Search

An enhanced Warm Arctic—Cold Eurasia (WACE) pattern has been a notable feature in recent winters of the Northern Hemisphere. However, divergent results between model and observational studies of the WACE still remain. This study evaluates the performance of 39 climate models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) in simulating the WACE pattern in winter of 1980–2014 and explores the key factors causing the differences in the simulation capability among the models. The results show that the multimodel ensemble (MME) can better simulate the spatial distribution of the WACE pattern than most single models. Models that can/cannot simulate both the climatology and the standard deviation of the Eurasian winter surface air temperature well, especially the latter, usually can/cannot simulate the WACE pattern well. This mainly results from the different abilities of the models to simulate the range and intensity of the warm anomaly in the Barents Sea—Kara seas (BKS) region. Further analysis shows that a good performance of the models in the BKS area is usually related to their ability to simulate location and persistence of Ural blocking (UB), which can transport heat to the BKS region, causing the warm Arctic, and strengthen the westerly trough downstream, cooling central Eurasia. Therefore, simulation of UB is key and significantly affects the model's performance in simulating the WACE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key processes associated with the leading intraseasonal variability mode of wintertime surface air temperature (SAT) over Eurasia and the Arctic region are investigated in this study. Characterized by a dipole distribution in SAT anomalies centered over north Eurasia and the Arctic, respectively, and coherent temperature anomalies vertically extending from the surface to 300 hPa, this leading intraseasonal SAT mode and associated circulation have pronounced influences on global surface temperature anomalies including the East Asian winter monsoon region. By taking advantage of realistic simulations of the intraseasonal SAT mode in a global climate model, it is illustrated that temperature anomalies in the troposphere associated with the leading SAT mode are mainly due to dynamic processes, especially via the horizontal advection of winter mean temperature by intraseasonal circulation. While the cloud–radiative feedback is not critical in sustaining the temperature variability in the troposphere, it is found to play a crucial role in coupling temperature anomalies at the surface and in the free atmosphere through anomalous surface downward longwave radiation. The variability in clouds associated with the intraseasonal SAT mode is closely linked to moisture anomalies generated by similar advective processes as for temperature anomalies. Model experiments suggest that this leading intraseasonal SAT mode can be sustained by internal atmospheric processes in the troposphere over the mid- to high latitudes by excluding forcings from Arctic sea ice variability, tropical convective variability, and the stratospheric processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review of many studies published since the late 1920s reveals that the main driving mechanisms responsible for the early-twentieth-century Arctic warming (ETCAW) are not fully recognized. The main obstacle seems to be our limited knowledge about the climate of this period and some forcings. A deeper knowledge based on greater spatial and temporal resolution data is needed. The article provides new (or improved) knowledge about surface air temperature (SAT) conditions (including their extreme states) in the Arctic during the ETCAW. Daily and subdaily data have been used (mean daily air temperature, maximum and minimum daily temperature, and diurnal temperature range). These were taken from 10 individual years (selected from the period 1934–50) for six meteorological stations representing parts of five Arctic climatic regions. Standard SAT characteristics were analyzed (monthly, seasonal, and yearly means), as were rarely investigated aspects of SAT characteristics (e.g., number of characteristic days, day-to-day temperature variability, and the onset, end, and duration of thermal seasons). The results were compared with analogical calculations done for data taken from the contemporary Arctic warming (CAW) period (2007–16). The Arctic experienced warming between the ETCAW and the CAW. The magnitude of warming was greatest in the Pacific (2.7°C) and Canadian Arctic (1.9°C) regions. A shortening of winter and lengthening of summer were noted. Furthermore, the climate was also a little more continental (except the Russian Arctic) and less stable (greater day-to-day variability and diurnal temperature range) during the ETCAW than during the CAW. Significance Statement: It is well established that human activity (particularly increased greenhouse gas emissions) is the primary driving mechanism of the recent dramatic warming in the Arctic. However, the causes of a similar warming here in the first half of the twentieth century remain uncertain. The limited knowledge about the climate of that period—which mainly results from the low resolution of data—is a significant obstacle to a definitive determination of the forcing mechanisms. Therefore, the main aim of our paper is to improve our understanding of specific aspects of weather and climate (including extremes) using long-term series of daily and subdaily data that have rarely been applied for this purpose. This new, more comprehensive knowledge about the historical Arctic climate should allow the scientific community (particularly climate modelers) to better validate both climate models and reanalysis products and, consequently, to more precisely identify the causes of the early-twentieth-century Arctic warming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]