Arctic amplification under global warming of 1.5 and 2 °C in NorESM1-Happi

Abstract. Differences between a 1.5 and 2.0 ∘C warmer climate than 1850 pre-industrial conditions are investigated using a suite of uncoupled (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project; AMIP), fully coupled, and slab-ocean experiments performed with Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM1)-Happi, an upgraded version of NorESM1-M. The data from the AMIP-type runs with prescribed sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) and sea ice were provided to a model intercomparison project (HAPPI – Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts; http://www.happimip.org/, last access date: 14 September 2019). This paper compares the AMIP results to those from the fully coupled version and the slab-ocean version of the model (NorESM1-HappiSO) in which SST and sea ice are allowed to respond to the warming, focusing on Arctic amplification of the global change signal. The fully coupled and the slab-ocean runs generally show stronger responses than the AMIP runs in the warmer worlds. The Arctic polar amplification factor is stronger in the fully coupled and slab-ocean runs than in the AMIP runs, both in the 1.5 ∘C warming run and with the additional 0.5 ∘C warming. The low-level Equator-to-pole temperature gradient consistently weakens more between the present-day climate and the 1.5 ∘C warmer climate in the experiments with an active ocean component. The magnitude of the upper-level Equator-to-pole temperature gradient increases in a warmer climate but is not systematically larger in the experiments with an active ocean component. Implications for storm tracks and blocking are investigated. We find considerable reductions in the Arctic sea-ice cover in the slab-ocean model runs; while ice-free summers are rare under 1.5 ∘C warming, they occur 18 % of the time in the 2.0 ∘C warming simulation. The fully coupled model does not, however, reach ice-free conditions as it is too cold and has too much ice in the present-day climate. Differences between the experiments with active ocean and sea-ice models and those with prescribed SSTs and sea ice can be partially due to ocean and sea-ice feedbacks that are neglected in the latter case but can also in part be due to differences in the experimental setup.

[1]  J. Stroeve,et al.  The Trajectory Towards a Seasonally Ice-Free Arctic Ocean , 2018, Current Climate Change Reports.

[2]  E. Fischer,et al.  Global Freshwater Availability Below Normal Conditions and Population Impact Under 1.5 and 2 °C Stabilization Scenarios , 2018, Geophysical Research Letters.

[3]  S. Vavrus,et al.  The influence of Arctic amplification on mid-latitude summer circulation , 2018, Nature Communications.

[4]  John Methven,et al.  Blocking and its Response to Climate Change , 2018, Current Climate Change Reports.

[5]  M. Allen,et al.  Higher CO2 concentrations increase extreme event risk in a 1.5 °C world , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[6]  Thomas Jung,et al.  The Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project (PAMIP) contribution to CMIP6: investigating the causes and consequences of polar amplification , 2018, Geoscientific Model Development.

[7]  A. Kirkevåg,et al.  A production-tagged aerosol module for Earth system models, OsloAero5.3 – extensions and updates for CAM5.3-Oslo , 2018, Geoscientific Model Development.

[8]  J. Fyfe,et al.  Ice-free Arctic projections under the Paris Agreement , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[9]  A. Jahn,et al.  Reduced probability of ice-free summers for 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C warming , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[10]  K. Calvin,et al.  Climate extremes, land–climate feedbacks and land-use forcing at 1.5°C , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[11]  Paul J. Kushner,et al.  Consistency and discrepancy in the atmospheric response to Arctic sea-ice loss across climate models , 2018, Nature Geoscience.

[12]  S. Arrhenius.  “On the Infl uence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” (1896) , 2017, The Future of Nature.

[13]  A. Kirkevåg,et al.  The NorESM1-Happi used for evaluating differences between a global warming of 1.5 °C and 2 °C, and the role of Arctic Amplification , 2017 .

[14]  E. Fischer,et al.  Midlatitude atmospheric circulation responses under 1.5 and 2.0 °C warming and implications for regional impacts , 2017 .

[15]  D. Stone,et al.  Euro-Atlantic winter storminess and precipitation extremes under 1.5 °C vs. 2 °C warming scenarios , 2017, Earth System Dynamics.

[16]  T. Andrews,et al.  Rapid Adjustments Cause Weak Surface Temperature Response to Increased Black Carbon Concentrations , 2017, Journal of geophysical research. Atmospheres : JGR.

[17]  E. Fischer,et al.  Changes in extremely hot days under stabilized 1.5 and 2.0 °c global warming scenarios as simulated by the HAPPI multi-model ensemble , 2017 .

[18]  W. G. Strand,et al.  Community climate simulations to assess avoided impacts in 1.5 and 2 °C futures , 2017 .

[19]  B. Anderson,et al.  Atmospheric Eddies Mediate Lapse Rate Feedback and Arctic Amplification , 2017 .

[20]  T. Vihma.  Weather Extremes Linked to Interaction of the Arctic and Midlatitudes , 2017 .

[21]  J. Screen.  Simulated Atmospheric Response to Regional and Pan-Arctic Sea Ice Loss , 2017 .

[22]  J. Screen.  Climate science: Far-flung effects of Arctic warming , 2017 .

[23]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Characterizing half‐a‐degree difference: a review of methods for identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets , 2017 .

[24]  Michael F. Wehner,et al.  Half a degree additional warming, prognosis and projected impacts (HAPPI): background and experimental design , 2017 .

[25]  Fabio D'Andrea,et al.  Northern Hemisphere Atmospheric Blocking Representation in Global Climate Models: Twenty Years of Improvements? , 2016 .

[26]  Jennifer A. Francis,et al.  Contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic amplification is regulated by Pacific Ocean decadal variability , 2016 .

[27]  E. Barnes,et al.  Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change , 2016 .

[28]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal , 2016 .

[29]  R. Betts,et al.  Realizing the impacts of a 1.5 °C warmer world , 2016 .

[30]  Philippe Ciais,et al.  Opinion: In the wake of Paris Agreement, scientists must embrace new directions for climate change research , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Kevin Anderson,et al.  Planting Seeds So Something Bigger Might Emerge: The Paris Agreement and the Fight Against Climate Change , 2016 .

[32]  G. Peters.  The 'best available science' to inform 1.5 [deg]C policy choices , 2016 .

[33]  J. A. Navarro,et al.  Amplification of Arctic warming by past air pollution reductions in Europe , 2016 .

[34]  R. Knutti,et al.  Geosciences after Paris , 2016 .

[35]  Mike Hulme,et al.  1.5 [deg]C and climate research after the Paris Agreement , 2016 .

[36]  A. Kirkevåg,et al.  A Standardized Global Climate Model Study Showing Unique Properties for the Climate Response to Black Carbon Aerosols , 2015 .

[37]  L. Polvani,et al.  CMIP5 Projections of Arctic Amplification, of the North American/North Atlantic Circulation, and of Their Relationship , 2014 .

[38]  Dara Entekhabi,et al.  Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather , 2014 .

[39]  L. Shaffrey,et al.  Equator-to-pole temperature differences and the extra-tropical storm track responses of the CMIP5 climate models , 2014, Climate Dynamics.

[40]  J. Screen,et al.  Arctic amplification decreases temperature variance in northern mid- to high-latitudes , 2014 .

[41]  W. Landuyt,et al.  The vertical distribution of black carbon in CMIP5 models: Comparison to observations and the importance of convective transport , 2014 .

[42]  T. Mauritsen,et al.  Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models , 2014 .

[43]  D. Fahey,et al.  Global-scale seasonally resolved black carbon vertical profiles over the Pacific , 2013, Geophysical research letters.

[44]  R. Neale,et al.  The Mean Climate of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4) in Forced SST and Fully Coupled Experiments , 2013 .

[45]  A. Kirkevåg,et al.  The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate , 2013 .

[46]  Ian Simmonds,et al.  Exploring links between Arctic amplification and mid‐latitude weather , 2013 .

[47]  E. Chang,et al.  CMIP5 multimodel ensemble projection of storm track change under global warming , 2012 .

[48]  T. Diehl,et al.  Black carbon vertical profiles strongly affect its radiative forcing uncertainty , 2012 .

[49]  Andrew Dawson,et al.  Simulating regime structures in weather and climate prediction models , 2012 .

[50]  Ivar A. Seierstad,et al.  The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 2: Climate response and scenario projections , 2012 .

[51]  Michael Schulz,et al.  Aerosol–climate interactions in the Norwegian Earth System Model – NorESM1-M , 2012 .

[52]  G. Danabasoglu,et al.  Climate Sensitivity of the Community Climate System Model, Version 4 , 2012 .

[53]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[54]  S. Vavrus,et al.  Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid‐latitudes , 2012 .

[55]  J. LaCasce,et al.  Changes in the Extratropical Storm Tracks in Response to Changes in SST in an AGCM , 2012 .

[56]  Marika M. Holland,et al.  Improved sea ice shortwave radiation physics in CCSM4: The impact of melt ponds and aerosols on Arctic Sea ice , 2012 .

[57]  C. Donlon,et al.  The Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) system , 2012 .

[58]  G. Danabasoglu,et al.  The Community Climate System Model Version 4 , 2011 .

[59]  A. Thomson,et al.  The representative concentration pathways: an overview , 2011 .

[60]  J. Thepaut,et al.  The ERA‐Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system , 2011 .

[61]  S. Marshall,et al.  Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions , 2011 .

[62]  Helge Drange,et al.  External forcing as a metronome for Atlantic multidecadal variability , 2010 .

[63]  Christoph Heinze,et al.  An isopycnic ocean carbon cycle model , 2009 .

[64]  H. Damon Matthews,et al.  The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions , 2009, Nature.

[65]  Brian J. Hoskins,et al.  The Storm-Track Response to Idealized SST Perturbations in an Aquaplanet GCM , 2008 .

[66]  Charles S. Zender,et al.  Linking snowpack microphysics and albedo evolution , 2006 .

[67]  M. Winton,et al.  Amplified Arctic climate change: What does surface albedo feedback have to do with it? , 2006 .

[68]  M. Holland,et al.  Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models , 2003 .

[69]  Brian J. Hoskins,et al.  A new perspective on blocking , 2003 .

[70]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  Transient Climate Change in the Hadley Centre Models: The Role of Physical Processes , 2001 .

[71]  Franco Molteni,et al.  On the operational predictability of blocking , 1990 .

[72]  Syukuro Manabe,et al.  Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere , 1980 .

[73]  J. Wallace,et al.  An Observational Study of the Northern Hemisphere Wintertime Circulation , 1977 .

[74]  M. Blackmon,et al.  A Climatological Spectral Study of the 500 mb Geopotential Height of the Northern Hemisphere. , 1976 .

[75]  D. Lawrence,et al.  Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model , 2011 .

[76]  J. Randerson,et al.  Technical Description of version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM) , 2010 .

[77]  M. Vertenstein,et al.  International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications a New Flexible Coupler for Earth System Modeling Developed for Ccsm4 and Cesm1 a New Flexible Coupler for Earth System Modeling Developed for Ccsm4 and Cesm1 , 2022 .