skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Seasonality in Arctic Warming Driven by Sea Ice Effective Heat Capacity
Abstract 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. Significance StatementUnder 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.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1643431 1752796 1850900 1643445
PAR ID:
10363186
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  
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
  1. ; ; ; ; (, Geophysical Research Letters)
    Abstract 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. 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, Geophysical Research Letters)
    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
  3. ; ; ; ; ; (, Geophysical Research Letters)
    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
  4. ; ; ; ; (, Frontiers in Earth Science)
    As a step towards understanding the fundamental drivers of polar climate change, we evaluate contributions to polar warming and its seasonal and hemispheric asymmetries in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) as compared with CMIP5. CMIP6 models broadly capture the observed pattern of surface- and winter-dominated Arctic warming that has outpaced both tropical and Antarctic warming in recent decades. For both CMIP5 and CMIP6, CO 2 quadrupling experiments reveal that the lapse-rate and surface albedo feedbacks contribute most to stronger warming in the Arctic than the tropics or Antarctic. The relative strength of the polar surface albedo feedback in comparison to the lapse-rate feedback is sensitive to the choice of radiative kernel, and the albedo feedback contributes most to intermodel spread in polar warming at both poles. By separately calculating moist and dry atmospheric heat transport, we show that increased poleward moisture transport is another important driver of Arctic amplification and the largest contributor to projected Antarctic warming. Seasonal ocean heat storage and winter-amplified temperature feedbacks contribute most to the winter peak in warming in the Arctic and a weaker winter peak in the Antarctic. In comparison with CMIP5, stronger polar warming in CMIP6 results from a larger surface albedo feedback at both poles, combined with less-negative cloud feedbacks in the Arctic and increased poleward moisture transport in the Antarctic. However, normalizing by the global-mean surface warming yields a similar degree of Arctic amplification and only slightly increased Antarctic amplification in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5. 
    more » « less
  5. ; (, Geophysical Research Letters)
    Abstract Sea‐ice loss and radiative feedbacks have been proposed to explain Arctic amplification (AA)—the enhanced Arctic warming under increased greenhouse gases, but their relationship is unclear. By analyzing coupled CESM1 simulations with 1%/year CO2increases, we show that without large sea‐ice loss and AA, the lapse rate, Planck, and surface albedo feedbacks are greatly reduced, while the positive water vapor feedback changes little. The positive Arctic lapse rate feedback, which results from enhanced surface warming rather than the high stability of Arctic air, and changes in atmospheric energy transport across the Arctic Circle are a result, not a cause, of AA; while the water vapor feedback also plays a minor role. Instead, AA results from enhanced winter oceanic heating associated with sea‐ice loss that is aided by a positive surface albedo feedback in summer and positive cloud feedback in winter. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email