Arctic warming under increased CO2peaks in winter, but is influenced by summer forcing via seasonal ocean heat storage. Yet changes in atmospheric heat transport into the Arctic have mainly been investigated in the annual mean or winter, with limited focus on other seasons. We investigate the full seasonal cycle of poleward heat transport modeled with increased CO2or with individually applied Arctic sea‐ice loss and global sea‐surface warming. We find that a winter reduction in dry heat transport is driven by Arctic sea‐ice loss and warming, while a summer increase in moist heat transport is driven by sub‐Arctic warming and moistening. Intermodel spread in Arctic warming controls spread in seasonal poleward heat transport. These seasonal changes and their intermodel spread are well‐captured by down‐gradient diffusive heat transport. While changes in moist and dry heat transport compensate in the annual‐mean, their opposite seasonality may support non‐compensating effects on Arctic warming.
Arctic surface warming under greenhouse gas forcing peaks in winter and reaches its minimum during summer in both observations and model projections. Many mechanisms have been proposed to explain this seasonal asymmetry, but disentangling these processes remains a challenge in the interpretation of general circulation model (GCM) experiments. To isolate these mechanisms, we use an idealized single-column sea ice model (SCM) that captures the seasonal pattern of Arctic warming. SCM experiments demonstrate that as sea ice melts and exposes open ocean, the accompanying increase in effective surface heat capacity alone can produce the observed pattern of peak warming in early winter (shifting to late winter under increased forcing) by slowing the seasonal heating rate, thus delaying the phase and reducing the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of surface temperature. To investigate warming seasonality in more complex models, we perform GCM experiments that individually isolate sea ice albedo and thermodynamic effects under CO2forcing. These also show a key role for the effective heat capacity of sea ice in promoting seasonal asymmetry through suppressing summer warming, in addition to precluding summer climatological inversions and a positive summer lapse-rate feedback. Peak winter warming in GCM experiments is further supported by a positive winter lapse-rate feedback, due to cold initial surface temperatures and strong surface-trapped warming that are enabled by the albedo effects of sea ice alone. While many factors contribute to the seasonal pattern of Arctic warming, these results highlight changes in effective surface heat capacity as a central mechanism supporting this seasonality.
Under increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the strongest Arctic warming has occurred during early winter, but the reasons for this seasonal pattern of warming are not well understood. We use experiments in both simple and complex models with certain sea ice processes turned on and off to disentangle potential drivers of seasonality in Arctic warming. When sea ice melts and open ocean is exposed, surface temperatures are slower to reach the warm-season maximum and slower to cool back down below freezing in early winter. We find that this process alone can produce the observed pattern of maximum Arctic warming in early winter, highlighting a fundamental mechanism for the seasonality of Arctic warming.
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10363186
- Publisher / Repository:
- American Meteorological Society
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Climate
- Volume:
- 35
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 0894-8755
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 1629-1642
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract Radiative climate feedbacks in the Arctic have been extensively studied, but their spatial and seasonal variations have not been thoroughly examined. Using ERA5 reanalysis data, we examine seasonal variations in Arctic climate feedbacks and their relationship to sea‐ice loss based on changes from 1950–1979 to 1990–2019. The spring and summer seasons experienced large sea‐ice loss, strong surface albedo feedback, and large oceanic heat uptake. Arctic clouds exerted small net cooling in May‐June‐July but moderate warming during the cold season, especially over areas with large sea‐ice loss where cloud liquid and ice water content increased. Arctic water vapor feedback peaked in summer but was weak and uncorrelated with sea‐ice loss. Arctic positive lapse rate feedback (LRF) was strongest in winter over areas with large sea‐ice loss and weak inversion but uncorrelated with atmospheric stability, suggesting that oceanic heating from sea‐ice loss led to enhanced surface warming and the positive LRF.
-
more » « less
Abstract The lapse rate feedback is the dominant driver of stronger warming in the Arctic than the Antarctic in simulations with increased CO2. While Antarctic surface elevation has been implicated in promoting a weaker Antarctic lapse rate feedback, the mechanisms in which elevation impacts the lapse rate feedback are still unclear. Here we suggest that weaker Antarctic warming under CO2forcing stems from shallower, less intense climatological inversions due to limited atmospheric heat transport above the ice sheet elevation and elevation‐induced katabatic winds. In slab ocean model experiments with flattened Antarctic topography, stronger climatological inversions support a stronger lapse rate feedback and annual mean Antarctic warming comparable to the Arctic under CO2doubling. Unlike the Arctic, seasonality in warming over flat Antarctica is mainly driven by a negative shortwave cloud feedback, which exclusively dampens summer warming, with a smaller contribution from the winter‐enhanced lapse rate feedback.
-
more » « less
Abstract Arctic amplification (AA), referring to the phenomenon of amplified warming in the Arctic compared to the warming in the rest of the globe, is generally attributed to the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. However, little attention has been paid to the mechanisms and quantitative variations of AA under decreasing levels of CO2, when cooling where the Arctic region is considerably larger than over the rest of the planet. Analyzing climate model experiments forced with a wide range of CO2concentrations (from 1/8× to 8×CO2, with respect to preindustrial levels), we show that AA indeed occurs under decreasing CO2concentrations, and it is stronger than AA under increasing CO2concentrations. Feedback analysis reveals that the Planck, lapse-rate, and albedo feedbacks are the main contributors to producing AAs forced by CO2increase and decrease, but the stronger lapse-rate feedback associated with decreasing CO2level gives rise to stronger AA. We further find that the increasing CO2concentrations delay the peak month of AA from November to December or January, depending on the forcing strength. In contrast, decreasing CO2levels cannot shift the peak of AA earlier than October, as a consequence of the maximum sea-ice increase in September which is independent of forcing strength. Such seasonality changes are also presented in the lapse-rate feedback, but do not appear in other feedbacks nor in the atmospheric and oceanic heat transport processeses. Our results highlight the strongly asymmetric responses of AA, as evidenced by the different changes in its intensity and seasonality, to the increasing and decreasing CO2concentrations. These findings have significant implications for understanding how carbon removal could impact the Arctic climate, ecosystems, and socio-economic activities.
-
more » « less
Abstract The uncertainty in polar cloud feedbacks calls for process understanding of the cloud response to climate warming. As an initial step toward improved process understanding, we investigate the seasonal cycle of polar clouds in the current climate by adopting a novel modeling framework using large eddy simulations (LES), which explicitly resolve cloud dynamics. Resolved horizontal and vertical advection of heat and moisture from an idealized general circulation model (GCM) are prescribed as forcing in the LES. The LES are also forced with prescribed sea ice thickness, but surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, and moisture evolve freely without nudging. A semigray radiative transfer scheme without water vapor and cloud feedbacks allows the GCM and LES to achieve closed energy budgets more easily than would be possible with more complex schemes. This enables the mean states in the two models to be consistently compared, without the added complications from interaction with more comprehensive radiation. We show that the LES closely follow the GCM seasonal cycle, and the seasonal cycle of low‐level clouds in the LES resembles observations: maximum cloud liquid occurs in late summer and early autumn, and winter clouds are dominated by ice in the upper troposphere. Large‐scale advection of moisture provides the main source of water vapor for the liquid‐containing clouds in summer, while a temperature advection peak in winter makes the atmosphere relatively dry and reduces cloud condensate. The framework we develop and employ can be used broadly for studying cloud processes and the response of polar clouds to climate warming.
