Implications for Arctic amplification of changes in the strength of the water vapor feedback

Ghatak, Debjani; Miller, James R.

doi:10.1002/jgrd.50578

Cited by 69 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Together with the reduced water vapor path in the Pacific Sector of the Arctic Ocean, trends in the winter mean downward longwave radiative fluxes and T2m are smaller in this region compared with the Atlantic sector (Figures d and f). This signal is also robust and found in several reanalyses [ Serreze et al ., ; Ghatak and Miller , ; Lindsay et al ., ]. Serreze et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…There is a dipole pattern during winter, with positive water vapor path trends in the Atlantic sector and negative trends in the Pacific Sector of the Arctic Ocean (Figure c). This is a robust pattern found in the ERA‐I, JRA‐55 MERRA‐2, and CFSR reanalyses, as well as long‐term radiosonde records from land‐based Arctic Stations [ Serreze et al ., ; Ghatak and Miller , ]. Together with the reduced water vapor path in the Pacific Sector of the Arctic Ocean, trends in the winter mean downward longwave radiative fluxes and T2m are smaller in this region compared with the Atlantic sector (Figures d and f).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of the two Arctic atmospheric winter states observed during N‐ICE2015 and SHEBA

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Winter time atmospheric observations from the 2015 Norwegian young sea‐ICE campaign (N‐ICE2015) are compared with data from the 1997–1998 Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic (SHEBA) campaign. Both data sets have a bimodal distribution of the net longwave radiative flux for January–February, with modal values of −40 W m−2 and 0 W m−2. These values correspond to the radiatively clear and opaquely cloudy states, respectively, and are likely to be representative of the wider Arctic. The new N‐ICE2015 observations demonstrate that the two winter states operate in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and regions of thin sea ice. We compare the N‐ICE2015 and SHEBA data with ERA‐Interim and output from the coupled Arctic regional climate model HIRHAM‐NAOSIM. ERA‐Interim simulates two Arctic winter states well and captures the timing of transitions from one state to the other, despite underestimating the cloud liquid water path. HIRHAM‐NAOSIM has more cloud liquid water compared with ERA‐Interim but simulates the two states poorly. Our results demonstrate that models must simulate realistic synoptic forcing and temperature profiles to accurately capture the two Arctic winter states, and not only the presence of mixed‐phase clouds. Using ERA‐Interim, we find a positive trend in the number of opaquely cloudy days in the western Atlantic sector of the Arctic, and a strong correlation with the mean winter temperature over much of the Arctic Basin. Hence, the two Arctic winter states are important for understanding interannual variability in the Arctic. The N‐ICE2015 data set will help improve our understanding of these relationships.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the two Arctic atmospheric winter states observed during N‐ICE2015 and SHEBA

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent series of papers expressing similar conclusions indicates no summertime cloud response to sea ice loss that would offset, even partially, the sea ice albedo feedback [13,17,221,222]. Conversely, a fall and early-winter cloud response exists where slower sea ice growth (i.e., larger-than-average and longer-lasting areas of open water) contributes to enhanced LH flux, which moistens the lower troposphere [46,223], and results in increased cloud amount, cloud base height, and cloud water content [12,13,17,39,217,222]. Kurita [224] found that local sources are the dominant atmospheric water vapor supply for the formation of Arctic low clouds in late autumn and early winter.…”

Section: Cloudsmentioning

confidence: 83%

On the Increasing Importance of Air-Sea Exchanges in a Thawing Arctic: A Review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty years ago, climate scientists predicted the Arctic to be one of Earth's most sensitive climate regions and thus extremely vulnerable to increased CO 2 . The rapid and unprecedented changes observed in the Arctic confirm this prediction. Especially significant, observed sea ice loss is altering the exchange of mass, energy, and momentum between the Arctic Ocean and atmosphere.As an important component of air-sea exchange, surface turbulent fluxes are controlled by vertical gradients of temperature and humidity between the surface and atmosphere, wind speed, and surface roughness, indicating that they respond to other forcing mechanisms such as atmospheric advection, ocean mixing, and radiative flux changes. The exchange of energy between the atmosphere and surface via surface turbulent fluxes in turn feeds back on the Arctic surface energy budget, sea ice, clouds, boundary layer temperature and humidity, and atmospheric and oceanic circulations. Understanding and attributing variability and trends in surface turbulent fluxes is important because they influence the magnitude of Arctic climate change, sea ice cover variability, and the atmospheric circulation response to increased CO 2 . This paper reviews current knowledge of Arctic Ocean surface turbulent fluxes and their effects on climate. We conclude that Arctic Ocean surface turbulent fluxes are having an increasingly consequential influence on Arctic climate variability in response to strong regional trends in the air-surface temperature contrast related to the changing character of the Arctic sea ice cover. Arctic Ocean surface turbulent energy exchanges are not smooth and steady but rather irregular and episodic, and consideration of the episodic nature of surface turbulent fluxes is essential for improving Arctic climate projections.

show abstract

“…The Arctic amplification has attracted many researchers in recent decades [1][2][3][4] and the direct effect of the Arctic amplification is Arctic warming and the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice in all seasons [5,6]. Although the Arctic sea ice cover (SIC) is the least in late September, the significant decrease in winter sea ice and the more frequent extreme cold weather in mid-latitudes in winter make it necessary to focus on the winter Arctic SIC change and associated processes [7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Northern Hemisphere Atmospheric Blocking on Arctic Sea Ice Decline in Winter at Weekly Time Scales

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this study, the effects of the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric blocking circulation on Arctic sea ice decline at weekly time scales are examined by defining four key regions based on observational data analysis. Given the regression analysis, the frequently occurring atmospheric patterns related to the sea ice decline in four key sea regions (Baffin Bay, Barents-Kara Seas, Okhotsk Sea and Bering Sea) are found to be Greenland blocking (GB), Ural blocking (UB), western Pacific blocking (PB-W) and eastern Pacific blocking (PB-E), respectively. The results show that the regional blocking frequency is higher (lower) in lower (higher) sea ice winters for each key region. Moreover, composite analysis indicates that blocking evolution is usually accompanied by significant sea ice decline at weekly time scales during the blocking life cycle for each key region. In addition, the intensified surface downward infrared radiation (IR) anomaly and the precipitable water for the entire atmosphere (PWA) in each key region are found to make significant contributions to the positive surface air temperature (SAT) anomaly, which is beneficial for the reduction in sea ice. The approximate quantitative analysis of different surface energy fluxes induced by blocking is also applied. Further analysis shows that the blocking event and the associated changes in SAT and radiation anomalies for each key region lead the sea ice decline by approximately 3~6 days. This result indicates that regional blocking can contribute to regional sea ice decline at weekly time scales through surface warming associated with enhanced water vapor and associated IR variations. Further quantitative estimates indicate that regional blocking can reduce regional sea ice cover (SIC) by 49.6%, 49.4%, 52.2% and 49.5% for Baffin Bay, Barents-Kara Seas, Okhotsk Sea and Bering Sea, respectively, during the blocking life cycle. Finally, a physical process diagrammatic sketch is given to illustrate how blocking affects SIC decline.

show abstract

Implications for Arctic amplification of changes in the strength of the water vapor feedback

Cited by 69 publications

References 33 publications

A comparison of the two Arctic atmospheric winter states observed during N‐ICE2015 and SHEBA

A comparison of the two Arctic atmospheric winter states observed during N‐ICE2015 and SHEBA

On the Increasing Importance of Air-Sea Exchanges in a Thawing Arctic: A Review

Effects of Northern Hemisphere Atmospheric Blocking on Arctic Sea Ice Decline in Winter at Weekly Time Scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About