skip to main content

Title: Antarctic Elevation Drives Hemispheric Asymmetry in Polar Lapse Rate Climatology and Feedback

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
Award ID(s):
1643436 1850900 1752796
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Geophysical Research Letters
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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 Statement

    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.

    more » « less
  2. 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
  3. Abstract

    Arctic amplification has been attributed predominantly to a positive lapse rate feedback in winter, when boundary layer temperature inversions focus warming near the surface. Predicting high-latitude climate change effectively thus requires identifying the local and remote physical processes that set the Arctic’s vertical warming structure. In this study, we analyze output from the CESM Large Ensemble’s twenty-first-century climate change projection to diagnose the relative influence of two Arctic heating sources, local sea ice loss and remote changes in atmospheric heat transport. Causal effects are quantified with a statistical inference method, allowing us to assess the energetic pathways mediating the Arctic temperature response and the role of internal variability across the ensemble. We find that a step-increase in latent heat flux convergence causes Arctic lower-tropospheric warming in all seasons, while additionally reducing net longwave cooling at the surface. However, these effects only lead to small and short-lived changes in boundary layer inversion strength. By contrast, a step-decrease in sea ice extent in the melt season causes, in fall and winter, surface-amplified warming and weakened boundary layer temperature inversions. Sea ice loss also enhances surface turbulent heat fluxes and cloud-driven condensational heating, which mediate the atmospheric temperature response. While the aggregate effect of many moist transport events and seasons of sea ice loss will be different than the response to hypothetical perturbations, our results nonetheless highlight the mechanisms that alter the Arctic temperature inversion in response to CO2forcing. As sea ice declines, the atmosphere’s boundary layer temperature structure is weakened, static stability decreases, and a thermodynamic coupling emerges between the Arctic surface and the overlying troposphere.

    more » « less
  4. 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
  5. Abstract

    While most models agree that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) becomes weaker under greenhouse gas emission and is likely to weaken over the twenty-first century, they disagree on the projected magnitudes of AMOC weakening. In this work, CMIP6 models with stronger climatological AMOC are shown to project stronger AMOC weakening in both 1% ramping CO2and abrupt CO2quadrupling simulations. A physical interpretation of this result is developed. For models with stronger mean state AMOC, stratification in the upper Labrador Sea is weaker, allowing for stronger mixing of the surface buoyancy flux. In response to CO2increase, surface warming is mixed to the deeper Labrador Sea in models with stronger upper-ocean mixing. This subsurface warming and corresponding density decrease drives AMOC weakening through advection from the Labrador Sea to the subtropics via the deep western boundary current. Time series analysis shows that most CMIP6 models agree that the decrease in subsurface Labrador Sea density leads AMOC weakening in the subtropics by several years. Also, idealized experiments conducted in an ocean-only model show that the subsurface warming over 500–1500 m in the Labrador Sea leads to stronger AMOC weakening several years later, while the warming that is too shallow (<500 m) or too deep (>1500 m) in the Labrador Sea causes little AMOC weakening. These results suggest that a better representation of mean state AMOC is necessary for narrowing the intermodel uncertainty of AMOC weakening to greenhouse gas emission and its corresponding impacts on future warming projections.

    more » « less