Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

Atmospheric circulation-constrained model sensitivity recalibrates Arctic climate projections

Nature Climate Change volume 13, pages 710–718 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 21 July 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

The Arctic has been suggested to see seasonally ice-free conditions within two-to-three decades under high-emissions scenarios. However, the time of emergence of the first ice-free month remains uncertain due to a wide range of estimates for Arctic climate sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing. Here, we propose a recalibration of the sea ice and Greenland ice sheet response to climate change, based on the finding that the sensitivity of the Arctic cryosphere to atmospheric circulation in climate models substantially differs from the observed one. Assuming that Arctic climate sensitivity of models recalibrated by observations remains unchanged in coming decades, this approach yields a delay in the projected timing of the first September sea-ice-free Arctic and widespread Greenland melting of roughly a decade compared to the uncalibrated ensemble. This indicates the importance of accounting for the role of large-scale atmospheric forcing and circulation changes in Arctic climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Underlying mechanism of using atmospheric circulation to constrain SIE and GrIS SMB.
Fig. 2: Divergent contribution from upper-level circulation to Arctic summer surface temperatures in ERA5 and climate models.
Fig. 3: Mismatch between observed and modelled sensitivity of the Arctic to changes in large-scale circulation.
Fig. 4: The response of Arctic surface temperature to atmospheric circulation in century-long reanalyses and large ensemble simulations.
Fig. 5: Constraining the date of the first sea-ice-free September and widespread GrIS melting.
Fig. 6: Possible causes of the model sensitivity issues rooted in tropical variability.

Data availability

The MAR model simulations (ftp://ftp.climato.be/fettweis/MARv3.11), the reanalyses (ERA5 https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-pressure-levels?tab=overview; NCEP2 https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis2.html; JRA-55 http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds628.1/; MERRA2 https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets?project=MERRA-2), the SMILE data (https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/projects/community-projects/MMLEA/) and the CESM2-LE data (https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/projects/community-projects/LENS2/) are freely available using the access links. The CMIP5 and CMIP6 data are freely available at ESGF (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6/; https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip5/). CESM2 prescribed SST AMIP simulations (TOGA) are available at https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/dataset/ucar.cgd.cesm2.cam6.prescribed_sst_amip.html, the CESM2 Pacemaker simulations are available at https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/dataset/ucar.cgd.cesm2.pacific.pacemaker.html. Sea ice and Greenland SMB from the CESM2 wind-nudging simulations are available from Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7863452 (ref. 87).

Code availability

Python codes of the analysis and for creating the figures are available from Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7863452 (ref. 87).

Change history

References

  1. Serreze, M. C. & Francis, J. A. The Arctic amplification debate. Clim. Change 76, 241–264 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Moritz, R. E., Bitz, C. M. & Steig, E. Dynamics of recent climate change in the Arctic. Science 297, 1497–1502 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Previdi, M., Smith, K. L. & Polvani, L. M. Arctic amplification of climate change: a review of underlying mechanisms. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 093003 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stroeve, J. & Notz, D. Insights on past and future sea-ice evolution from combining observations and models. Glob. Planet. Change 135, 119–132 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wernli, H. & Papritz, L. Role of polar anticyclones and mid-latitude cyclones for Arctic summertime sea-ice melting. Nat. Geosci. 11, 108–113 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang, Y. et al. Summertime low clouds mediate the impact of the large-scale circulation on Arctic sea ice. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 38 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Li, C., Notz, D., Tietsche, S. & Marotzke, J. The transient versus the equilibrium response of sea ice to global warming. J. Clim. 26, 5624–5636 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Winton, M. Do climate models underestimate the sensitivity of Northern hemisphere sea ice cover? J. Clim. 24, 3924–3934 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stroeve, J., Holland, M. M., Meier, W., Scambos, T. & Serreze, M. Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029703 (2007).

  14. Ding, Q. et al. Influence of high-latitude atmospheric circulation changes on summertime Arctic sea ice. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 289–295 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Topál, D. et al. An internal atmospheric process determining summertime Arctic sea ice melting in the next three decades: lessons learned from five large ensembles and multiple CMIP5 climate simulations. J. Clim. 33, 7431–7454 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Swart, N. C., Fyfe, J. C., Hawkins, E., Kay, J. E. & Jahn, A. Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea-ice trends. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 86–89 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ding, Q. et al. Fingerprints of internal drivers of Arctic sea ice loss in observations and model simulations. Nat. Geosci. 12, 28–33 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Delhasse, A., Fettweis, X., Kittel, C., Amory, C. & Agosta, C. Brief communication: impact of the recent atmospheric circulation change in summer on the future surface mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. Cryosphere 12, 3409–3418 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baxter, I. et al. How tropical Pacific surface cooling contributed to accelerated sea ice melt from 2007 to 2012 as ice is thinned by anthropogenic forcing. J. Clim. 32, 8583–8602 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Francis, J. A. & Wu, B. Why has no new record-minimum Arctic sea-ice extent occurred since September 2012? Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 114034 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bevis, M. et al. Accelerating changes in ice mass within Greenland, and the ice sheet’s sensitivity to atmospheric forcing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1934–1939 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chylek, P. et al. Annual mean Arctic amplification 1970–2020: observed and simulated by CMIP6 climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL099371 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Meehl, G. A., Chung, C. T. Y., Arblaster, J. M., Holland, M. M. & Bitz, C. M. Tropical decadal variability and the rate of Arctic sea ice decrease. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11326–11333 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Topál, D. et al. Discrepancies between observations and climate models of large-scale wind-driven Greenland melt influence sea-level rise projections. Nat. Commun. 13, 6833 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fyfe, J., Gillett, N. & Zwiers, F. Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 767–769 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Notz, D. How well must climate models agree with observations? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140164 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W. & Zelinka, M. Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem. Nature 605, 26–29 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tokarska, K. B. et al. Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz9549 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhu, J., Poulsen, C. J. & Otto-Bliesner, B. L. High climate sensitivity in CMIP6 model not supported by paleoclimate. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 378–379 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hahn, L. C., Armour, K. C., Zelinka, M. D., Bitz, C. M. & Donohoe, A. Contributions to polar amplification in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. Front. Earth Sci. 9, 710036 (2021).

  32. Holland, M. M. & Landrum, L. The emergence and transient nature of Arctic amplification in coupled climate models. Front. Earth Sci. 9, 764 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zelinka, M. D. Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085782 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Notz & SIMIP Community. Arctic sea ice in CMIP6. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL086749 (2020).

  35. England, M., Jahn, A. & Polvani, L. Nonuniform contribution of internal variability to recent Arctic sea ice loss. J. Clim. 32, 4039–4053 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bonan, D. B., Lehner, F. & Holland, M. M. Partitioning uncertainty in projections of Arctic sea ice. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 044002 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hanna, E., Fettweis, X. & Hall, R. J. Brief communication: recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models. Cryosphere 12, 3287–3292 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Delhasse, A., Hanna, E., Kittel, C. & Fettweis, X. Brief communication: CMIP6 does not suggest any atmospheric blocking increase in summer over Greenland by 2100. Int. J. Climatol. 41, 2589–2596 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bonan, D. B., Schneider, T., Eisenman, I. & Wills, R. C. J. Constraining the date of a seasonally ice-free Arctic using a simple model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL094309 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liang, Y., Gillett, N. P. & Monahan, A. H. Emergent constraints on CMIP6 climate warming projections: contrasting cloud- and surface temperature–based constraints. J. Clim. 35, 1809–1824 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kay, J. E. et al. Less surface sea ice melt in the CESM2 improves Arctic sea ice simulation with minimal non-polar climate impacts. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 14, e2021MS002679 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu, Z. et al. Atmospheric forcing dominates winter Barents–Kara sea ice variability on interannual to decadal time scales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2120770119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ding, Q., Schweiger, A. & Baxter, I. Nudging observed winds in the Arctic to quantify associated sea ice loss from 1979 to 2020. J. Clim. 35, 3197–3213.

  45. Baxter, I. & Ding, Q. An optimal atmospheric circulation mode in the Arctic favoring strong summertime sea ice melting and ice–albedo feedback. J. Clim. 35, 3027–3045 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Roach, L. A. & Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E. Observed winds crucial for September Arctic sea ice loss. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL097884 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hall, A. et al. Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 269–278 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Deser, C. et al. Insights from Earth system model initial-condition large ensembles and future prospects. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 277–286 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Herein, M., Drótos, G., Haszpra, T., Márfy, J. & Tél, T. The theory of parallel climate realizations as a new framework for teleconnection analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 44529 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Haszpra, T., Topál, D. & Herein, M. On the time evolution of the Arctic oscillation and related wintertime phenomena under different forcing scenarios in an ensemble approach. J. Clim. 33, 3107–3124 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Haszpra, T., Herein, M. & Bódai, T. Investigating ENSO and its teleconnections under climate change in an ensemble view—a new perspective. Earth Syst. Dynam. 11, 267–280 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Laliberté, F., Howell, S. E. L. & Kushner, P. J. Regional variability of a projected sea ice-free Arctic during the summer months. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 256–263 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wang, M. & Overland, J. E. A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07502 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  55. Power, S. et al. Decadal climate variability in the tropical Pacific: characteristics, causes, predictability, and prospects. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay9165 (2021).

  56. Ding, Q. et al. Tropical forcing of the recent rapid Arctic warming in northeastern Canada and Greenland. Nature 509, 209–212 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Trenberth, K. et al. Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 911–916 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hoerling, M. P., Hurrell, J. W. & Xu, T. Y. Tropical origins for recent North Atlantic climate change. Science 292, 90–92 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Jahn, A. Reduced probability of ice-free summers for 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 409–413 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sigmond, M., Fyfe, J. C. & Swart, N. C. Ice-free Arctic projections under the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 404–408 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Niederdrenk, A. L. & Notz, D. Arctic Sea Ice in a 1.5 °C warmer world. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1963–1971 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Screen, J. & Williamson, D. Ice-free Arctic at 1.5 °C? Nat. Clim. Change 7, 230–231 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Fyfe, J. & Gillett, N. Recent observed and simulated warming. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 150–151 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vogel, R. et al. Strong cloud–circulation coupling explains weak trade cumulus feedback. Nature 612, 696–700 (2022).

  65. Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146, 1999–2049 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kobayashi, S. et al. The JRA-55 reanalysis: general specifications and basic characteristics. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn 93, 5–48 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Poli, P. et al. ERA-20C: an atmospheric reanalysis of the twentieth century. J. Clim. 29, 4083–4097 (2016).

  70. Compo, G. et al. The twentieth century reanalysis project. Q. J. R. Meteor. Soc. 137, 1–28 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Huang, B. et al. NOAA Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), version 5 (global) (NOAA, accessed 12 December 2022); https://doi.org/10.7289/V5T72FNM

  72. Cavalieri, D., Parkinson, C., Gloersen, P. & Zwally, H. J. Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Passive Microwave Data 1979-2020 (National Snow and Ice Data Center, accessed 29 April 2021).

  73. Fetterer, F., Knowles, K., Meier, W. N., Savoie, M. & Windnagel, A. K. Sea Ice Index, Version 3 (G02135) (National Snow and Ice Data Center, 2017); https://doi.org/10.7265/N5K072F8

  74. Gallée, H. & Schayes, G. Development of a three-dimensional meso-γ primitive equation model: katabatic winds simulation in the area of Terra Nova Bay, Antarctica. Mon. Weather Rev. 122, 671–685 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Gallée, H. Air–sea interactions over Terra Nova Bay during winter: simulation with a coupled atmosphere-polynya model. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 13835–13849 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lefebre, F., Galle ́e, H., van Ypersele, J. & Greuell, W. Modeling of snow and ice melt at ETH-camp (west Greenland): a study of surface albedo. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4231 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Amory, C. et al. Comparison between observed and simulated aeolian snow mass fluxes in Adélie Land, East Antarctica. Cryosphere 9, 1373–1383 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Rodgers, K. et al. Ubiquity of human-induced changes in climate variability. Earth Syst. Dynam. 12, 1393–1411 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Maher, N. et al. The Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble: enabling the exploration of climate system variability. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 2050–2069 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Deser, C., Guo, R. & Lehner, F. The relative contributions of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures and atmospheric internal variability to the recent global warming hiatus, Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 7945–7954 (2017).

  81. Deser, C. et al. Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability. Clim. Dynam. 38, 527–546 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. DeRepentigny, P. et al. Enhanced simulated early 21st century Arctic sea ice loss due to CMIP6 biomass burning emissions. Sci. Adv. 8, eabo2405 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Fasullo, J. T. et al. Spurious late historical-era warming in CESM2 driven by prescribed biomass burning emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2021GL097420 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Knutti, R. et al. A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for performance and interdependence: model projection weighting scheme. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 1909–1918 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Drótos, G., Bódai, T. & Tél, T. Probabilistic concepts in a changing climate: a snapshot attractor picture. J. Clim. 28, 3275–3288 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Hofer, S. et al. Greater Greenland Ice Sheet contribution to global sea level rise in CMIP6. Nat. Commun. 11, 6289 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Topál, D. Code and Data to support ‘Atmospheric circulation-constrained model sensitivity recalibrates Arctic climate projections’. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7863452 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project is jointly supported by Climate Variability & Predictability (NA18OAR4310424, Q.D.) and Modeling, Analysis, Predictions and Projections (NA19OAR4310281, Q.D.) programmes as part of NOAA’s Climate Program Office, NSF’s Polar Programmes (OPP-1744598, Q.D.) and the ÚNKP-22-4 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Culture and Innovation (D.T.) in addition to the 2019-2.1.11-TÉT-2020-00114 (D.T.) and FK135115 financed from the source of the National Research, Development and Innovation fund (D.T.). We thank I. Baxter and T. Ballinger for inspiring discussions and for insightful comments on the text in addition to M. Pintér for proofreading. We acknowledge the Climate Variability & Change Working Group for providing the CESM2 Pacemaker experiments. We acknowledge the CESM Large Ensemble Community Project and supercomputing resources provided by NSF/CISL/Yellowstone (https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX) and the CESM Polar Climate Working Group.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Dániel Topál

    Present address: Earth and Life Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Geological and Geochemical Research, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences (MTA-Centre for Excellence), ELKH, Budapest, Hungary

    Dániel Topál

  2. Department of Geography and Earth Research Institute, University of California–Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Dániel Topál & Qinghua Ding

Authors
  1. Dániel Topál
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qinghua Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Q.D. conceived the original idea and conducted the nudging simulations. Q.D. and D.T. together refined the concept and worked out the methodology. D.T. analysed the data, created the figures and led writing of the paper assisted by Q.D.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dániel Topál or Qinghua Ding.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Chad Thackeray and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Comparison of monthly sea ice extent (SIE) trends and the climatologies in our wind-nudging experiment to observations.

(a) Comparison of monthly sea ice extent (SIE) trends over 1979–2020 in the CESM2-nudged (black for ensemble mean and grey for 4 individual members) and in two observational products (pink). Climatological sea ice concentrations (SIC) in (b) NASA Team September sea ice and in (c) CESM2-nudged over 1979–2020. Panels (d) and (e) show the surface mass balance (SMB) climatologies over 1979–2020 in (d) MAR and (e) CISM2-nudged.

Extended Data Fig. 2 The impact of winds on the temperature field in the Arctic.

Comparison between (a) time series of summer (JJA) Arctic zonal-mean ( > 70°N) temperature anomalies (relative to 1979–2020) averaged between the surface and 500hPa pressure level in ERA5 (pink) and the CESM2-nudged simulation (4-member mean; black). Also shown: 1979–2020 summer (June–July-August: JJA) linear trend of zonal-mean temperature (shading: T) and vertical velocity (contours; ω) over the Arctic in (b) ERA5 and (c) in the CESM2-nudged simulation. Note the corresponding slopes of the linear trends over 1979–2020 in the legend of (a).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Divergent contribution from upper-level circulation to Arctic summer surface temperatures in three other reanalysis and in the CESM2 Large Ensemble.

Arctic ( > 70°N) surface temperature (SAT; thick black, upper panel) and Arctic streamfunction index (ASI; thick grey, lower panel) obtained from (a) NCEP2, (b) MERRA2 (c) JRA-55 reanalysis and (d) the CESM2-LE. The pink lines in (a)-(d) show the residual SAT time series after removing the effect of ASI via linear regression. The thin transparent lines in (d) indicate randomly selected 5 members from each of the ensembles. The differences between the pink (residual) and black (raw) lines in the upper panels of (a)-(d) illustrate the role of atmospheric forcing in contributing to Arctic warming. The 1979–2020 linear trend is removed from both SAT and ASI before creating the regression model.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Comparison of the constrained & unconstrained September sea ice extent time series in three model ensembles with observations.

September sea ice extent (SIE) between 1979–2100 in two single-model initial-condition large ensembles, in 21 CMIP6 models along with the NASA Team (solid red line) and NSIDC (dashed red lines) SIE observations. Unconstrained (raw) projections are indicated with solid blue lines and the constrained projections (Methods) are highlighted with dashed orange lines (see legend and panel titles). The dashed black line indicates the virtually ice-free conditions in the Arctic occurring below 1 million km2 ice extent.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Possible causes of the model sensitivity issues rooted in tropical variability using annual means.

Ratios of 8- to 40-year band-pass filtered annual mean sea surface temperature (SST) variance to total SST variance in (a) ERSSTv5 (b) in 31 CMIP5 models and (c) in 29 CMIP6 models. (The calculations are done for each CMIP model separately then averaged.) Also shown: ratios of 2- to 8-year band-pass filtered sea surface temperature (SST) variance to total SST variance in (d) ERSSTv5 (e) in 31 CMIP5 models and (f) in 29 CMIP6 models.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Possible causes of the model sensitivity issues rooted in tropical variability based on century-long reanalysis of sea surface temperatures.

Ratios of 8- to 40-year band-pass filtered summer mean (June–July-August, JJA) sea surface temperature (SST) variance to total SST variance over 1854-2021. (b) is the same but for 2–8-yr band-pass filter. (c) and (d) are the same as (a) and (b), respectively, but for annual means.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Improved modelled sensitivity of the Arctic to changes in large-scale circulation in Pacific Pacemaker experiments.

Scatterplot of the raw and residual summer surface air temperature (SAT) trends over (a) the Arctic and (b) over the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) in the mean of three reanalyses (ERA5; NCEP2; JRA-55: referred to as “Obs” in the legend), in the CESM2 Large Ensemble, 10-member CESM2 TOGA and 10-member CESM2 Pacemaker simulations (see legend for time period differences between the runs and the Methods for details on the experiments). The small, transparent markers refer to the individual ensemble members, while the larger markers are the ensemble means. The CESM2-LE is separated into 50-members forced by CMIP6 standards and 50-members with prescribed smoothed biomass burning emissions (BB). Note the upper x axes in each of the panels, which refer to the R values (Methods).

Extended Data Table 1 CMIP5 and CMIP6 models participating in our study
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Topál, D., Ding, Q. Atmospheric circulation-constrained model sensitivity recalibrates Arctic climate projections. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 710–718 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01698-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01698-1

Search

Advanced search

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