Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

An emergent constraint on future Arctic sea-ice albedo feedback


Arctic sea ice has decreased substantially over recent decades, a trend projected to continue. Shrinking ice reduces surface albedo, leading to greater surface solar absorption, thus amplifying warming and driving further melt. This sea-ice albedo feedback (SIAF) is a key driver of Arctic climate change and an important uncertainty source in climate model projections. Using an ensemble of models, we demonstrate an emergent relationship between future SIAF and an observable version of SIAF in the current climate’s seasonal cycle. This relationship is robust in constraining SIAF over the coming decades (Pearson’s r = 0.76), and then it degrades. The degradation occurs because some models begin producing ice-free conditions, signalling a transition to a new ice regime. The relationship is strengthened when models with unrealistically thin historical ice are excluded. Because of this tight relationship, reducing model errors in the current climate’s seasonal SIAF and ice thickness can narrow SIAF spread under climate change.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Maps of seasonal cycle SIAF (SSIAF) across the Arctic.
Fig. 2: Heat map of historical Arctic SIT during the melt season.
Fig. 3: Comparison of simulated SIAF in the seasonal cycle and under climate change.
Fig. 4: Strength of the SIAF relationship between the seasonal cycle (always defined over MJJA) and various definitions of climate change time frames.
Fig. 5: Scatterplot of SIAF in the seasonal cycle and under climate change.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available. The CMIP5 output is available from the Earth System Grid Federation ( Satellite albedo data are available from and The temperature reanalyses datasets are available from and The ice thickness data can be downloaded from Source data for Figs. 2, 4 and 5 is available online.

Code availability

The code relating to this study is available from the corresponding author on request.


  1. 1.

    Flanner, M. G., Shell, K. M., Barlage, M., Perovich, D. K. & Tschudi, M. A. Radiative forcing and albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere between 1979 and 2008. Nat. Geosci. 4, 151–155 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cavalieri, D. J. & Parkinson, C. L. Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010. Cryosphere 6, 881–889 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Notz, D. & Stroeve, J. C. Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission. Science 354, 747–750 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Comiso, J. C., Meier, W. N. & Gersten, R. A. Variability and trends in the Arctic Sea ice cover: results from different techniques. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 6883–6900 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Stroeve, J. & Notz, D. Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 103001 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kwok, R. & Rothrock, D. A. Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958–2008. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15501 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lang, A., Yang, S. & Kaas, E. Sea ice thickness and recent Arctic warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 409–418 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kwok, R. Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018). Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 105005 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Stroeve, J. C. et al. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L16502 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hall, A. The role of surface albedo feedback in climate. J. Clim. 17, 1550–1568 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bony, S. et al. How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim. 19, 3445–3482 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Goosse, H. et al. Quantifying climate feedbacks in polar regions. Nat. Commun. 9, 1919 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Holland, M. M. & Bitz, C. M. Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. Clim. Dynam. 21, 221–232 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Soden, B. & Held, I. An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models. J. Clim. 19, 3354–3360 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Screen, J. A. & Simmonds, I. The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification. Nature 464, 1334–1337 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Screen, J. A., Deser, C. & Simmonds, I. Local and remote controls on observed Arctic warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L10709 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Comiso, J. C. & Hall, D. K. Climate trends in the Arctic as observed from space. WIREs. Clim. Change 5, 389–409 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Graversen, R. G., Langen, P. L. & Mauritsen, T. Polar amplification in CCSM4: contributions from the lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 4433–4450 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pithan, F. & Mauritsen, T. Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models. Nat. Geosci. 7, 181–184 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Boé, J., Hall, A. & Qu, X. Current GCMs’ unrealistic negative feedback in the Arctic. J. Clim. 22, 4682–4695 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Dai, A., Luo, D., Song, M. & Liu, J. Arctic amplification is caused by sea-ice loss under increasing CO2. Nat. Commun. 10, 121 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Qu, X. & Hall, A. On the persistent spread in snow-albedo feedback. Clim. Dynam. 42, 69–81 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Thackeray, C. W. & Fletcher, C. G. Snow albedo feedback: current knowledge, importance, outstanding issues and future directions. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 40, 392–408 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Winton, M. Surface albedo feedback estimates for the AR4 climate models. J. Clim. 19, 359–365 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Colman, R. A. Surface albedo feedbacks from climate variability and change. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 2827–2834 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hall, A. & Qu, X. Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L03502 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Klein, S. A. & Hall, A. Emergent constraints for cloud feedbacks. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 1, 276–287 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Eyring, V. et al. Taking climate model evaluation to the next level. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 102–110 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hall, A., Cox, P., Huntingford, C. & Klein, S. Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 269–278 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Crook, J. A. & Forster, P. M. Comparison of surface albedo feedback in climate models and observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1717–1723 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Andry, O., Bintanja, R. & Hazeleger, W. Time-dependent variations in the Arctic’s surface albedo feedback and the link to seasonality in sea ice. J. Clim. 30, 393–410 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Levis, S., Bonan, G. B. & Lawrence, P. J. Present-day springtime high-latitude surface albedo as a predictor of simulated climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, 2–5 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M., Hunke, E. C., Lipscomb, W. H. & Schramm, J. L. Influence of the sea ice thickness distribution on polar climate in CCSM3. J. Clim. 19, 2398–2414 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Fletcher, C. G., Thackeray, C. W. & Burgers, T. M. Evaluating biases in simulated snow albedo feedback in two generations of climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 12–26 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Onarheim, I. H. & Årthun, M. Toward an ice-free Barents Sea. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 8387–8395 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Massonnet, F. et al. Arctic sea-ice change tied to its mean state through thermodynamic processes. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 599–603 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Schneider, A., Flanner, M. & Perket, J. Multidecadal variability in surface albedo feedback across CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1972–1980 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bowman, K. W., Cressie, N., Qu, X. & Hall, A. A hierarchical statistical framework for emergent constraints: application to snow-albedo feedback. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 13050–13059 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Pistone, K., Eisenman, I. & Ramanathan, V. Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3322–3326 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Cao, Y., Liang, S., Chen, X. & He, T. Assessment of sea ice albedo radiative forcing and feedback over the Northern Hemisphere from 1982 to 2009 using satellite and reanalysis data. J. Clim. 28, 1248–1259 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Massonnet, F. et al. Constraining projections of summer Arctic sea ice. Cryosphere 6, 1383–1394 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Rosenblum, E. & Eisenman, I. Sea ice trends in climate models only accurate in runs with biased global warming. J. Clim. 30, 6265–6278 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Dakos, V. et al. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 14308–14312 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Stroeve, J., Barrett, A., Serreze, M. & Schweiger, A. Using records from submarine, aircraft and satellites to evaluate climate model simulations of Arctic sea ice thickness. Cryosphere 8, 1839–1854 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Wang, X. & Key, J. R. Arctic surface, cloud, and radiation properties based on the AVHRR polar pathfinder dataset. Part I: spatial and temporal characteristics. J. Clim. 18, 2575–2593 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Karlsson, K. G. et al. CLARA-A2: the second edition of the CM SAF cloud and radiation data record from 34 years of global AVHRR data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 5809–5828 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kanamitsu, M. et al. NCEP-DOE AMIP-II reanalysis (R-2). Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1631–1643 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Gelaro, R. et al. The modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA-2). J. Clim. 30, 5419–5454 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Zhang, J. & Rothrock, D. A. Modeling global sea ice with a thickness and enthalpy distribution model in generalized curvilinear coordinates. Mon. Weather Rev. 131, 845–861 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Schweiger, A. et al. Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume. J. Geophys. Res. 116, C00D06 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Laxon, S. W. et al. CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 732–737 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Saunois, M., Jackson, R. B., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B. & Canadell, J. G. The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 120207 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Soden, B. J. et al. Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J. Clim. 21, 3504–3520 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Melia, N., Haines, K. & Hawkins, E. Improved Arctic sea ice thickness projections using bias-corrected CMIP5 simulations. Cryosphere 9, 2237–2251 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Jahn, A., Kay, J. E., Holland, M. M. & Hall, D. M. How predictable is the timing of a summer ice-free Arctic? Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 9113–9120 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Notz, D. & Stroeve, J. The trajectory towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 4, 407–416 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Screen, J. A. & Deser, C. Pacific Ocean variability influences the time of emergence of a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 2222–2231 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We acknowledge funding from the National Science Foundation grant (no. 1543268) titled ‘Reducing Uncertainty Surrounding Climate Change Using Emergent Constraints’. We also thank the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling and the individual modelling groups (listed in Extended Data Fig. 9) for their roles in making CMIP5 data available. For CMIP the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provided coordinating support and led the development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organisation for Earth System Science Portals. We thank X. Qu for helpful discussions about this research.

Author information




C.W.T. and A.H. conceived of the study and designed the analyses. C.W.T. conducted analyses and wrote the manuscript, while A.H. provided comments and feedback.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chad W. Thackeray.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Mark Flanner and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Maps of model bias in SSIAF.

Similar to Fig. 1, spatial distributions of model bias relative to the OBS mean are shown. Note that the color bar on the left only applies to the OBS mean map (top left).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Scatterplots of SSIAF and various ice-related metrics from the CMIP5 models.

(a, b, c) The first three metrics breakdown the initial ice conditions (extent, albedo thickness), while (d) and (e) show the change in albedo and ice thickness across the melt season (defined as the May-Aug difference). (f) Lastly, we derive the seasonal change in ice concentration per degree of contemporaneous Arctic warming (defined ice cover sensitivity). The spatial domain for these metrics is limited to ocean areas polewards of 70°N, while ice thickness and ice-covered surface albedo are defined over areas with at least 10% sea ice concentration.

Extended Data Fig. 3 CMIP5 mean mid-century (2030-2050) monthly SIAF strength across the Arctic.

Shading illustrates ± one standard deviation from the ensemble mean. The percentage of annual feedback strength coming from the late spring and summer months (MJJA) is very high. This is why it can be used as a proxy for annual feedback strength.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Maps of mid-century CCSIAF across the Arctic in CMIP5 models.

Observations (from Fig. 1) and the CMIP5 mean (from Fig. 3) are shown for reference. The climate change feedback shown here is calculated as the average of May, June, July and August values for the period of 2030-2050 (with respect to 1980-2015).

Extended Data Fig. 5 Relationship between historical August ice thickness and the timing of ice-free Septembers.

Ice-free timing is shown with two different definitions. (a) The first ice-free September is defined as the first year in which the 5-year running mean SIE falls below 1 million km2, while (b) consistently ice-free conditions refers to the year when the 5-year running mean has been below 1 million km2 for 5 straight years. Each point is coloured by historical August sea ice extent.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Scatterplot of SSIAF and CCSIAF (as in Fig. 5a) with uncertainty shown (± 1 standard deviation).

Error bars are shown for models with at least 3 ensemble members under RCP8.5. In all cases the seasonal cycle variability is small between members, while the climate change variability can be larger. This illustrates that the choice of using only the first ensemble member does not impact our main conclusions.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Comparison of seasonal SIAF estimates derived from two different satellite-derived albedo datasets.

Observational SSIAF derived using two temperature datasets and (a) APP-x albedo (b) CLARA-A2 albedo. These estimates go into calculating the OBS mean used throughout the text. Note the slightly larger missing data region over the North Pole in b stems from the CLARA-A2 product.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Strength of the SIAF relationship between the seasonal cycle (defined over April-August) and various definitions of climate change.

As in Fig. 4, but with a different definition of seasonal SIAF. The similarity with Fig. 4 illustrates that changing the definition of SSIAF has little impact on the emergent constraint.

Extended Data Figure 9 CMIP5 models used in this study.

List of CMIP5 models analyzed here and their respective modelling centres.

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Summer sea ice thicknesses from CMIP5 models and PIOMAS.

Source Data Fig. 4

Correlation values between SSIAF and CCSIAF for various collections of CMIP5 models.

Source Data Fig. 5

SIAF and SIT data for CMIP5 models.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thackeray, C.W., Hall, A. An emergent constraint on future Arctic sea-ice albedo feedback. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 972–978 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing