4.7 Article

Understanding the Cold Season Arctic Surface Warming Trend in Recent Decades

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 48, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021GL094878

关键词

Arctic amplification; radiative feedback; sea ice loss; energy budget; Arctic inversion; reanalysis

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, Regional and Global Model Analysis (RGMA) Program area, HiLAT-RASM project
  2. DOE [DE-AC05-76RL01830]
  3. National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Arctic amplification (AA) is still an open question whether sea-ice loss or lapse-rate feedback dominates. Analysis suggests that changes in clear-sky downward longwave radiation contribute the most to the surface warming trend during the cold season, while a reduction in lower-tropospheric inversions plays a unique role in the downward longwave radiation reduction.
Whether sea-ice loss or lapse-rate feedback dominates the Arctic amplification (AA) remains an open question. Analysis of data sets based upon observations reveals a 1.11 K per decade surface warming trend in the Arctic (70 degrees-90 degrees N) during 1979-2020 cold season (October-February) that is five times higher than the corresponding global mean. Based on surface energy budget analysis, we show that the largest contribution (similar to 82%) to this cold season warming trend is attributed to changes in clear-sky downward longwave radiation. In contrast to that in Arctic summer and over tropics, a reduction in lower-tropospheric inversions plays a unique role in explaining the reduction of the downward longwave radiation associated with atmospheric nonuniform temperature and corresponding moisture changes. Our analyses also suggest that Arctic lower-tropospheric stability should be considered in conjunction with sea-ice decline during the preceding warm season to explain AA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据