Search

We analyze the sources for spread in the response of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) to global warming in Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6) model projections. About half of the intermodel spread in SPV projections by CMIP6 models, but less than a third in CMIP5 models, can be attributed to the intermodel spread in stationary planetary wave driving. In CMIP6, SPV weakening is mostly driven by increased upward wave flux from the troposphere, while SPV strengthening is associated with increased equatorward wave propagation away from the polar stratosphere. We test hypothesized factors contributing to changes in the upward and equatorward planetary wave fluxes and show that an across‐model regression using projected global warming rates, strengthening of the subtropical jet and basic state lower stratospheric wind biases as predictors can explain nearly the same fraction in the CMIP6 SPV spread as the planetary wave driving (r = 0.67). The dependence of the SPV spread on the model biases in the basic state winds offers a possible emergent constraint; however, a large uncertainty prevents a substantial reduction of the projected SPV spread. The lack of this dependence in CMIP5 further calls for better understanding of underlying causes. Our results improve understanding of projected SPV uncertainty; however, further narrowing of the uncertainty remains challenging. Plain Language Summary: Previous studies showed that changes in the strength of the Northern Hemisphere wintertime stratospheric polar vortex can affect near‐surface weather on various timescales. However, climate models do not agree on whether the polar vortex will weaken or strengthen during the 21st century. Here, we use Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and Phase 6 (CMIP6) experiments to better understand how the polar vortex will respond to future greenhouse gas emissions. We show that changes in the propagation of large‐scale atmospheric waves can explain nearly half of the spread in the vortex strength projections by the end of the 21st century by CMIP6 models. Increased upward propagation of the waves to the stratosphere leads to vortex weakening while increased equatorward propagation within the stratosphere leads to strengthening. We identify three factors associated with projected changes in the vortex strength across CMIP6 models: projected rates of global warming, projected rates of subtropical jet stream strengthening and model errors in lower stratospheric winds in the past climate. Stronger global warming rates and stronger past lower stratospheric winds are associated with vortex strengthening, while larger strengthening of the subtropical jet stream is associated with weakening. However, these relationships are weak in CMIP5 models. Key Points: About half of the projected stratospheric polar vortex (SPV) uncertainty in Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) can be attributed to stationary planetary wave drivingProjected polar vortex weakening and strengthening are linked to increased upward and equatorward wave propagation respectivelyA relationship is found between past lower stratospheric wind biases and SPV projections across CMIP6 models [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A unique set of relaxation experiments with a forecast model initialized during December–January 1999–2019 is used to explore tropical influence on the Northern Hemisphere polar stratosphere and stratosphere–troposphere coupling, to quantify predictability benefits due to the perfect knowledge of the tropical variability. On average, predictability of the polar stratosphere, as represented by the 50 hPa geopotential height anomalies north of 50°N (Z50), increases from 17 days in freely running (control) forecasts to 21 days in the tropical relaxation experiments. At sub‐seasonal time‐scales, a statistically significant improvement in weekly mean skill scores can be demonstrated in 14%–20% of individual forecast ensembles, mostly in cases when the skill of the corresponding control forecast is worse than average. In these forecasts, root‐mean‐square errors and forecast spread of Z50 during forecast weeks 3–5 are decreased by 10%–15%. Stratospheric improvements are detected during periods of both vortex strengthening and vortex weakening, including most major Sudden Stratospheric Warmings that occurred during the study period, via modulation of the upward wave activity fluxes. An active Madden–Julian Oscillation (MJO) is found in most of these events with MJO phase 5–7 preceding vortex weakening and MJO phase 3–4 preceding vortex strengthening. Forecasts with improved stratospheric circulation also have improved tropospheric circulation during and after the periods when improvements are detected in the stratosphere. We attribute these improvements to both stratosphere–troposphere coupling and tropospheric tropical teleconnections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level. © 2008 Macmillan Publishers Limited.

A prerequisite for understanding the local, regional, and hemispherical impacts of Arctic sea-ice decline on the atmosphere is to quantify the effects of sea-ice concentration (SIC) on the turbulent surface fluxes of sensible and latent heat in the Arctic. We analyse these effects utilising four global atmospheric reanalyses, ERA5, JRA-55, MERRA-2, and NCEP/CFSR (including both the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) and the NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)), and evaluate their uncertainties arising from inter-reanalysis differences in SIC and in the sensitivity of the turbulent surface fluxes to SIC. The magnitude of the differences in SIC is up to 0.15 but typically around 0.05 in most of the Arctic over all four seasons. Orthogonal-distance regression and ordinary-least-squares regression analyses indicate that the greatest sensitivity of both the latent and the sensible heat flux to SIC occurs in the cold season, November to April. For these months, using daily means of data, the average sensitivity is 400 Wm-2 for the latent heat flux and over 800 Wm-2 for the sensible heat flux per unit of SIC (change in SIC from 0 to 1), with differences between reanalyses that are as large as 300 Wm-2 for the latent heat flux and 600 Wm-2 for the sensible heat flux per unit of SIC. The sensitivity is highest for the NCEP/CFSR reanalysis. Comparing the periods 1980–2000 and 2001–2021, we find that the effect of SIC on turbulent surface fluxes has weakened owing to the increasing surface temperature of sea ice and sea-ice decline. The results also indicate signs of a decadal-scale improvement in the mutual agreement between reanalyses. The effect of SIC on turbulent surface fluxes arises mostly via the effect of SIC on atmosphere–surface differences in temperature and specific humidity, whereas the effect of SIC on wind speed (via surface roughness and atmospheric-boundary-layer stratification) partly cancels out in the turbulent surface fluxes, as the wind speed increases the magnitudes of both upward and downward fluxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dominant pattern of Northern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability is the Northern Annular Mode (NAM), which in wintertime represents the coupling of the stratospheric and tropospheric circulations. The internal variability associated with the NAM has been shown to give rise to substantial uncertainty in climate projections of regional surface air temperatures (SATs), but it's unclear how much of this variability arises from stratosphere‐troposphere coupling processes. Here, using three large‐ensemble coupled climate model simulations from 1850 to 2100 with varying fidelity of stratosphere‐troposphere coupling processes, we demonstrate that regional SAT variability across timescales is amplified when the tropospheric NAM is coupled to the stratospheric NAM. Moreover, models that lack adequate simulation of stratosphere‐troposphere coupling processes may not capture the magnitude of uncertainty in near‐term SAT projections associated with this coupling. Plain Language Summary: Large‐scale atmospheric circulation variability drives substantial variation in regional surface air temperatures (SATs), so that even on 30–40 year timescales local cooling trends are possible even as global‐mean temperatures increase. We provide evidence that when the stratospheric mean flow is coupled to the tropospheric mean flow, the decadal variability of SATs is amplified in some regions. Some models do not represent well the observed coupling of the stratosphere to the troposphere, and these models may underestimate decadal variability associated with this coupling. Key Points: The Northern Annular Mode (NAM) exhibits decadal variability that can accelerate or slow the rate of anthropogenic regional surface warmingAmplified decadal variability of extratropical surface temperatures occurs when the NAM is coupled from the stratosphere to the troposphereModels that fail to adequately capture vertical coupling may underestimate the magnitude of decadal variations in surface air temperatures [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]