Arctic warming in response to regional aerosol emissions reductions

• Published in: Environmental Research: Climate
• Main Authors: Michael Previdi, Jean-François Lamarque, Arlene M Fiore, Daniel M Westervelt, Drew T Shindell, Gustavo Correa, Gregory Faluvegi
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: IOP Publishing 2023
• Subjects: Arctic climate change; Arctic amplification; aerosols; global climate models; radiative forcing; climate feedbacks; Meteorology. Climatology; QC851-999; Environmental sciences; GE1-350; Arctic; black carbon; Climate change
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ace4e8; https://doaj.org/article/ac9a6c0ec62d4556ab2a9b1f19915299

This study examines the Arctic surface air temperature response to regional aerosol emissions reductions using three fully coupled chemistry–climate models: National Center for Atmospheric Research-Community Earth System Model version 1, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory-Coupled Climate Model version 3 (GFDL-CM3) and Goddard Institute for Space Studies-ModelE version 2. Each of these models was used to perform a series of aerosol perturbation experiments, in which emissions of different aerosol types (sulfate, black carbon (BC), and organic carbon) in different northern mid-latitude source regions, and of biomass burning aerosol over South America and Africa, were substantially reduced or eliminated. We find that the Arctic warms in nearly every experiment, the only exceptions being the U.S. and Europe BC experiments in GFDL-CM3 in which there is a weak and insignificant cooling. The Arctic warming is generally larger than the global mean warming (i.e. Arctic amplification occurs), particularly during non-summer months. The models agree that changes in the poleward atmospheric moisture transport are the most important factor explaining the spread in Arctic warming across experiments: the largest warming tends to coincide with the largest increases in moisture transport into the Arctic. In contrast, there is an inconsistent relationship (correlation) across experiments between the local radiative forcing over the Arctic and the simulated Arctic warming, with this relationship being positive in one model (GFDL-CM3) and negative in the other two. Our results thus highlight the prominent role of poleward energy transport in driving Arctic warming and amplification, and suggest that the relative importance of poleward energy transport and local forcing/feedbacks is likely to be model dependent.