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.
The dynamic and thermodynamic mechanisms that link retreating sea ice to increased Arctic cloud amount and cloud water content are unclear. Using the fifth generation of the ECMWF Reanalysis (ERA5), the long-term changes between years 1950–79 and 1990–2019 in Arctic clouds are estimated along with their relationship to sea ice loss. A comparison of ERA5 to CERES satellite cloud fractions reveals that ERA5 simulates the seasonal cycle, variations, and changes of cloud fraction well over water surfaces during 2001–20. This suggests that ERA5 may reliably represent the cloud response to sea ice loss because melting sea ice exposes more water surfaces in the Arctic. Increases in ERA5 Arctic cloud fraction and water content are largest during October–March from ∼950 to 700 hPa over areas with significant (≥15%) sea ice loss. Further, regions with significant sea ice loss experience higher convective available potential energy (∼2–2.75 J kg−1), planetary boundary layer height (∼120–200 m), and near-surface specific humidity (∼0.25–0.40 g kg−1) and a greater reduction of the lower-tropospheric temperature inversion (∼3°–4°C) than regions with small (<15%) sea ice loss in autumn and winter. Areas with significant sea ice loss also show strengthened upward motion between 1000 and 700 hPa, enhanced horizontal convergence (divergence) of air, and decreased (increased) relative humidity from 1000 to 950 hPa (950–700 hPa) during the cold season. Analyses of moisture divergence, evaporation minus precipitation, and meridional moisture flux fields suggest that increased local surface water fluxes, rather than atmospheric motions, provide a key source of moisture for increased Arctic clouds over newly exposed water surfaces during October–March.
Sea ice loss has been shown to be a primary contributor to Arctic warming. Despite the evidence linking large sea ice retreat to Arctic warming, some studies have suggested that enhanced downwelling longwave radiation associated with increased clouds and water vapor is the primary reason for Arctic amplification. However, it is unclear how sea ice loss is linked to changes in clouds and water vapor in the Arctic. Here, we investigate the relationship between Arctic sea ice loss and changes in clouds using the ERA5 dataset. Improved knowledge of the relationship between Arctic sea ice loss and changes in clouds will help further our understanding of the role of the cloud feedback in Arctic warming.
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10482923
- Publisher / Repository:
- American Meteorological Society
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Climate
- Volume:
- 37
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0894-8755
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 735-754
- Size(s):
- ["p. 735-754"]
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
The direct response of the cold-season atmospheric circulation to the Arctic sea ice loss is estimated from observed sea ice concentration (SIC) and an atmospheric reanalysis, assuming that the atmospheric response to the long-term sea ice loss is the same as that to interannual pan-Arctic SIC fluctuations with identical spatial patterns. No large-scale relationship with previous interannual SIC fluctuations is found in October and November, but a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)/Arctic Oscillation follows the pan-Arctic SIC fluctuations from December to March. The signal is field significant in the stratosphere in December, and in the troposphere and tropopause thereafter. However, multiple regressions indicate that the stratospheric December signal is largely due to concomitant Siberian snow-cover anomalies. On the other hand, the tropospheric January–March NAO signals can be unambiguously attributed to SIC variability, with an Iceland high approaching 45 m at 500 hPa, a 2°C surface air warming in northeastern Canada, and a modulation of blocking activity in the North Atlantic sector. In March, a 1°C northern Europe cooling is also attributed to SIC. An SIC impact on the warm Arctic–cold Eurasia pattern is only found in February in relation to January SIC. Extrapolating the most robust results suggests that, in the absence of other forcings, the SIC loss between 1979 and 2016 would have induced a 2°–3°C decade−1winter warming in northeastern North America and a 40–60 m decade−1increase in the height of the Iceland high, if linearity and perpetual winter conditions could be assumed.
-
more » « less
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
Abstract The rapid Arctic sea ice retreat in the early 21stcentury is believed to be driven by several dynamic and thermodynamic feedbacks, such as ice-albedo feedback and water vapor feedback. However, the role of clouds in these feedbacks remains unclear since the causality between clouds and these processes is complex. Here, we use NASA CERES satellite products and NCAR CESM model simulations to suggest that summertime low clouds have played an important role in driving sea ice melt by amplifying the adiabatic warming induced by a stronger anticyclonic circulation aloft. The upper-level high pressure regulates low clouds through stronger downward motion and increasing lower troposphere relative humidity. The increased low clouds favor more sea ice melt via emitting stronger longwave radiation. Then decreased surface albedo triggers a positive ice-albedo feedback, which further enhances sea ice melt. Considering the importance of summertime low clouds, accurate simulation of this process is a prerequisite for climate models to produce reliable future projections of Arctic sea ice.
-
This dataset contains monthly average output files from the iCAM6 simulations used in the manuscript "Enhancing understanding of the hydrological cycle via pairing of process-oriented and isotope ratio tracers," in review at the Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems. A file corresponding to each of the tagged and isotopic variables used in this manuscript is included. Files are at 0.9° latitude x 1.25° longitude, and are in NetCDF format. Data from two simulations are included: 1) a simulation where the atmospheric model was "nudged" to ERA5 wind and surface pressure fields, by adding an additional tendency (see section 3.1 of associated manuscript), and 2) a simulation where the atmospheric state was allowed to freely evolve, using only boundary conditions imposed at the surface and top of atmosphere. Specific information about each of the variables provided is located in the "usage notes" section below. Associated article abstract: The hydrologic cycle couples the Earth's energy and carbon budgets through evaporation, moisture transport, and precipitation. Despite a wealth of observations and models, fundamental limitations remain in our capacity to deduce even the most basic properties of the hydrological cycle, including the spatial pattern of the residence time (RT) of water in the atmosphere and the mean distance traveled from evaporation sources to precipitation sinks. Meanwhile, geochemical tracers such as stable water isotope ratios provide a tool to probe hydrological processes, yet their interpretation remains equivocal despite several decades of use. As a result, there is a need for new mechanistic tools that link variations in water isotope ratios to underlying hydrological processes. Here we present a new suite of “process-oriented tags,” which we use to explicitly trace hydrological processes within the isotopically enabled Community Atmosphere Model, version 6 (iCAM6). Using these tags, we test the hypotheses that precipitation isotope ratios respond to parcel rainout, variations in atmospheric RT, and preserve information regarding meteorological conditions during evaporation. We present results for a historical simulation from 1980 to 2004, forced with winds from the ERA5 reanalysis. We find strong evidence that precipitation isotope ratios record information about atmospheric rainout and meteorological conditions during evaporation, but little evidence that precipitation isotope ratios vary with water vapor RT. These new tracer methods will enable more robust linkages between observations of isotope ratios in the modern hydrologic cycle or proxies of past terrestrial environments and the environmental processes underlying these observations. Details about the simulation setup can be found in section 3 of the associated open-source manuscript, "Enhancing understanding of the hydrological cycle via pairing of process‐oriented and isotope ratio tracers." In brief, we conducted two simulations of the atmosphere from 1980-2004 using the isotope-enabled version of the Community Atmosphere Model 6 (iCAM6) at 0.9x1.25° horizontal resolution, and with 30 vertical hybrid layers spanning from the surface to ~3 hPa. In the first simulation, wind and surface pressure fields were "nudged" toward the ERA5 reanalysis dataset by adding a nudging tendency, preventing the model from diverging from observed/reanalysis wind fields. In the second simulation, no additional nudging tendency was included, and the model was allowed to evolve 'freely' with only boundary conditions provided at the top (e.g., incoming solar radiation) and bottom (e.g., observed sea surface temperatures) of the model. In addition to the isotopic variables, our simulation included a suite of 'process-oriented tracers,' which we describe in section 2 of the manuscript. These variables are meant to track a property of water associated with evaporation, condensation, or atmospheric transport. Metadata are provided about each of the files below; moreover, since the attached files are NetCDF data - this information is also provided with the data files. NetCDF metadata can be accessed using standard tools (e.g., ncdump). Each file has 4 variables: the tagged quantity, and the associated coordinate variables (time, latitude, longitude). The latter three are identical across all files, only the tagged quantity changes. Twelve files are provided for the nudged simulation, and an additional three are provided for the free simulations: Nudged simulation files iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_RHevap: Mass-weighted mean evaporation source property: RH (%) with respect to surface temperature. iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_Tevap: Mass-weighted mean evaporation source property: surface temperature in Kelvin iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_Tcond: Mass-weighted mean condensation property: temperature (K) iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_columnQ: Total (vertically integrated) precipitable water (kg/m2). Not a tagged quantity, but necessary to calculate depletion times in section 4.3 (e.g., Fig. 11 and 12). iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_d18O: Precipitation d18O (‰ VSMOW) iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_d18Oevap_0: Mass-weighted mean evaporation source property - d18O of the evaporative flux (e.g., the 'initial' isotope ratio prior to condensation), (‰ VSMOW) iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_dxs: Precipitation deuterium excess (‰ VSMOW) - note that precipitation d2H can be calculated from this file and the precipitation d18O as d2H = d-excess - 8*d18O. iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_dexevap_0: Mass-weighted mean evaporation source property - deuterium excess of the evaporative flux iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_lnf: Integrated property - ln(f) calculated from the constant-fractionation d18O tracer (see section 3.2). iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_precip: Total precipitation rate in m/s. Note there is an error in the metadata in this file - it is total precipitation, not just convective precipitation. iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_residencetime: Mean atmospheric water residence time (in days). iCAM6_nudged_1980-2004_mon_transportdistance: Mean atmospheric water transport distance (in km). Free simulation files iCAM6_free_1980-2004_mon_d18O: Precipitation d18O (‰ VSMOW) iCAM6_free_1980-2004_mon_dxs: Precipitation deuterium excess (‰ VSMOW) - note that precipitation d2H can be calculated from this file and the precipitation d18O as d2H = d-excess - 8*d18O. iCAM6_free_1980-2004_mon_precip: Total precipitation rate in m/s. Note there is an error in the metadata in this file - it is total precipitation, not just convective precipitation.more » « less
