Search for: All records

Abstract We compare abrupt CO₂‐quadrupling (abrupt‐4xCO2) and ‐doubling (abrupt‐2xCO2) simulations across 10 CMIP6 models. Two models (CESM2 and MRI‐ESM2‐0) warm substantially more than twice as much under abrupt‐4xCO2 than abrupt‐2xCO2, which cannot be explained by the non‐logarithmic scaling of CO₂forcing. Using an energy balance model, we show that increased warming rates within these two models are driven by both less‐negative radiative feedbacks and smaller global effective heat capacity under abrupt‐4xCO2. These differences are caused by a decrease in low cloud cover andshallower ocean heat storage, respectively; both are linked to smaller fractional declines in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) under abrupt‐4xCO2 (relative to abrupt‐2xCO2). On a global scale, higher climate sensitivity under larger forcing can be explained by a feedback‐temperature dependence; however, we find that forcing‐dependent spatial warming patterns due to AMOC decline are an important physical mechanism which reduces warming in a way that is not captured by a global‐mean framework. 

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. 

Abstract 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.