temperate latitudes to the tropics. Indeed,
cloudiness changes normalized by the temperature
variation coincide in order of magnitude in both cases.
For example, in the four most sensitive models, the
temperature change is about 4 K, while the change in
cloud amount caused by global warming is about –4%
(Fig. 3c); that is, the normalized value is about
−1%/K. The change in cloud amount from the tropics
to temperate latitudes for these models is –35%, and
the change in surface temperature from the tropics to
southern temperate latitudes is approximately 1.7 K;
that is, the normalized change in cloud amount is
−2%/K, which differs from an analogous quantity at
doubled CO2 by a factor of 2. Given that the magni-
tude of warming in the 52° S–52° N belt, where the
variation in cloud amount is considered, is below the
global average, the difference will be even smaller
than a factor of 2.
On the basis of the correlation between the differ-
ence of cloud amount in the tropics and southern tem-
perate latitudes and climate sensitivity and under the
assumption that the data of a real climate system obey
the same law as the model-simulated data, it is possi-
ble to estimate the sensitivity of a real climate from
the observed cloud data. According to observational
data, the difference in cloud amount between the trop-
ics and southern temperate latitudes is about –25%,
which, as can be seen in Fig. 3a, corresponds to a cli-
mate sensitivity of 3.6 ± 0.3 K, where 0.3 K is the SD
of model sensitivity from the best curve drawn
through the model points in Fig. 3a. The uncertainty
range of this estimate can be increased owing to an
uncertainty in the observed cloud amount, which is no
more than 0.05 at each grid point in [8]. The corre-
sponding uncertainty in the estimate of climate sensi-
tivity is about 0.4 K. However, since the calculation of
the difference in cloud amount between tropical and
temperate latitudes involves averaging over large
areas, the uncertainty in the observed value of sensi-
tivity appears to be well below 0.05.
Consider how the vertical distribution of clouds
differs in models with high and low sensitivity
(Fig. 4). Statistically significant differences are con-
centrated mainly in the tropics and subtropics. Models

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

292 VOLODIN

(‡) it is impossible to decide with confidence which class

2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 of models reproduce the observed vertical distribution
–5 of clouds more accurately. For example, the ISCCP
–10 data set [6] contains the distribution of (a) high
clouds, (b) middle clouds in the absence of high
–15 clouds, and (c) low clouds in the absence of middle
–20 and high clouds. To calculate the amount of, for exam-
ple, low clouds from these data, an assumption should
–25 be additionally made about the overlap of clouds at
–30 different levels. In turn, to convert model data to high,
middle, and low cloud amounts, an assumption should
–35
(b) also be made about the overlap of clouds at different
0.5 model levels. Attempts to do this demonstrate that the
0 result of comparison of the model data with observa-
–0.5 tions will depend on the assumption about the overlap
–1.0 of clouds in different layers.
–1.5
–2.0 However, the cloud amount in models is usually
–2.5 calculated from relative humidity, the observations of
–3.0 which are now available. Therefore, we compare rela-
–3.5
–4.0 tive humidity data for models with high and low sen-
–4.5 (c) sitivity with observational data.
–4.5 –4.0–3.5–3.0–2.5–2.0–1.5–1.0 –0.5 0 0.5 1.0 Figure 5 shows the latitude-circle-mean relative
humidity averaged over all models, the mean (over all
–5 models) error in relative humidity, and the difference
–10 in relative humidity between models with high and
–15 low sensitivity. In the tropics and subtropics, the dif-
ference in relative humidity between models with high
–20 and low sensitivity (Fig. 5c) is almost entirely analo-
–25 gous to the corresponding residual for clouds
–30 (Fig. 4c). According to Fig. 5b, the models in the trop-
–35 ics and subtropics tend to underestimate relative
–40 humidity in the lower troposphere and overestimate it
in the upper troposphere. This means that models with
Fig. 3. Data for 18 IPCC AR4 models: (a) climate sensitivity low sensitivity simulate relative humidity better in the
to CO2 doubling, K (abscissa) and the residual of cloud lower troposphere and models with high sensitivity
amount (%) over tropics (28° S–28° N) and southern temper- reproduce relative humidity more accurately in the
ate latitudes (56° S−36° S) (ordinate). Correlation coefficient =
–0.82. The circle shows an analogous difference from obser-
upper troposphere. In temperate latitudes, the models
vations (–25%) and the sensitivity estimate (3.6 ± 0.3 K), tend to overestimate relative humidity at almost all
where 0.3 K is the SD of model sensitivity from the best tropospheric levels.
curve drawn through the points; (b) climate sensitivity to
ëé2 doubling, K (abscissa) and cloud change (%) due to For each model, the projection P of the relative-
ëé2 doubling in the region 52° S–52 °N (ordinate). Correla- humidity error R onto the difference D of relative
tion coefficient = –0.80; (c) cloud change (%) due to ëé2 humidity for models with high and low sensitivity,
doubling (abscissa) and the difference in cloud amount (%) which is shown in Fig. 5c, is
between the tropics (28° S–28° N) and temperate latitudes

(56° S–36° S) (ordinate). Correlation coefficient = 0.75.
with high sensitivity tend to have a maximum of high
clouds at 100–200 hPa, and models with low sensitiv-
ity have a maximum at 200–300 hPa. In the lower tro-
posphere, models with high sensitivity produce half
the amount of clouds of the model with low sensitiv-
ity. At southern temperate latitudes in the lower tropo-
sphere and in the equatorial middle troposphere, mod-
els with high sensitivity predict more clouds than
those with low sensitivity. However, data on the verti-
cal distribution of clouds that are analogous to the
model data shown in Fig. 4 are unavailable; therefore,
∑R
P= j, k D j, k cos ( ϕ j )∆P k w j, k ,
j, k
where j and k are the latitude and pressure indices,
respectively; ϕ is the latitude; ∆Pk is the thickness layer
in pressure coordinates; and wj, k is a weight function,
equal to 1 for a shaded area in Fig. 5c and 0 for an
unshaded area. The projection of the error of relative
humidity and climate sensitivity for 18 IPCC AR4
models are shown in Fig. 6. The correlation coefficient
between the projection and climate sensitivity is 0.75.
The observed relative humidity, or a zero error projec-
tion, corresponds to a sensitivity of 3.4 ± 0.3 K, where
0.3 K is the SD of model sensitivity from the best curve

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

 RELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY 293

(‡)

100 102530
5 15
2000 15 10
20 10
300
5 5
400 25
500 20 20
15
600
20
700 20
800 25 20
900
30 5 25
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(b)
35
100 1510 20
2000 5 25
10 15 30
300 15
Height, hPa

20 10 15 20
400 25
5
500
600 20
20
700
25
800 5 15
25
900 10 10
1000 30 10 10
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(c) 5
0 10 10 0
100 18 20
6 6
2000 –2 6
–6 2
300 8 4 6 4
400 6 2 –2
–4 0
500 0 –4
–2 0
600 0
2 –6
700 –2 4
–4 0 2
800
–4 –2
900 0
6 –4 –6
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N

Fig. 4. Cloud amount (%) averaged over a circle of latitude in models with (a) high and (b) low sensitivity and (c) their residual.
The difference exceeding the model SD is shaded gray.

drawn through the model points in Fig. 6. Such an esti-
mate corresponds to that obtained from the observed
distribution of clouds.
Consider how the vertical profile of cloud amount
changes with global warming in models with high and
low sensitivity (Fig. 7). In models with high sensitiv-
ity, the cloud amount decreases almost everywhere in
the tropical and temperate troposphere, particularly in
the upper tropical troposphere, where the decrease
reaches 5–6%. At the same time, there is a growth of
cloud amount at the tropopause. In models with low
sensitivity, cloud changes are mostly similar, but less
in magnitude, while cloud changes in the lower tropi-
cal and subtropical troposphere are close to zero. The

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

294 VOLODIN

(‡)
5 15
100 505545 5
15 10
2000 25 20 40 35
45 45 90
300 55 30 50 35 40 50
60
400 30
80
500
600 70
700 35 65
65 4045 70
800 5055 45 60
75 50
80 60 65 55
900 60
70 50
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(b) 40
0 2 0
100 –10 0 –8–6 2 6
14 6 2 0 1481216
2000 2418 20 22 30
8 2428
26
28
26 6 8
300 18
16
14
10 10
8 12 10 8 12 20
Height, hPa

400 6 6
4 2 10
500 0
2 –2 –2
600 –4 8
700 4 6
–4
10
800 4
2
900 0 2 –6
6 5
1000 0 –2
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(c) –5
0 20
46 –2
100 –4680 –10
4
2000 –8
–6 –2–4 8 2
–20 0
300 2
4
400
–10 0
500 –8 –8
4 –6 –2
600 –4
700 –2
4
800 2 0
–2
–6
900 –4 –2 –2
–4 0
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N

Fig. 5. (a) Relative humidity averaged over all models, (b) error from the ERA-15 data, and (c) the difference in relative humidity
between high- and low-sensitivity models. The difference exceeding the model SD is shaded gray.

discrepancy between models with high and low sensi-
tivity is statistically significant (Fig. 8c) in the upper
and lower tropical and subtropical troposphere, where
models with high sensitivity predict a larger decrease
in cloud amount, and at the tropopause and in the
lower stratosphere, where models with high sensitiv-
ity produce a larger increase in cloud amount. The
analogous changes in relative humidity are generally
similar to cloud changes. The distinction is that the
relative humidity increases slightly in the tropical
middle troposphere, especially in high-sensitivity
models, whereas cloud changes are close to zero there.
With warming induced by a doubling of ëé2 and
warming in the tropics relative to midlatitudes, not
only do similar changes occur in the total cloud
amount, but they also occur in the vertical profile of

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

 RELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY
relative humidity (Fig. 9) and cloud amount (Fig. 10).
One cannot infer with confidence that changes in
cloud amount and relative humidity are entirely iden-
tical in both cases, but there is some similarity between
them. In models with high sensitivity, under global
warming and under warming in the tropics relative to
midlatitudes, the cloud amount decreases most substan-
tially in the upper troposphere (300–400 hPa) and at the
top of the boundary layer (850–900 hPa). The decrease
is not as large in the middle troposphere (600–
700 hPa). There is an increase in cloud amount at the
tropopause, near 100 hPa. In models with high sensi-
tivity, the changes in relative humidity are similar to
those in cloud amount. At the same time, models with
low sensitivity predict the largest decrease in cloud
amount and relative humidity in the middle tropo-
sphere (400–700 hPa) and an increase at 100–200 hPa.
The absolute cloud and relative-humidity changes
normalized by temperature changes, as in the case of
total cloudiness, are approximately identical under
global warming and from midlatitudes to the tropics.
As in the case of total cloudiness, changes from mid-
latitudes to the tropics are about 1.5 times as large as
those induced by global warming.
We now compare the vertical profiles of relative
humidity from midlatitudes to the tropics according to
the model data and observations. Interestingly, the
observational data differ from the data of both high-
and low-sensitivity models. The model-simulated rel-
ative humidity in the lower troposphere is smaller in
the tropics than at temperate latitudes (Fig. 9b). This
is true for both the composite of models with high sen-
sitivity and the composite of models with low sensitivity,
as well as for each model separately. At the same time,
according to the ERA-15 data, the relative humidity
below 600 hPa has approximately the same value in the
tropics as in temperate latitudes and is lower than in tem-
perate latitudes only in the 300–500 hPa layer. The
increase in relative humidity in the 100–200 hPa layer
from the reanalysis data is generally consistent with
results from both high- and low-sensitivity models.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It is shown that there is a similarity in the IPCC
AR4 models between the change in cloud amount due
to ëé2 doubling and the difference in cloud amount
between the tropics and southern temperate latitudes.
This is true for total cloudiness and for vertical pro-
files of cloudiness and relative humidity. Because it is
a different response of cloudiness that largely deter-
mines the discrepancy in climate sensitivity to a dou-
bling of ëé2 in various models, a correlation exists
between the difference of cloud amount over southern
temperate latitudes and the tropics in the present-day
climate and the sensitivity of climate. An analogous
correlation exists between the distribution of relative
humidity and climate sensitivity. Namely, the high cli-
IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS
295
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4
80
60
40
20
0
–20
–40
–60
–80
–100
–120
Fig. 6. Climate sensitivity (abscissa) and the error projec-
tion of zonally averaged relative humidity onto the differ-
ence shown in Fig. 5c (ordinate). Data for 18 IPCC AR4
models. The circle shows observational data (zero error pro-
jection and sensitivity 3.4 ± 0.3 K, where 0.3 K is the SD of
model sensitivity from the best curve drawn in the figure).
mate sensitivity is associated with smaller cloud
amounts in the tropics than in southern temperate lat-
itudes and with low relative humidity in the tropics. In
models with high sensitivity, the largest decrease in
cloud amount and relative humidity in the tropics in
comparison with temperate latitudes and under global
warming on the entire planet occurs in the upper tro-
posphere (300–400 hPa) and in the lower troposphere
(850–900 hPa). On the basis of this result and the
observed distribution of clouds and relative humidity,
an estimate is obtained for the observed sensitivity of
climate. It is 3.6 ± 0.3 K from the cloud data and 3.4 ±
0.3 K from the relative humidity data.
However, these estimates should be used with cau-
tion for the following reasons. In models with high
sensitivity, the cloud amount under global warming
decreases most substantially in the tropical upper tro-
posphere and less in the boundary layer. However, as
shown by numerical experiments with the INMCM3.0
model, a decrease in the tropical high-level cloud
amount has no large impact on model sensitivity,
because the radiative forcing induced by this decrease
is close to zero and is composed of a positive short-
wave forcing and a negative longwave forcing of
about the same value. At the same time, models with
high sensitivity differ from those with low sensitivity
primarily in a change in shortwave radiative forcing.
This change due to a doubling of ëé2 is 3.7 W m–2 for
high-sensitivity models and 0.8 W m–2 for low-sensitiv-
ity models. The SD of this quantity for all models is
1.55 W m–2, or almost half the difference for high- and
low-sensitivity models. The change in longwave radia-
tive forcing through a doubling of ëé2 is –1.0 W m–2 in
high-sensitivity models and –0.6 W m–2 in low-sensitiv-
ity models, with the SD for all models of 0.5 W m–2.
Thus, the discrepancy of variations in cloud radiative
forcing for high- and low-sensitivity models is due
mainly to a shortwave component. This is indicative
Vol. 44 No. 3 2008
296 VOLODIN

(‡)
2 76
100 30 1 –2 1 –10 2
2000 3 3
–2 –5 –3 1
300 2 1
400 0 –1
500 –2
600
700 –1
0
800 –1 4
900 –2
1000 0 2
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(b) 1
100
1 –
2000 1 1 0 1
–1 1
300 0
Height, hPa

–2
400 –1 –1
1 –1
500 –4
600
700
800 0 0 –1
–2
900
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(c)
1 76 0
100 2 1 –1 1
–4–3
3 1
2000 2
1 –2 –5 10
300 0 1
0 –1 –2
400 –1
500 0
600 0
700 1 0
800 2
–1 –1
900 –1
–1
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N

Fig. 7. Cloud change (%) due to ëé2 doubling averaged over a circle of latitude for models with (a) high and (b) low sensitivity
and (c) the residual of these fields. The difference exceeding the model SD is shaded gray.

of a large role of the surface cloudiness variation in a
different change of cloud radiative forcing in high-
and low-sensitivity models.
The estimates of climate sensitivity from observa-
tional data are somewhat overstated in comparison
with the average over all models, primarily because
the relative humidity in the tropical upper troposphere
from observational data is overestimated in all mod-
els. The same can evidently be said of cloudiness. In
the lower troposphere, in contrast, the relative humid-
ity in the tropics is underestimated in most of the mod-
els, the difference in relative humidity between the
tropics and southern temperate latitudes is negative,

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

 RELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY 297

(‡)
3 2 81010
14
4 0 123
100 7 65 81 –1 56 8 3
9 10
–3 –6 11
12
2000 87
645
300 3 2
1 2
–1 –4
400 0 01
2 –1
500 –3
600 –1 –4
0 3
700 0
–3
800 1
–1 –1 –2
–2
900
0
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(b)
1
100 32 11 4
5 4 –1 5
2000 32 1
300 0 0 2
0
–1
Height, hPa

400 1 –1 0
1 0 1
500
600
–1
700 0 –2
800 0 –2
–1 –1 0
900
1000 –4
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N
(c)
1 2
100 1 11 3 11 2
4 3 –2 345
5 5 43 6
2000 –5 7
34 2 –4 –6
300 1 –2
0 01
400 –3
500 –1 –3 2 –2
600 –1
700 0 0
1
800 0
900 1 –1
0 –1 –1
1000
0 60S 30S EQ 30N 60N

Fig. 8. Relative humidity change (%) due to ëé2 doubling averaged over a circle of latitude for models with (a) high and (b) low
sensitivity and (c) the difference of these fields. The difference exceeding the model SD is shaded gray.

and the reanalysis data are close to zero. This circum-
stance means that, if the sensitivity of a real climate
system is estimated only from data for the lower tro-
posphere, where cloud variations have the largest
effect on sensitivity, then the sensitivity of a real cli-
mate must be below the average over all models.
In [4], it is concluded that high-sensitivity models
tend to have small amounts of subinversion clouds at
the top of the boundary layer, while low-sensitivity
models should have large amounts of subinversion
clouds. This result does not contradict the main find-
ing of the given paper, because, as shown by numeri-

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

298 VOLODIN

Pressure, mb (‡) Pressure, mb (‡)

100 100
200 200
300 300
400 400
500 500
600 600
700 700
800 800
900 900
1000 1000
(b) (b)
100 100
200 200
300 300
400 400
500 500
600 600
700 700
800 800
900 900
1000 1000
–2.0 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 –1.2 –0.9 –0.6 –0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2

Fig. 9. (a) Change in the vertical profile of relative humidity

due to ëé2 doubling in the region 52° S–52° N normalized
by the surface temperature change (%/K). (b) Difference in
relative humidity between the tropics (24° S–24° N) and
southern temperate latitudes (56° S–36° S) normalized by
the surface temperature difference between the tropics and
temperate latitudes (%/K) for high-sensitivity models (thin
solid line), low-sensitivity models (dashed line), and obser-
vations (thick solid line).
Fig. 10. (a) Change in the vertical profile of cloud amount
due to ëé2 doubling in the region 52° S–52° N normalized
by the surface temperature change (%/K). (b) Difference in
cloud amount between the tropics (24° S−24° N) and south-
ern temperate latitudes (56° S−36° N) over oceans normal-
ized by the surface temperature difference between the tropics
and southern temperate latitudes (%/K) from (thin solid line)
high-sensitivity and (dashed line) low-sensitivity models.

cal experiments with the INMCM3.0 model, the intro-
duction of a cloud increase under inversion conditions
provides larger total cloud amounts in the tropics and
subtropics than in temperate latitudes. However, vary-
ing the subinversion cloud amount is not the only
mechanism of formation of a different sensitivity in
models. For example, neglecting subinversion clouds
in the INMCM3.0 model increases sensitivity from
2.1 to 2.5 K; that is, the model sensitivity is still below
the average over all models even after additional sub-
inversion clouds are eliminated.
Let us explain qualitatively what could induce a
significant decrease in relative humidity under global
warming in high-sensitivity models and a small
change in relative humidity and cloudiness in low-
sensitivity models. Small changes in relative humidity
during global warming can take place in models
where, after the implementation of convection param-
etrization, the relative humidity is prescribed explic-
itly and is independent of temperature, moisture, con-
vection intensity, etc. It is this class of models that
includes the INMCM3.0, which has one of the lowest
sensitivities. A considerable decrease in relative
humidity owing to warming can be observed, for
example, in models that use a mass flux scheme for
convection parametrization [9]. In such models, the
cell is split into a cloudy part, with a 100% relative
humidity, and a cloudless part, in which the relative
humidity is the lower, the more intense downdrafts in
the cell. Subgrid-scale updrafts in the cloudy part and
downdrafts in the cloudless part must cancel each
other, so that the total vertical subgrid-scale mass flux
would be zero. If we assume that the share of the
cloudy and cloudless part is independent of tempera-
ture and that the intensity of the updrafts in the cloudy
part of the cell increases with global warming, the
total relative humidity after the introduction of con-
vection parametrization must be reduced owing to a
decrease in relative humidity in the cloudless part with
increasing intensity of the downdrafts.

IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS Vol. 44 No. 3 2008

 RELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the Russian Founda-
tion for Basic Research, project nos. 06-05-64331 and
06-05-64246.
REFERENCES
1. D. Randall, A Wood, S. Bony, et al., “Climate Models
and Their Evaluation,” in IPCC WG1 Assessment Report
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007) (in press).
2. B. J. Soden and I. M. Held, “An Assessment of Climate
Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models,” J.
Clim. 19, 3354–3360 (2006).
3. R. Knutti, G. A. Meehl, M. R. Allen, et al., “Constraining
Climate Sensitivity from the Seasonal Cycle in Surface
Temperature,” J. Clim. 19, 4224–4233 (2006).
4. E. M. Volodin and CMIP Member Group, “Relation
between the Global-Warming Parameter and the Heat
IZVESTIYA, ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC PHYSICS
299
Balance on the Earth’s Surface at Increased Contents of
Carbon Dioxide,” Izv. Akad. Nauk, Fiz. Atmos. Okeana
40, 306–313 (2004) [Izv., Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 40, 269–
275 (2004)].
5. G. A. Meehl, G. J. Boer, C. Covey, et al., “The Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP),” Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 81, 313–318 (2000).
6. W. B. Rossow and R. A. Schiffef, “ISCCP Cloud Data
Product,” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 72, 2–20 (1991).
7. S. M. Uppala, P. W. Kallberg, A. J. Simmons, et al., “The
ERA-40 Re-Analysis,” Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 131
(612), 2961–3012 (2005).
8. W. B. Rossow and R. A. Schiffer, “Advances in Under-
standing Clouds from ISCCP,” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
80, 2261–2288 (1999).
9. M. Tiedtke, “A Comprehensive Mass Flux Scheme for
Cumulus Parameterisation in Large-Scale Models,”
Mon. Weather Rev. 117, 1779–1800 (1989).
Vol. 44 No. 3 2008