An official website of the United States government
Abstract Arctic warming has significant environmental and social impacts. Arctic long‐term warming trend is modulated by decadal‐to‐multidecadal variations. Improved understanding of how different external forcings and internal variability affect Arctic surface air temperature (SAT) is crucial for explaining and predicting Arctic climate changes. We analyze multiple observational data sets and large ensembles of climate model simulations to quantify the contributions of specific external forcings and various modes of internal variability to Arctic SAT changes during 1900–2021. We find that the long‐term trend and total variance in Arctic‐mean SAT since 1900 are largely forced responses, including warming due to greenhouse gases and natural forcings and cooling due to anthropogenic aerosols. In contrast, internal variability dominates the early 20th century Arctic warming and mid‐20th century Arctic cooling. Internal variability also explains ∼40% of the recent Arctic warming from 1979 to 2021. Unforced changes in Arctic SAT are largely attributed to two leading modes. The first is pan‐Arctic warming with stronger loading over the Eurasian sector, accounting for 70% of the unforced variance and closely related to the positive phase of the unforced Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The second mode exhibits relatively weak warming averaged over the entire Arctic with warming over the North American‐Pacific sector and cooling over the Atlantic sector, explaining 10% of the unforced variance and likely caused by the positive phase of the unforced Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). The AMO‐related changes dominate the unforced Arctic warming since 1979, while the IPO‐related changes contribute to the decadal SAT changes over the North American‐Pacific Arctic.
more »
« less
Unique Temperature Trend Pattern Associated With Internally Driven Global Cooling and Arctic Warming During 1980–2022
Abstract Diagnosing the role of internal variability over recent decades is critically important for both model validation and projections of future warming. Recent research suggests that for 1980–2022 internal variability manifested as Global Cooling and Arctic Warming (i‐GCAW), leading to enhanced Arctic Amplification (AA), and suppressed global warming over this period. Here we show that such an i‐GCAW is rare in CMIP6 large ensembles, but simulations that do produce similar i‐GCAW exhibit a unique and robust internally driven global surface air temperature (SAT) trend pattern. This unique SAT trend pattern features enhanced warming in the Barents and Kara Sea and cooling in the Tropical Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean. Given that these features are imprinted in the observed record over recent decades, this work suggests that internal variability makes a crucial contribution to the discrepancy between observations and model‐simulated forced SAT trend patterns.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2202812
- PAR ID:
- 10518693
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Volume:
- 51
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 0094-8276
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Arctic Amplification is robustly seen in climate model simulations of future warming and in the paleoclimate record. Here, we focus on the past century of observations. We show that Arctic Amplification is only a recent phenomenon, and that for much of this period the Arctic cooled while the global‐mean temperature rose. To investigate why this occurred, we analyze large ensembles of comprehensive climate model simulations under different forcing scenarios. Our results suggest that the global warming from greenhouse gases was largely offset in the Arctic by regional cooling due to aerosols, with internal climate variability also contributing to Arctic cooling and global warming trends during this period. This suggests that the disruption of Arctic Amplification was due to a combination of factors unique to the 20th century, and that enhanced Arctic warming should be expected to be a consistent feature of climate change over the coming century.more » « less
-
Abstract The observed upper (0–50 m) Arctic Ocean warming since 1979 has been primarily attributed to anthropogenically driven changes in the high latitudes. Here, using both observational and modeling analyses, we demonstrate that a multiyear trend in the summertime large-scale atmospheric circulation, which we ascribe to internal variability, has played an important role in upper ocean warming in summer and fall over the past four decades due to sea ice-albedo effect induced by atmospheric dynamics. Nudging experiments in which the wind fields are constrained toward the observed state support this mechanism and suggest that the internal variability contribution to recent upper Arctic Ocean warming accounts for up to one quarter of warming over the past four decades and up to 60% of warming from 2000 to 2018. This suggests that climate models need to replicate this important internal process in order to realistically simulate Arctic Ocean temperature variability and trends.more » « less
-
Abstract 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
-
Abstract Since 1980, the Arctic surface has warmed four times faster than the global mean. Enhanced Arctic warming relative to the global average warming is referred to as Arctic Amplification (AA). While AA is a robust feature in climate change simulations, models rarely reproduce the observed magnitude of AA, leading to concerns that models may not accurately capture the response of the Arctic to greenhouse gas emissions. Here, we use CMIP6 data to train a machine learning algorithm to quantify the influence of internal variability in surface air temperature trends over both the Arctic and global domains. Application of this machine learning algorithm to observations reveals that internal variability increases the Arctic warming but slows global warming in recent decades, inflating AA since 1980 by 38% relative to the externally forced AA. Accounting for the role of internal variability reconciles the discrepancy between simulated and observed AA.more » « less
