Climate Dynamics

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 629–643 | Cite as

Polar amplification in a coupled climate model with locked albedo

  • Rune Grand GraversenEmail author
  • Minghuai Wang


In recent years, a substantial reduction of the sea ice in the Arctic has been observed. At the same time, the near-surface air in this region is warming at a rate almost twice as large as the global average—this phenomenon is known as the Arctic amplification. The role of the ice-albedo feedback for the Arctic amplification is still a matter of debate. Here the effect of the surface-albedo feedback (SAF) was studied using a coupled climate model CCSM3 from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Experiments, where the SAF was suppressed by locking the surface albedo in the entire coupled model system, were conducted. The results reveal polar temperature amplification when this model, with suppressed albedo, is forced by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content. Comparisons with variable albedo experiments show that SAF amplifies the surface-temperature response in the Arctic area by about 33%, whereas the corresponding value for the global-mean surface temperature is about 15%. Even though SAF is an important process underlying excessive warming at high latitudes, the Arctic amplification is only 15% larger in the variable than in the locked-albedo experiments. It is found that an increase of water vapour and total cloud cover lead to a greenhouse effect, which is larger in the Arctic than at lower latitudes. This is expected to explain a part of the Arctic surface–air-temperature amplification.


Albedo feedback Polar amplification Greenhouse effect Climate-model experiment 



The authors are thankful to Michael Tjernström, Erland Källén, Peter Lundberg, Thorsten Mauritsen, Heiner Körnich, and Peter Langen for useful comments on the manuscript. We will also like to thank the two reviewers: Jennifer Francis and Vladimir Alexeev for their very helpful suggestions. We acknowledge the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, USA, for providing the community version of the CCSM3 climate model. Finally we thank the National Supercomputer Center (NSC), Linköping, Sweden, and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation for placing computer resources at our disposal.


  1. Alexeev VA (2003) Sensitivity to CO2 doubling of an atmospheric GCM coupled to an ocean mixed layer: a linear analysis. Clim Dyn 20:775–787Google Scholar
  2. Alexeev VA, Langen PL, Bates JR (2005) Polar amplification of surface warming on an aquaplanet in “ghost forcing” experiments without sea ice feedbacks. Clim Dyn 24:655-666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins WD et al (2006) The community climate system model version 3 (CCSM3). J Clim 19:2122–2143Google Scholar
  4. Flannery BP (1983) Energy balance models incorporating transport of thermal and latent energy. J Atm Sci 41:414–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Francis JA, Hunter E (1983) Changes in the fabric of the Arctic’s greenhouse blanket. Environ Res Lett 2. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045011
  6. Graversen RG, Mauritsen T, Tjerström M, Källén E, Svensson G (2008) Vertical structure of recent Arctic warming. Nature 541:53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall A (2004) The role of surface albedo feedback in climate. J Clim 17:1550–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen J et al (2005) Efficacy of climate forcing. J Geophys Res 110. doi: 10.1029/2005JD005776
  9. Held IM, Soden BJ (2000) Water vapor feedback and global warming. Ann Rev Energy Environ 25:441–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holland MM, Bitz CM (2003) Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. Clim Dyn 21:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 996Google Scholar
  12. Johannessen OM, Bengtsson L, Miles MW, Kuzmina SI, Semenov VA, Alekseev GV, Nagurnyi AP, Zakharov VF, Bobylev LP, Pettersson LH, Hasselmann K, Cattle HP (2004) Arctic climate change: observed and modeled temperature and sea–ice variability. Tellus 56A:328–341Google Scholar
  13. Langen PL, Alexeev VA (2007) Polar amplification as a preferred response in an idealized aquaplanet GCM. Clim Dyn 29:305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu Y, Key JR, Schweiger A, Francis J (2006) Characteristics of satellite-derived clear-sky atmospheric temperature inversion strength in the Arctic, 1980–96. J Clim 19:4902-4913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manabe S, Stouffer RJ (1980) Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. J Geophys Res 85:5529–5554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manabe S, Wetherald RT (1975) The effect of doubling the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model. J Atm Sci 32:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Raval A, Ramanathan V (1989) Observational determination of the greenhouse effect. Nature 342:758–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rigor IG, Colony RL, Martin S (2000) Variations in surface air temperature observations in the Arctic, 1979–97. J Clim 13:896–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schneider EK, Kirtman BP, Lindzen RS (1999) Tropospheric water vapour and climate sensitivity. J Atm Sci 56:1649–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Serreze M, Francis J (2006) The Arctic amplification debate. Clim Change 76:241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soden BJ, Held IM (2006) An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmospheric models. J Clim 19:3354–3360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Solomon A (2006) Impact of latent heat release on polar climate. Geophys Res Lett 33. doi: 10.1029/2005GL025607
  23. Tjernström M, Graversen RG (2009) The vertical structure of the lower Arctic troposphere analyzed from observations and ERA-40 reanalysis. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Wang X, Key JR (2005) Arctic surface, cloud, and radiation properties based on the AVHRR polar pathfinder dataset. Part II: recent trends. J Clim 18:2575–2593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winton M (2006) Amplified Arctic climate change: what does surface albedo feedback have to do with it. Geophys Res Lett 33. doi: 10.1029/2005GL025244

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MeteorologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Royal Netherlands Meteorological InstituteDe BiltThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space SciencesUniversity of MichiganMIUSA

Personalised recommendations