Cited by 469Climate variability and modelsCryospheric studies and observationsMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations

Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change

Hall, Alex, Qu, Xin·2006·Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract

Differences in simulations of climate feedbacks are sources of significant divergence in climate models' temperature response to anthropogenic forcing. Snow albedo feedback is particularly critical for climate change prediction in heavily‐populated northern hemisphere land masses. Here we show its strength in current models exhibits a factor‐of‐three spread. These large intermodel variations in feedback strength in climate change are nearly perfectly correlated with comparably large intermodel variations in feedback strength in the context of the seasonal cycle. Moreover, the feedback strength in the real seasonal cycle can be measured and compared to simulated values. These mostly fall outside the range of the observed estimate, suggesting many models have an unrealistic snow albedo feedback in the seasonal cycle context. Because of the tight correlation between simulated feedback strength in the seasonal cycle and climate change, eliminating the model errors in the seasonal cycle will lead directly to a reduction in the spread of feedback strength in climate change. Though this comparison to observations may put the models in an unduly harsh light because of uncertainties in the observed estimate that are difficult to quantify, our results map out a clear strategy for targeted observation of the seasonal cycle to reduce divergence in simulations of climate sensitivity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2005gl025127

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hall and Qu (2006) found that large inter-model variations in the seasonal cycle of the albedo between April and May in the 20th century are well correlated with similarly large inter-model variations in the snow-albedo feedback on climatological timescales.

    “For example, Hall and Qu (2006) found that large inter-model variations in the seasonal cycle of the albedo between April and May in the 20th century are well correlated with similarly large inter-model variations in the snow-albedo feedback on climatological timescales.”

    From The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 (2016) · cites this paper as Hall and Qu, 2006

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 21 · Cited by 469

Authors
Hall, A., & Qu, X.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Geophysical Research Letters
Published
2006-02
Volume
33
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-8007
OpenAlex
W2032082343
Cited by
469
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 27
FWCI
12.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Cryospheric studies and observations
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Keywords
snow-albedo feedback, seasonal cycle, climate feedbacks, inter-model spread, climate sensitivity, model evaluation against observations, Northern Hemisphere, anthropogenic forcing, temperature sensitivity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review