Cold winters over Eurasia often coincide with warm winters in the Arctic, which has become known as the “warm Arctic–cold Eurasia” pattern. The extent to which this observed correlation is indicative of a causal response to sea ice loss is debated. Here, using large multimodel ensembles of coordinated experiments, we find that the Eurasian temperature response to Arctic sea ice loss is weak compared to internal variability and is not robust across climate models. We show that Eurasian cooling is driven by tropospheric and stratospheric circulation changes in response to sea ice loss but is counteracted by tropospheric thermodynamical warming, as the local warming induced by sea ice loss spreads into the midlatitudes by eddy advection. Although opposing effects of thermodynamical warming and dynamical cooling are found robustly across different models or different sea ice perturbations, their net effect varies in sign and magnitude across the models, resulting in diverse model temperature responses over Eurasia. The contributions from both tropospheric dynamics and thermodynamics show substantial intermodel spread. Although some of this spread in the Eurasian winter temperature response to sea ice loss may stem from model uncertainty, even with several hundred ensemble members, it is challenging to isolate model differences in the forced response from internal variability.
This content will become publicly available on February 5, 2025
In recent decades, Arctic-amplified warming and sea-ice loss coincided with a prolonged wintertime Eurasian cooling trend. This observed Warm Arctic–Cold Eurasia pattern has occasionally been attributed to sea-ice forced changes in the midlatitude atmospheric circulation, implying an anthropogenic cause. However, comprehensive climate change simulations do not produce Eurasian cooling, instead suggesting a role for unforced atmospheric variability. This study seeks to clarify the source of this model-observation discrepancy by developing a statistical approach that enables direct comparison of Arctic-midlatitude interactions. In both historical simulations and observations, we first identify Ural blocking as the primary causal driver of sea ice, temperature, and circulation anomalies consistent with the Warm Arctic–Cold Eurasia pattern. Next, we quantify distinct transient responses to this Ural blocking, which explain the model-observation discrepancy in historical Eurasian temperature. Observed 1988–2012 Eurasian cooling occurs in response to a pronounced positive trend in Ural sea-level pressure, temporarily masking long-term midlatitude warming. This observed sea-level pressure trend lies at the outer edge of simulated variability in a fully coupled large ensemble, where smaller sea-level pressure trends have little impact on the ensemble mean temperature trend over Eurasia. Accounting for these differences bring observed and simulated trends into remarkable agreement. Finally, we quantify the influence of sea-ice loss on the magnitude of the observed Ural sea-level pressure trend, an effect that is absent in historical simulations. These results illustrate that sea-ice loss and tropospheric variability can both play a role in producing Eurasian cooling. Furthermore, by conducting a direct model-observation comparison, we reveal a key difference in the causal structures characterizing the Warm Arctic–Cold Eurasia Pattern, which will guide ongoing efforts to explain the lack of Eurasian cooling in climate change simulations.
more » « less- Award ID(s):
- 1753034
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10489640
- Publisher / Repository:
- IOP Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Environmental Research: Climate
- Volume:
- 3
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2752-5295
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 015006
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract The observed winter Barents-Kara Sea (BKS) sea ice concentration (SIC) has shown a close association with the second empirical orthogonal function (EOF) mode of Eurasian winter surface air temperature (SAT) variability, known as Warm Arctic Cold Eurasia (WACE) pattern. However, the potential role of BKS SIC on this WACE pattern of variability and on its long-term trend remains elusive. Here, we show that from 1979 to 2022, the winter BKS SIC and WACE association is most prominent and statistically significant for the variability at the sub-decadal time scale for 5–6 years. We also show the critical role of the multi-decadal trend in the principal component of the WACE mode of variability for explaining the overall Eurasian winter temperature trend over the same period. Furthermore, a large multi-model ensemble of atmosphere-only experiments from 1979 to 2014, with and without the observed Arctic SIC forcing, suggests that the BKS SIC variations induce this observed sub-decadal variability and the multi-decadal trend in the WACE. Additionally, we analyse the model simulated first or the leading EOF mode of Eurasian winter SAT variability, which in observations, closely relates to the Arctic Oscillation (AO). We find a weaker association of this mode to AO and a statistically significant positive trend in our ensemble simulation, opposite to that found in observation. This contrasting nature reflects excessive hemispheric warming in the models, partly contributed by the modelled Arctic Sea ice loss.
-
Abstract. The main drivers of the continental Northern Hemisphere snow cover are investigated in the 1979–2014 period. Four observational datasets are usedas are two large multi-model ensembles of atmosphere-only simulations with prescribed sea surface temperature (SST) and sea ice concentration (SIC). Afirst ensemble uses observed interannually varying SST and SIC conditions for 1979–2014, while a second ensemble is identical except for SIC witha repeated climatological cycle used. SST and external forcing typically explain 10 % to 25 % of the snow cover variance in modelsimulations, with a dominant forcing from the tropical and North Pacific SST during this period. In terms of the climate influence of the snow coveranomalies, both observations and models show no robust links between the November and April snow cover variability and the atmospheric circulation1 month later. On the other hand, the first mode of Eurasian snow cover variability in January, with more extended snow over western Eurasia, isfound to precede an atmospheric circulation pattern by 1 month, similar to a negative Arctic oscillation (AO). A decomposition of the variabilityin the model simulations shows that this relationship is mainly due to internal climate variability. Detailed outputs from one of the modelsindicate that the western Eurasia snow cover anomalies are preceded by a negative AO phase accompanied by a Ural blocking pattern and astratospheric polar vortex weakening. The link between the AO and the snow cover variability is strongly related to the concomitant role of thestratospheric polar vortex, with the Eurasian snow cover acting as a positive feedback for the AO variability in winter. No robust influence of theSIC variability is found, as the sea ice loss in these simulations only drives an insignificant fraction of the snow cover anomalies, with fewagreements among models.more » « less
-
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.
-
Abstract To examine the atmospheric responses to Arctic sea-ice variability in the Northern Hemisphere cold season (October to following March), this study uses a coordinated set of large-ensemble experiments of nine atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs) forced with observed daily-varying sea-ice, sea-surface temperature, and radiative forcings prescribed during the 1979-2014 period, together with a parallel set of experiments where Arctic sea ice is substituted by its climatology. The simulations of the former set reproduce the near-surface temperature trends in reanalysis data, with similar amplitude, and their multi-model ensemble mean (MMEM) shows decreasing sea-level pressure over much of the polar cap and Eurasia in boreal autumn. The MMEM difference between the two experiments allows isolating the effects of Arctic sea-ice loss, which explain a large portion of the Arctic warming trends in the lower troposphere and drives a small but statistically significant weakening of the wintertime Arctic Oscillation. The observed interannual co-variability between sea-ice extent in the Barents-Kara Seas and lagged atmospheric circulation is distinguished from the effects of confounding factors based on multiple regression, and quantitatively compared to the co-variability in MMEMs. The interannual sea-ice decline followed by a negative North Atlantic Oscillation-like anomaly found in observations is also seen in the MMEM differences, with consistent spatial structure but much smaller amplitude. This result suggests that the sea-ice impacts on trends and interannual atmospheric variability simulated by AGCMs could be underestimated, but caution is needed because internal atmospheric variability may have affected the observed relationship.more » « less
