Search

The cloud feedback may result in amplification or damping of Arctic warming. Two common techniques used to diagnose the top‐of‐the‐atmosphere cloud feedback are the Adjusted Cloud Radiative Effect (AdjCRE) method and the Cloud Radiative Kernel (CRK) method. We apply both to CMIP5 and CMIP6 model data, finding that the AdjCRE calculated Arctic shortwave cloud feedback is twice as correlated with sea ice loss in CMIP5, and four times in CMIP6, as the CRK method. We find that the CRK method produces Arctic all‐sky residual percentages exceeding 20% in 15 of 18 models. We use the CRK method to decompose the feedback in CMIP5 and CMIP6 finding that its median value changed from negative to positive driven by a less‐negative cloud optical depth feedback. Despite its lack of closure, we conclude that the CRK method is better suited for Arctic SW feedbacks as it is less impacted by surface albedo changes. Plain Language Summary: The cloud feedback is the process by which cloud property changes in a warming climate can either further enhance warming or damp it. The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe, and one of the largest sources of uncertainty in its climate projections is the cloud feedback. There are two popular methods to calculate the cloud feedback: the Adjusted Cloud Radiative Effect technique, and the Cloud Radiative Kernel technique. In this paper we compare the two methods in a suite of climate models by considering the extent to which changes in Arctic sea ice impact the cloud feedbacks. From this analysis we conclude that the Cloud Radiative Kernel method is less affected by sea ice loss. We then apply the Cloud Radiative Kernel technique to data from the two most recent generations of global climate models to investigate how polar day Arctic cloud feedbacks have changed between these generations. We find that the median value of these Arctic feedbacks is slightly positive in the newest generation of models, a change from slightly negative in the previous generation that is largely fueled by a weakening of the feedback associated with changes in cloud optical depth. Key Points: The Cloud Radiative Kernel method is less sensitive to surface albedo changes than the Adjusted Cloud Radiative Effect techniqueThe Cloud Radiative Kernel method provides poor radiative closure in a suite of global climate modelsThe median shortwave Arctic cloud feedback in recent climate models is slightly positive due to a weakened cloud optical depth feedback [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both historical observations and recent modeling studies reveal a faster warming in the Arctic compared to the Antarctic. To understand the role of the Antarctic Circumpolar Circulation (ACC) in this warming asymmetry, we simulate the climate mean state and climate response to doubled CO2 under different climate mean ACC states by closing or opening the Drake Passage (DP) with the Community Earth System Model. From closed to open DP, a stronger climate mean ACC leads to a stronger climate mean Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), as well as a colder Antarctic but a warmer Arctic in the climate mean state. The less climate mean sea ice coverage in a warmer Arctic implies less extensive sea ice melting under global warming. This causes a reduced asymmetry in warming between the two poles in response to the doubled CO2. Plain Language Summary: To understand the role of the Antarctic Circumpolar Circulation (ACC) in the asymmetric Arctic and Antarctic warming, we conduct two numerical model experiments. We consider two different climate states by closing or opening the Drake Passage (DP). The former yields a weak ACC, while the latter results in a strong ACC. A stronger climate mean ACC leads to a colder Antarctic but a warmer Arctic, due primarily to a concurrent stronger Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). The diminished coverage of sea ice in the warmer Arctic signifies a reduction in sea ice melting under global warming. Consequently, this leads to a reduction in the asymmetry in warming between the two poles in response to doubled CO2. These findings highlight a significant impact of the ACC on the global climate mean state and polar warming asymmetry, and shed light on the uncertainties in the coordinated interaction between major ocean circulation systems (e.g., AMOC and ACC) and on those in inter‐hemisphere interactions. Key Points: A stronger climate mean Antarctic Circumpolar Circulation (ACC) is accompanied by a stronger mean Atlantic Meridional Oceanic Circulation (AMOC)A stronger climate mean AMOC results in a warmer Arctic with less climate mean sea ice coverageThe less asymmetric polar warming in the presence of stronger climate mean ACC and AMOC is largely due to less sea ice melting in Arctic [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surface, aircraft, and satellite measurements indicate pervasive early cold season (Augut–September) CO2 emissions across Arctic regions, consistent with increased ecosystem metabolism in plants and soils. A key remaining question is whether cold season sources will become large enough to permanently shift the Arctic into a net carbon source. Polar orbiting GHG satellites provide robust estimation of regional carbon budgets but lack sufficient spatial coverage and repeat frequency to track sink‐to‐source transitions in the early cold season. Mission concepts such as the Arctic Observing Mission (AOM) advocate for flying imaging spectrometers in highly elliptical orbits (HEO) over the Arctic to address sampling limitations. We perform retrieval and flux inversion simulation experiments using the AURORA mission concept, leveraging a Panchromatic imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (PanFTS) in HEO. Our simulations demonstrate the potential benefits of increased CO2 sampling for detecting emissions during the early cold season. Plain Language Summary: The Arctic is warming rapidly, leading to an acceleration of carbon exchange across tundra and boreal ecosystems. These changing flows of carbon can be difficult to detect using traditional observing systems. We propose that measurement systems which observe Arctic ecosystems continuously from a quasi‐GEO orbit can more accurately detect these important changes, such that unexpected and dangerous feedbacks to climate warming can be monitored and accounted for. Key Points: The Arctic Fourier Transform Spectrometer Investigation (AURORA) mission concept addresses GHG sampling limitations in the ArcticAURORA uses a highly elliptical orbit (HEO) to increase repeat frequency, and a panchromatic iFTS for SWIR O2 and CO2 bands (0.7–2.5 μm)Simulation experiments show potential benefits of increased sampling frequency for grid scale detection of early cold season CO2 emissions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Models struggle to accurately simulate observed sea ice thickness changes, which could be partially due to inadequate representation of thermodynamic processes. We analyzed co‐located winter observations of the Arctic sea ice from the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of the Arctic Climate for evaluating and improving thermodynamic processes in sea ice models, aiming to enable more accurate predictions of the warming climate system. We model the sea ice and snow heat conduction for observed transects forced by realistic boundary conditions to understand the impact of the non‐resolved meter‐scale snow and sea ice thickness heterogeneity on horizontal heat conduction. Neglecting horizontal processes causes underestimating the conductive heat flux of 10% or more. Furthermore, comparing model results to independent temperature observations reveals a ∼5 K surface temperature overestimation over ice thinner than 1 m, attributed to shortcomings in parameterizing surface turbulent and radiative fluxes rather than the conduction. Assessing the model deficiencies and parameterizing these unresolved processes is required for improved sea ice representation. Plain Language Summary: Numerical sea ice models rely on conceptual simplifications of the sea ice and snow conditions observed in the Arctic and Southern Ocean. In particular, we cannot account for the variations in sea ice thickness and snow depth at the meter scale because we have limited computing capabilities and lack a detailed understanding of the processes defining how the sea ice system evolves. Furthermore, when designing sea ice models, we assume that the heat can flow only vertically, while in reality, this exchange is also horizontal and depends on the local topography. Thanks to observations collected during the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate expedition, we can better quantify model errors when using thermodynamic approximations. Our findings suggest that slightly more heat flows through the sea ice system than we can simulate with a simplified sea ice model and that the surface temperature of the model is too warm for thin ice and snow conditions. Learning the nature of these errors is useful because we could formulate corrections for our models, investigate the occurrence of climate feedback mechanisms, and possibly provide more reliable predictions about the current state of the sea ice and its future evolution, which is currently heavily impacted by global warming. Key Points: Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate observations enable improved thermodynamic process understanding and representation in sea ice modelsResolved meter‐scale ice and snow thickness heterogeneity and horizontal heat conduction enhance conductive heat flux by up to 10% in modelsA positive surface temperature model bias up to 5 K suggests a misrepresentation of the surface energy balance over thin ice [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Arctic is notable as a region where the greatest rate of increase in precipitation associated with global warming is anticipated. The Arctic precipitation simulated by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 models showed a strong increasing trend since the 1980s. We found that the forcing factor of the trend is a combination of the continued strengthening of greenhouse gas forcing and the leveling off of aerosol forcing dominated in earlier periods. From an energetic perspective, we found that the increased atmospheric radiative cooling and reduced sensible heat transport from lower latitudes contributed equally to the recent increase in Arctic precipitation. The combination of these two energetic factors suggests a doubling of the Arctic amplification factor for precipitation relative to that for temperature. Future Arctic precipitation will change in proportion to the temperature change, and the fractional contributions of the energetic factors will remain stable across various scenarios. Plain Language Summary: The Arctic region is inherently a low‐precipitation area. However, because of global warming, precipitation is expected to increase substantially in the Arctic region compared with the global average when viewed as a percentage change from the original precipitation. This severely affects climate change in the Arctic environment. The latest climate model simulations show that there has been a rapid increase in precipitation in the Arctic region in recent decades. The driving factors behind the rapid increase are the effects of the accelerating growth of greenhouse gas concentrations, which were previously suppressed by the increasing anthropogenic aerosol emissions before the 1980s. Based on the heat budget of the atmosphere, we identified important factors contributing to these precipitation changes. These include enhanced radiative cooling (responding locally to increased air temperature) and reduced heat transport from lower latitudes due to greater temperature increases at higher latitudes. Future precipitation will change in proportion to the temperature change while maintaining consistent fractional contributions across different scenarios. Key Points: Trends in Arctic precipitation in the recent and future decades are examined from multimodel simulationsThe recent rapid increase is driven by accelerating greenhouse gas concentrations and plateauing growth in anthropogenic aerosol emissionsIncreased radiative cooling and reduced poleward sensible heat transport equally contributed to the Arctic precipitation changes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite multiple advances in the understanding of the water cycle intensification in a warmer climate, climate models still diverge in their hydrological projections. Here we constrain annual runoff projections over individual and aggregated Arctic river basins. For this purpose, we use two ensembles of global climate models and two statistical methods: a regression scheme assuming similar runoff sensitivities at interannual versus climate change timescales, and a Bayesian method where models are used to derive a posterior runoff response conditioned on historical observations. While both techniques are shown to narrow model uncertainties, more or less substantially depending on rivers, the Bayesian method is less sensitive to the choice of the model ensemble and is more skillful when tested with synthetic observations. It has also been applied over the whole Arctic watershed, showing so far a limited narrowing of the inter‐model spread, but its skill will further improve with increasing climate change. Plain Language Summary: Despite considerable progress in understanding the intensification of the water cycle in response to global warming, projections of changes in the various components of the continental water balance remain highly model‐dependent. This is particularly the case for the evolution of runoff, which remains very sensitive to the way atmospheric and continental processes are represented. Here we evaluate and compare two statistical methods to constrain climate projections of annual runoff at high latitudes via available or synthetic observations. Our Bayesian method, based on historical observations, is found to be more robust than a previous method based on observed interannual climate variability. It underlines the importance of having reliable flow reconstructions to constrain runoff projections and of using empirical observational constraints with caution, as they are likely to lead to over‐confident projections. Key Points: Runoff sensitivity to temperature depends on the considered timescaleObservational constraints based on interannual variability can thus lead to overconfident projectionsObservational constraints based on historical trends can be effective if such trends are driven by human emissions of greenhouse gasses [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climatic warming and permafrost thaw are predicted to increase Arctic riverbank erosion, threatening communities and accelerating sediment, carbon and nutrient cycling between rivers and floodplains. Existing theory assumes that pore‐ice thaw sets riverbank erosion rates, but overpredicts observed erosion rates by orders of magnitude. Here, we developed a simple model that predicts more modest rates due to a sediment‐entrainment limitation and riverbank armoring by slump blocks. Results show that during times of thaw‐limited erosion, the river rapidly erodes permafrost and undercuts its banks, consistent with previous work. However, overhanging banks generate slump blocks that must thaw and erode by sediment entrainment. Sediment entrainment can limit bank and slump block erosion rates, producing seasonally averaged rates more consistent with observations. Importantly, entrainment‐limited riverbank erosion does not depend on water temperature, indicating that decadal erosion rates may be less sensitive to warming than predicted previously. Plain Language Summary: Riverbank erosion in the Arctic is a major hazard for riverside communities and infrastructure. Arctic rivers flow through regions of permanently frozen ground, and this ground is thawing as the climate warms. Therefore, there is major concern that riverbank erosion will accelerate in the future because the ground loses its strength when thawed. However, in order for a riverbank to erode, the river must satisfy two conditions: it must thaw the frozen ground and entrain the thawed sand and mud. Our model and analyses suggest that riverbank erosion in many Arctic rivers can be limited by the river's ability to entrain and transport the sand and mud, rather than the canonical view that erosion is limited by the rate of ground thaw. Applying our model to the Yukon River indicates that thaw rates are so fast that they cannot set the rate of erosion for the melt season. Instead, bank erosion for part of the time is controlled by the ability of the river to move the bank sediment, making riverbank erosion less sensitive to warming river waters. Key Points: A new model shows that permafrost bank erosion depends both on pore ice thaw and sediment entrainmentSediment entrainment from thawed banks and slump blocks can be rate‐limiting in some cases, which helps explain slow bank migration ratesWhere limited by sediment entrainment, decadal erosion rates may be less sensitive to warming river water than predicted previously [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While previous studies have suggested a substantial role of ozone‐depleting substances (ODSs) in historical climate change, their relative contribution to historical anthropogenic warming has not been quantified before. Analyzing all‐but‐one‐forcing, 20‐member ensembles of historical simulations with a state‐of‐the‐art Earth System Model, we find that over the 1955–2005 period ODSs are responsible for 30% of global warming, 37% of Arctic warming, and 33% of summertime Arctic sea ice loss. Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) calculations reveal that the global warming response to ODSs per unit of ERF is about 20% larger than for CO2, which may be due to stronger feedbacks and the difference in temporal evolution with ODSs having leveled off and CO2 still increasing in 2005. While the response to both peaks in the Arctic, the ODS ERF opposes Arctic amplification more than the CO2 ERF. Our findings highlight the importance of the Montreal Protocol for mitigating future climate change. Plain Language Summary: Ozone‐depleting substances (ODSs) are chemicals developed in the 1920s and 1930s for use in spray cans, refrigerators and plastic foams. Their commercial use increased rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s, but their phase out is underway since the signing of the Montreal Protocol in the 1987, following the identification of their devastating impact on the stratospheric ozone layer. It is well known that ODSs are powerful greenhouse gases, with the second largest warming effect between 1955 and 2005. However, their relative contribution to past global warming has not been quantified previously using comprehensive climate models. Here we show that ODSs were responsible for roughly a third of late 20th Century global warming, Arctic warming and Arctic sea ice decline. In addition, we find that the impact of ODSs on global temperatures is about 20% larger than expected based on the impacts they have on the radiative balance. The impacts of ODSs peak in the Arctic, while their radiative forcing peaks in the tropics, and thus opposes Arctic warming amplification. These findings enhance our understanding of drivers of past climate change, and highlight the importance of the Montreal Protocol for future climate change mitigation. Key Points: Between 1955 and 2005, global warming from ozone‐depleting substances (ODSs) was more than half of that due to CO2, and about one third of total anthropogenic warmingODSs have been about 20% more effective than CO2 at causing global warming per unit radiative forcingODS warming peaks in the Arctic and is 66% of that due to CO2, while their Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) opposes Arctic amplification more than the CO2 ERF [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have found inconsistent responses of the North Atlantic jet to Arctic sea‐ice loss. The response of wintertime atmospheric circulation and surface climate over the North Atlantic‐European region to future Arctic sea‐ice loss under 2°C global warming is analyzed, using model output from the Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project. The models agree that the North Atlantic jet shifts slightly southward in response to sea‐ice loss, but they disagree on the sign of the jet speed response. The jet response induces a dipole anomaly of precipitation and storm track activity over the North Atlantic‐European region. The changes in jet latitude and speed induce distinct regional surface climate responses, and together they strongly shape the North Atlantic‐European response to future Arctic sea‐ice loss. Constraining the North Atlantic jet response is important for reducing uncertainty in the North Atlantic‐European precipitation response to future Arctic sea‐ice loss. Plain Language Summary: Variations in the North Atlantic jet affect temperature, precipitation, and storminess in Europe. It is not well understood how the jet and European climate will respond to future sea‐ice loss in the Arctic under human‐caused increases in global temperature. We study how atmospheric circulation and surface climate in winter over the North Atlantic‐European region would respond to future Arctic sea‐ice loss under 2°C global warming, using an unprecedented number of coordinated simulations from different climate models. In many models the North Atlantic jet stream in winter responds by shifting southward, but the response of its speed is less clear. These jet stream changes are found to strongly shape the responses in precipitation and storm track activity. More precise estimates of the jet stream response are key to reducing uncertainty in the North Atlantic‐European precipitation response to future Arctic sea‐ice loss. Key Points: Projected Arctic sea‐ice loss causes a robust equatorward shift of the North Atlantic jet across models, but no robust change in jet speedChanges in jet position and speed strongly shape the European winter surface climate response to projected Arctic sea‐ice lossConstraining the jet response is important for reducing uncertainty in the European precipitation response to future Arctic sea‐ice loss [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the annual mean Arctic Amplification (AA) index varied between two and three during the 1970–2000 period, it reached values exceeding four during the first two decades of the 21st century. The AA did not change in a continuous fashion but rather in two sharp increases around 1986 and 1999. During those steps the mean global surface air temperature trend remained almost constant, while the Arctic trend increased. Although the "best" CMIP6 models reproduce the increasing trend of the AA in 1980s they do not capture the sharply increasing trend of the AA after 1999 including its rapid step‐like increase. We propose that the first sharp AA increase around 1986 is due to external forcing, while the second step close to 1999 is due to internal climate variability, which models cannot reproduce in the observed time. Plain Language Summary: The rate of Arctic warming varied in time, while the rate of global warming was nearly constant over the period 1960–2020. This led to a variable Arctic Amplification (AA) defined as a ratio of the Arctic warming trend to mean global warming trend. In addition, the Arctic experienced sudden changes in the rate of warming with step‐like changes in annual mean Arctic Amplification around the years 1986 and 1999. Climate models do not capture the second observed sharp increase of the AA. We suggest that the first AA increase around 1986 is primarily due to external forcing (increasing concentration of carbon dioxide) while the second sharp increase around 1999 is dominated by internal climate variability which current models cannot capture accurately within the time scale of the physical phenomena. Key Points: Annual mean Arctic Amplification (AA) within the period 1970–2020 changed in steep steps around 1986 and 1999. It reached values over 4.0Even those CMIP6 models best at reproducing the AA did not reproduce the second sudden increase near 1999We conjecture that the first AA sharp increase is due to external forcing, while the second is due to internal climate variability [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies have indicated that marine heatwaves (MHWs) have had severe impacts on the marine ecosystem in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, but there have been few studies focused on MHWs in the Arctic. On the other hand, amplified rapid warming in the Arctic region makes it a hotspot strategically and economically worldwide. In this study, we documented that the average intensity of MHWs in the Arctic was comparable with that in the other regions of the global oceans. The annual intensity, frequency, duration, and areal coverage of MHWs have increased significantly in recent decades. The increase of the annual duration is mainly owing to the postponed end time, thus the prolonged periods, of the MHW seasons. Our analysis indicates that the increasing trends of the annual intensity, frequency, duration, and areal coverage in the Arctic are closely associated with the increasing surface air temperature and decreasing sea‐ice concentration under the global warming environment. These features are robust across three different sea surface temperature (SST) products and using different MHW criteria. Plain Language Summary: Events of extremely warm waters in the oceans are known as marine heatwaves (MHWs). Past MHW research has used sea surface temperature (SST) to diagnose MHWs and has focused on the tropical and subtropical oceans. The questions we address here are: (a) Are there any MHW events in the Arctic region where SSTs are generally low? and (b) Are the MHWs weaker or stronger in the Arctic than in the other oceans? Our study indicates that: (a) MHWs do exist in the Arctic, (b) their strengths increase with time, and (c) they are stronger than those in the other oceans in the most recent decades. These MHWs may have a strong impact on the Arctic bio‐ecosystem due to their low heat tolerance since the seasonal variation of SST in the Arctic is small. Key Points: The average marine heatwaves (MHWs) in the Arctic are as strong as in the other ocean basins in 1982–2020The annual intensity are stronger in 2000–2020 than in 1982–2000, which is consistent with changes in air temperature, sea‐ice, and cloudThe increase of annual duration is largely associated with the postponed end time of the MHW seasons [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]