The North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation are modes of climate variability affecting temperature and precipitation in the mid-latitudes. Here we use reanalysis data and climate model simulations of historical and warm climates to show that the relationship between the two oscillations changes with climate warming. The two modes are currently highly correlated, as both are strongly influenced by the downward propagation of stratospheric polar vortex anomalies into the troposphere. When considering a very warm climate scenario, the hemispherically defined Arctic Oscillation pattern shifts to reflect variability of the North Pacific storm track, while the regionally defined North Atlantic Oscillation pattern remains stable. The stratosphere remains an important precursor for North Atlantic Oscillation, and surface Eurasian and Aleutian pressure anomalies precede stratospheric anomalies. Idealized general circulation model simulations suggest that these modifications are linked to the stronger warming of the Pacific compared with the slower warming of the Atlantic Ocean.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
The ICTP AGCM ‘SPEEDY model’ can be downloaded by contacting F. Kucharski (email@example.com) or as indicated in the following link: https://www.ictp.it/research/esp/models/speedy.aspx. Codes used to set up model simulations, analyse data and create figures can be provided upon request from the corresponding author.
Walker, G. T. & Bliss, E. W. World weather V. Mem. R. Meteorol. Soc. 4, 53–84 (1932).
Hurrell, J. W. Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation: regional temperatures and precipitation. Science 269, 676–679 (1995).
Thompson, D. W. J. & Wallace, J. M. The Arctic Oscillation signature in the wintertime geopotential height and temperature fields. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 1297–1300 (1998).
Thompson, D. & Wallace, J. Annular modes in the extratropical circulation. Part I: Month-to-month variability. J. Clim. 13, 1000–1016 (2000).
Thompson, D. W. J., Wallace, J. M. & Hegerl, G. C. Annular modes in the extratropical circulation. Part II: Trends. J. Clim. 13, 1018–1036 (2000).
Cohen, J. et al. Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather. Nat. Geosci. 7, 627–637 (2014).
Ambaum, M. H. P., Hoskins, B. J. & Stephenson, D. B. Arctic Oscillation or North Atlantic Oscillation? J. Clim. 14, 3495–3507 (2001).
Wanner, H. et al. North Atlantic Oscillation—concepts and studies. Surv. Geophys. 22, 321–381 (2001).
Deser, C. On the teleconnectivity of the ‘Arctic Oscillation’. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 779–782 (2000).
Holland, M. M. The North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation in the CCSM2 and its influence on Arctic climate variability. J. Clim. 16, 2767–2781 (2003).
Baldwin, M. P. & Dunkerton, T. J. Stratospheric harbingers of anomalous weather regimes. Science 294, 581–584 (2001).
Cohen, J. & Barlow, M. The NAO, the AO, and global warming: how closely related? J. Clim. 18, 4498–4513 (2005).
Baldwin, M. & Dunkerton, T. Propagation of the Arctic Oscillation from the stratosphere to the troposphere. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 30937–30946 (1999).
Butler, A. H. & Polvani, L. M. El Niño, La Niña, and stratospheric sudden warmings: a reevaluation in light of the observational record. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048084 (2011).
Baldwin, M. P. et al. The quasi-biennial oscillation. Rev. Geophys. 39, 179–229 (2001).
Jiang, Z., Feldstein, S. B. & Lee, S. The relationship between the Madden–Julian Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 143, 240–250 (2017).
Garfinkel, C. I., Feldstein, S. B., Waugh, D. W., Yoo, C. & Lee, S. Observed connection between stratospheric sudden warmings and the Madden–Julian Oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L18807 (2012).
Kang, W. & Tziperman, E. More frequent sudden stratospheric warming events due to enhanced MJO forcing expected in a warmer climate. J. Clim. 30, 8727–8743 (2017).
Wu, Q. & Zhang, X. Observed forcing-feedback processes between northern hemisphere atmospheric circulation and arctic sea ice coverage. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013574 (2010).
Peings, Y. & Magnusdottir, G. Response of the wintertime Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation to current and projected Arctic sea ice decline: a numerical study with CAM5. J. Clim. 27, 244–264 (2014).
García-Serrano, J., Frankignoul, C., Gastineau, G. & de la Cámara, A. On the predictability of the winter Euro-Atlantic climate: lagged influence of autumn Arctic sea ice. J. Clim. 28, 5195–5216 (2015).
Ruggieri, P., Kucharski, F., Buizza, R. & Ambaum, M. H. P. The transient atmospheric response to a reduction of sea-ice cover in the Barents and Kara Seas. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 143, 1632–1640 (2017).
Kretschmer, M., Coumou, D., Donges, J. F. & Runge, J. Using causal effect networks to analyze different arctic drivers of midlatitude winter circulation. J. Clim. 29, 4069–4081 (2016).
Nakamura, T. et al. The stratospheric pathway for Arctic impacts on midlatitude climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 3494–3501 (2016).
Cohen, J., Barlow, M., Kushner, P. & Saito, K. Stratosphere–troposphere coupling and links with Eurasian land surface variability. J. Clim. 20, 5335–5343 (2007).
Deser, C., Tomas, R. A. & Peng, S. The transient atmospheric circulation response to North Atlantic SST and sea ice anomalies. J. Clim. 20, 4751–4767 (2007).
Hurrell, J. W. & Deser, C. North Atlantic climate variability: the role of the North Atlantic Oscillation. J. Marine Syst. 78, 28–41 (2009).
Saha, S. et al. The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91, 1015–1058 (2010).
Polvani, L. M. & Saravanan, R. The three-dimensional structure of breaking Rossby waves in the polar wintertime stratosphere. J. Atmos. Sci. 57, 3663–3685 (2000).
Chen, C., Wang, G., Xie, S.-P. & Liu, W. Why does global warming weaken the Gulf Stream but intensify the Kuroshio? J. Clim. 32, 7437–7451 (2019).
Sévellec, F., Fedorov, A. & Liu, W. Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 604–610 (2017).
Rahmstorf, S. et al. Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 475–480 (2015).
Hartman, D. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 159–254 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Alexander, M. et al. Projected sea surface temperatures over the 21st century: changes in the mean, variability and extremes for large marine ecosystem regions of northern oceans. Elem. Sci. Anthrop. 6, 9 (2018).
Molteni, F. Atmospheric simulations using a GCM with simplified physical parameterizations. I: Model climatology and variability in multi-decadal experiments. Clim. Dynam. 20, 175–191 (2003).
Kucharski, F. et al. On the need of intermediate complexity General Circulation Models: a ‘SPEEDY’ example. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 94, 25–30 (2013).
Ayarzagüena, B. et al. Uncertainty in the response of sudden stratospheric warmings and stratosphere—troposphere coupling to quadrupled CO2 concentrations in CMIP6 models. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2019JD032345 (2020).
Charlton-Perez, A. J. et al. On the lack of stratospheric dynamical variability in low-top versions of the CMIP5 models. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 2494–2505 (2013).
Furtado, J. C., Cohen, J. L., Butler, A. H., Riddle, E. E. & Kumar, A. Eurasian snow cover variability and links to winter climate in the CMIP5 models. Clim. Dynam. 45, 2591–2605 (2015).
Richter, J. H., Solomon, A. & Bacmeister, J. T. Effects of vertical resolution and nonorographic gravity wave drag on the simulated climate in the Community Atmosphere Model, Version 5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 357–383 (2014).
Gong, H., Wang, L., Chen, W., Chen, X. & Nath, D. Biases of the wintertime Arctic oscillation in CMIP5 models. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 014001 (2017).
Raddatz, T. et al. Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century? Clim. Dynam. 29, 565–574 (2007).
Marsland, S. et al. The Max-Planck-Institute global ocean/sea ice model with orthogonal curvilinear coordinates. Ocean Model. 5, 91–127 (2003).
Dufresne, J.-L., Foujols, M.-A. & Denvil, Sea Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 earth system model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim. Dynam. 40, 2123–2165 (2013).
Gent, P. R. et al. The Community Climate System Model Version 4. J. Clim. 24, 4973–4991 (2011).
Voldoire, A., Sanchez-Gomez, E. & Salas y Mélia, Dea The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model description and basic evaluation. Clim. Dynam. 40, 2091–2121 (2013).
Johns, T. C. et al. The New Hadley Centre Climate Model (HadGEM1): evaluation of coupled simulations. J. Clim. 19, 1327–1353 (2006).
Schmidt, G. A. et al. Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 141–184 (2014).
North, G., Bell, T., Cahalan, R. & Moeng, F. Sampling errors in the estimation of empirical orthogonal functions. Mon. Weather Rev. 110, 699–706 (1982).
Held, I. M. & Suarez, M. J. A proposal for the intercomparison of the dynamical cores of atmospheric general circulation models. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 75, 1825–1830 (1994).
Bourke, W. A multi-level spectral model. i. formulation and hemispheric integrations. Mon. Weather Rev. 102, 687–701 (1974).
Kucharski, F. & Molteni, F. On non-linearities in a forced North Atlantic Oscillation. Clim. Dynam. 21, 677–687 (2003).
Kucharski, F., Molteni, F. & Bracco, A. Decadal interactions between the Western Tropical Pacific and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Clim. Dynam. 26, 79–91 (2006).
We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), and thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Data availability) for producing and making available their model output. M.E.H. and C.P. gratefully acknowledge hospitality from the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, during part of this work. M.E.H was supported by Cariplo Foundation, EXTRA project and HPC-TRES grant no. 2017-03. This article is an outcome of Progetto Dipartimenti di Eccellenza, funded by MIUR. We acknowledge CINECA HPC grant no. IsC65_CSIPAR and FAQC UniMiB grant. M.E.H. would like to thank F. Kucharski for providing SPEEDY model and for the insightful discussions. E.T. was supported by the NSF Climate Dynamics programme grant no. AGS-1924538, and thanks the Weizmann Institute of Science for its hospitality during parts of this work.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Edwin Gerber 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.
The leading EOF mode (AO) for wintertime (DJF) sea-level pressure (SLP) for Historical (Hist) and RCP8.5 in CMIP5 models. Note that SPEEDY panels refer to the control run using climatology (CTL) and for Pacific SST perturbation run (Pac_P). (Unit: hPa corresponding to 1 standard deviation of the PC). Explained variance by the EOF is indicated on top.
Climatology response of DJF sea surface temperature (RCP8.5-Historical) from MPI-ESM-LR.
SPEEDY SST forcing design for Pac_P run: Positive Gaussian SST in the North Pacific Ocean with a peak of 6°C.
a, Same as fig. 3 except that it is for the strong polar vortex (SPV). The condition for a SPV event is when the 10 hPa NAM index is ≥ + 1. Stippling shows the 95% statistically significant anomalies using boot-strapping approach.
a, Same as fig. 3, except that it is for SPEEDY AGCM. Note that the condition for the onset is based on NAM index at 30 hPa.
Same as in fig. 3, except that here NAM index is for NAO domain instead of AO domain. The condition for the onset is still when the 10 hPa NAM index is ≤ − 1.5 for weak polar vortex. a, CFSR reanalysis. b, MPI historical. c, MPI RCP8.5. Stippling indicates the 95% statistically significant anomalies using boot-strapping approach.
Same as in extended data Fig. 7, except for IPSL-CM5A-LR model.
About this article
Cite this article
Hamouda, M.E., Pasquero, C. & Tziperman, E. Decoupling of the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation in a warmer climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 137–142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00966-8
This article is cited by
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science (2023)
Observed impact of the Arctic Oscillation in boreal spring on the Indian Ocean Dipole in the following autumn and possible physical processes
Climate Dynamics (2023)
Human activity and simultaneous high-pressure anomalies influence the long-duration cold events of winter in China
Climate Dynamics (2023)
Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2023)
Arctic Oscillation and Pacific-North American pattern dominated-modulation of fire danger and wildfire occurrence
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science (2022)