An official website of the United States government
Abstract There is great uncertainty in the atmospheric circulation response to future Arctic sea ice loss, with some models predicting a shift towards the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), while others predicting a more neutral NAO response. We investigate the potential role of systematic model biases in the spread of these responses by modifying the unperturbed (or ‘control’) climate (hereafter referred to as the ‘basic state’) of the Canadian Earth system model version 5 (CanESM5) in sea ice loss experiments based on the protocol of the Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project. We show that the presence or absence of the stratospheric pathway in response to sea ice loss depends on the basic state, and that only the CanESM5 version that shows a weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex features a strong negative NAO response. We propose a mechanism that explains this dependency, with a key role played by the vertical structure of the winds in the region between the subtropical jet and the stratospheric polar vortex (‘the neck region winds’), which determines the extent to which anomalous planetary wave activity in response to sea ice loss propagates away from the polar vortex. Our results suggest that differences in the models’ basic states could significantly contribute to model spread in the simulated atmospheric circulation response to sea ice loss, which may inform efforts to narrow the uncertainties regarding the impact of diminishing sea ice on mid-latitude climate.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on November 1, 2026
Exploring the Atmospheric Responses to Arctic Sea‐Ice Loss in Google's NeuralGCM
The rapid loss of Arctic sea ice is a striking consequence of anthropogenic global warming. Its remote impacts on mid‐latitude weather and climate have attracted scientific and media attention. In this study, we use a hybrid (dynamical plus machine‐learning) atmospheric model—Google's NeuralGCM—to investigate the mid‐latitude atmospheric circulation responses to Arctic sea‐ice loss for the first time. We conduct experiments in which NeuralGCM is forced with pre‐industrial and future sea‐ice concentrations following the protocol of the Polar Amplification Model Intercomparisom Project. To assess the performance of NeuralGCM, we compare the results with those simulated by two physics‐based climate models. NeuralGCM produces a comparable response of near‐surface warming to sea‐ice loss and the subsequent weakened zonal wind in mid‐latitudes. However, there is a substantial discrepancy between the two models' stratospheric responses, where different temperature responses in these models are associated with different zonal wind and geopotential height responses. Further investigation of North Atlantic blocking shows that NeuralGCM produces stronger, more frequent, and more realistic blocking events. Our results demonstrate the capability of NeuralGCM in simulating the tropospheric responses to Arctic sea‐ice loss, but improvements may be needed for the stratospheric representation.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2106190
- PAR ID:
- 10656226
- Publisher / Repository:
- AGU
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Volume:
- 17
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 1942-2466
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been shown in climate models to reduce some impacts of global warming in the Arctic, including the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw, and reduction of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) mass; SAI at high latitudes could preferentially target these impacts. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model to simulate two Arctic‐focused SAI strategies, which inject at 60°N latitude each spring with injection rates adjusted to either maintain September Arctic sea ice at 2030 levels (“Arctic Low”) or restore it to 2010 levels (“Arctic High”). Both simulations maintain or restore September sea ice to within 10% of their respective targets, reduce permafrost thaw, and increase GrIS surface mass balance by reducing runoff. Arctic High reduces these impacts more effectively than a globally focused SAI strategy that injects similar quantities of SO2at lower latitudes. However, Arctic‐focused SAI is not merely a “reset button” for the Arctic climate, but brings about a novel climate state, including changes to the seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere temperature and sea ice and less high‐latitude carbon uptake relative to SSP2‐4.5. Additionally, while Arctic‐focused SAI produces the most cooling near the pole, its effects are not confined to the Arctic, including detectable cooling throughout most of the northern hemisphere for both simulations, increased mid‐latitude sulfur deposition, and a southward shift of the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. For these reasons, it would be incorrect to consider Arctic‐focused SAI as “local” geoengineering, even when compared to a globally focused strategy.more » « less
-
Abstract 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.more » « less
-
Abstract In contrast to surface greenhouse warming, surface greenhouse cooling has been less explored, especially on multi-century timescales. Here, we assess the processes controlling the pacing and magnitude of the multi-century surface temperature response to instantaneously doubling and halving atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in a modern global coupled climate model. Over the first decades, surface greenhouse warming is larger and faster than surface greenhouse cooling both globally and at high northern latitudes (45–90° N). Yet, this initial multi-decadal response difference does not persist. After year 150, additional surface warming is negligible, but surface cooling and sea ice expansion continues. Notably, the equilibration timescale for high northern latitude surface cooling (∼437 years) is more than double the equivalent timescale for warming. The high northern latitude responses differ most at the sea ice edge. Under greenhouse cooling, the sea ice edge slowly creeps southward into the mid-latitude oceans amplified by positive lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks. While greenhouse warming and sea ice loss at high northern latitudes occurs on multi-decadal timescales, greenhouse cooling and sea ice expansion occurs on multi-century timescales. Overall, this work shows the importance of multi-century timescales and sea ice processes for understanding high northern latitude climate responses.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
