Search for: All records

Abstract Climate models generally overestimate observed Southern Ocean surface warming trends over the past three decades. This discrepancy could be due to biased surface freshwater fluxes in climate models, which underestimate observed precipitation increases and do not account for Antarctic Ice Sheet and shelf mass loss. Though past modeling experiments show surface cooling in response to freshwater perturbations, sea surface temperature (SST) responses vary widely across models. To address these ambiguities, we compute linear SST response functions for standardized freshwater flux increases across a subset of CMIP6 models. For 1990–2021, underestimated freshwater fluxes can explain up to 60% of the model‐observation SST trend difference. The response functions reveal that Southern Ocean SST trends are more sensitive to freshwater fluxes concentrated along the Antarctic margin versus more spatially distributed fluxes. Our results quantify, for the first time, the impact of missing freshwater forcing on Southern Ocean SST trends across a multi‐model ensemble. 

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. 

Abstract Arctic amplification has been attributed predominantly to a positive lapse rate feedback in winter, when boundary layer temperature inversions focus warming near the surface. Predicting high-latitude climate change effectively thus requires identifying the local and remote physical processes that set the Arctic’s vertical warming structure. In this study, we analyze output from the CESM Large Ensemble’s twenty-first-century climate change projection to diagnose the relative influence of two Arctic heating sources, local sea ice loss and remote changes in atmospheric heat transport. Causal effects are quantified with a statistical inference method, allowing us to assess the energetic pathways mediating the Arctic temperature response and the role of internal variability across the ensemble. We find that a step-increase in latent heat flux convergence causes Arctic lower-tropospheric warming in all seasons, while additionally reducing net longwave cooling at the surface. However, these effects only lead to small and short-lived changes in boundary layer inversion strength. By contrast, a step-decrease in sea ice extent in the melt season causes, in fall and winter, surface-amplified warming and weakened boundary layer temperature inversions. Sea ice loss also enhances surface turbulent heat fluxes and cloud-driven condensational heating, which mediate the atmospheric temperature response. While the aggregate effect of many moist transport events and seasons of sea ice loss will be different than the response to hypothetical perturbations, our results nonetheless highlight the mechanisms that alter the Arctic temperature inversion in response to CO₂forcing. As sea ice declines, the atmosphere’s boundary layer temperature structure is weakened, static stability decreases, and a thermodynamic coupling emerges between the Arctic surface and the overlying troposphere.