Quantifying the radiative response to surface temperature variability: A critical comparison of current methods

TL;DR

This paper compares various methods for quantifying the radiative response to surface temperature variability, highlighting their agreements, discrepancies, and implications for understanding climate feedbacks.

Contribution

It provides a systematic comparison of current statistical and model-based methods for estimating the pattern effect in climate science.

Findings

Most methods agree on large negative feedbacks over the western Pacific.

Methods often disagree on feedback sign and spatial patterns elsewhere.

All methods agree on the global radiative response driven by internal variability.

Abstract

Over the past decade, it has become clear that the radiative response to surface temperature change depends on the spatially varying structure in the temperature field, a phenomenon known as the "pattern effect''. The pattern effect is commonly estimated from dedicated climate model simulations forced with local surface temperatures patches (Green's function experiments). Green's function experiments capture causal influences from temperature perturbations, but are computationally expensive to run. Recently, however, several methods have been proposed that estimate the pattern effect through statistical means. These methods can accurately predict the radiative response to temperature variations in climate model simulations. The goal of this paper is to compare methods used to quantify the pattern effect. We apply each method to the same prediction task and discuss its advantages and disadvantages. Most methods indicate large negative feedbacks over the western Pacific. Over other regions, the methods frequently disagree on feedback sign and spatial homogeneity. While all methods yield similar predictions of the global radiative response to surface temperature variations driven by internal variability, they produce very different predictions from the patterns of surface temperature change in simulations forced with increasing CO2 concentrations. We discuss reasons for the discrepancies between methods and recommend paths towards using them in the future to enhance physical understanding of the pattern effect.