ALBERT

Description: Comparing the output of general circulation models to observations is essential for assessing and improving the quality of models. While numerical weather prediction models are routinely assessed against a large array of observations, comparing climate models and observations usually requires long time series to build robust statistics. Here, we show that by nudging the large-scale atmospheric circulation in coupled climate models, model output can be compared to local observations for individual days. We illustrate this for three climate models during a period in April 2020 when a warm air intrusion reached the MOSAiC (Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate) expedition in the central Arctic. Radiosondes, cloud remote sensing and surface flux observations from the MOSAiC expedition serve as reference observations. The climate models AWI-CM1/ECHAM and AWI-CM3/IFS miss the diurnal cycle of surface temperature in spring, likely because both models assume the snowpack on ice to have a uniform temperature. CAM6, a model that uses three layers to represent snow temperature, represents the diurnal cycle more realistically. During a cold and dry period with pervasive thin mixed-phase clouds, AWI-CM1/ECHAM only produces partial cloud cover and overestimates downwelling shortwave radiation at the surface. AWI-CM3/IFS produces a closed cloud cover but misses cloud liquid water. Our results show that nudging the large-scale circulation to the observed state allows a meaningful comparison of climate model output even to short-term observational campaigns. We suggest that nudging can simplify and accelerate the pathway from observations to climate model improvements and substantially extends the range of observations suitable for model evaluation.

Description: In the spring period of the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition, an initiative was in place to increase the radiosounding frequency during warm air intrusions in the Atlantic Arctic sector. Two episodes with increased surface temperatures were captured during April 12–22, 2020, during a targeted observing period (TOP).The large-scale circulation efficiently guided the pulses of warm air into the Arctic and the observed surface temperature increased from -30◦C to near melting conditions marking the transition to spring, as the temperatures did not return to values below -20◦C. Back-trajectory analysis identifies 3 pathways for the transport. For the first temperature maximum, the circulation guided the airmass over the Atlantic to the northern Norwegian coast and then to the MOSAiC site.The second pathway was from the south, and it passed over the Greenland ice sheet and arrived at the observational site as a warm but dry airmass due to precipitation on the windward side.The third pathway was along the Greenland coast and the arriving airmass was both warm and moist. The back trajectories originating from pressure levels between 700 and 900 hPa line up vertically, which is somewhat surprising in this dynamically active environment. The processes acting along the trajectory originating from 800 hPa at the MOSAIC site are analyzed. Vertical profiles and surface energy exchange are presented to depict the airmass transformation based on ERA5 reanalysis fields. The TOP could be used for model evaluation and Lagrangian model studies to improve the representation of the small-scale physical processes that are important for airmass transformation. A comparison between MOSAiC observations and ERA5 reanalysis demonstrates challenges in the representation of small-scale processes, such as turbulence and the contributions to various terms of the surface energy budget, that are often misrepresented in numerical weather prediction and climate models.

Description: Arctic amplification (AA) is a coupled atmosphere-sea ice-ocean process. This understanding has evolved from the early concept of AA, as a consequence of snow-ice line progressions, through more than a century of research that has clarified the relevant processes and driving mechanisms of AA. The predictions made by early modeling studies, namely the fall/winter maximum, bottom-heavy structure, the prominence of surface albedo feedback, and the importance of stable stratification have withstood the scrutiny of multi-decadal observations and more complex models. Yet, the uncertainty in Arctic climate projections is larger than in any other region of the planet, making the assessment of high-impact, near-term regional changes difficult or impossible. Reducing this large spread in Arctic climate projections requires a quantitative process understanding. This manuscript aims to build such an understanding by synthesizing current knowledge of AA and to produce a set of recommendations to guide future research. It briefly reviews the history of AA science, summarizes observed Arctic changes, discusses modeling approaches and feedback diagnostics, and assesses the current understanding of the most relevant feedbacks to AA. These sections culminate in a conceptual model of the fundamental physical mechanisms causing AA and a collection of recommendations to accelerate progress towards reduced uncertainty in Arctic climate projections. Our conceptual model highlights the need to account for local feedback and remote process interactions within the context of the annual cycle to constrain projected AA. We recommend raising the priority of Arctic climate sensitivity research, improving the accuracy of Arctic surface energy budget observations, rethinking climate feedback definitions, coordinating new model experiments and intercomparisons, and further investigating the role of episodic variability in AA.