Abstract The literature offers conflicting findings about which regions contribute most to increases in the global radiative feedback after a forcing increase. This paper explains the disagreement by discriminating between two common definitions of the local feedback, which use either local temperature or global temperature as their basis. Although the two definitions of feedback have been previously compared in aquaplanet models with slab oceans, here the definitions are compared for the first time in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (MPI-ESM1.2) integrated over four doublings of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. Large differences between the definitions can be seen in all feedbacks, but especially in the temperature and water vapor feedbacks. Differences of up to 10 W m⁻² K⁻¹ over the Southern Ocean can be explained by the pattern of surface warming, which weights the local feedbacks and reduces their contribution to the global mean. This finding is, however, dependent on the resolution of analysis, because the local-temperature definition is mathematically inconsistent across spatial scales. Furthermore, attempts to estimate the effect of “pattern weighting” by separating local feedbacks and warming patterns at the gridcell level fail, because the radiative change in key tropical regions is also determined by tropospheric stability via the global circulation. These findings indicate that studies of regional feedback change are more sensitive to methodological choices than previously thought, and that the tropics most likely dominate regional contributions to global radiative feedback change on decadal to centennial time scales. Significance Statement Radiative feedbacks are processes that either intensify or damp global surface warming. We compare two ways to define local radiative feedbacks in a climate model and find that the choice of definition drastically impacts the results. Differences in feedback between the definitions are up to 10 W m⁻² K⁻¹ over the Southern Ocean; by comparison, the estimate of the true global feedback is around −1 W m⁻² K⁻¹. Also, one of the definitions is mathematically inconsistent across different scales of spatial aggregation. Our findings matter because they help to reconcile disagreement in previous studies about which regions dominate global radiative feedback change in model simulations of global warming.