News Reader.info

ABSTRACT The enhanced warming of the Arctic, relative to other parts of the Earth, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification, is one of the most striking features of climate change, and has

important climatic impacts for the entire Northern Hemisphere. Several mechanisms are believed to be responsible for Arctic amplification; however, a quantitative understanding of their

relative importance is still missing. Here, using ensembles of model integrations, we quantify the contribution of ocean coupling, both its thermodynamic and dynamic components, to Arctic

amplification over the 20th and 21st centuries. We show that ocean coupling accounts for ~80% of the amplification by 2100. In particular, we show that thermodynamic coupling is responsible

for future amplification and sea-ice loss as it overcomes the effect of dynamic coupling which reduces the amplification and sea-ice loss by ~35%. Our results demonstrate the utility of

targeted numerical experiments to quantify the role of specific mechanisms in Arctic amplification, for better constraining climate projections. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS

PROJECTED AMPLIFICATION OF SUMMER MARINE HEATWAVES IN A WARMING NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN Article Open access 26 January 2024 RECENT UPPER ARCTIC OCEAN WARMING EXPEDITED BY SUMMERTIME

ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES Article Open access 18 January 2022 IMPACT OF OCEAN HEAT TRANSPORT ON SEA ICE CAPTURED BY A SIMPLE ENERGY BALANCE MODEL Article Open access 29 July 2024 INTRODUCTION

One of the most robust responses of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing in climate model projections is Arctic amplification, the greater warming of the Arctic relative to other

regions on our planet1. Arctic amplification has already been observed over recent decades2,3, and has been attributed in part to increased greenhouse gases concentrations4,5. This

well-known pattern of temperature change not only affects high latitudes1,6,7, but also the climate at low and mid-latitudes through the associated Arctic sea-ice

loss8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and changes in poleward heat fluxes18,19. In spite of the clear signal of Arctic amplification in recent and coming decades, a quantitative understanding of

its underlying mechanisms remains an active area of research. Previous studies have argued for the importance of several processes in warming of the Arctic and the associated sea-ice loss.

For example, on relatively short timescales (intra-seasonal to decadal timescales), changes in the atmospheric circulation, amplified by local feedbacks, were argued to contribute to Arctic

amplification and sea-ice loss, mostly during winter, via moisture and heat transport into the Arctic20,21,22,23,24. On multi-decadal timescales, ocean–atmosphere-ice coupling, both its

thermodynamic (effects of radiative and turbulent surface heat fluxes) and dynamic (effects of ocean heat flux convergence, i.e., ocean heat transport/uptake) components were also argued to

play an important role in amplifying the Arctic temperature response: increased absorption of solar radiation due to Arctic sea-ice loss and the positive surface albedo feedback7,25,26,27,

changes in longwave radiation including the positive lapse rate feedback in the Arctic and downward fluxes28,29,30,31,32, changes in atmospheric circulation and their effect on surface heat

fluxes20,21,23, and stronger ocean heat transport into the Arctic18,33,34,35. One of the challenges in studying Arctic Amplification mechanisms is the strong coupling of the climate system

components: this makes it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to isolate and separately quantify the relative importance of each of these processes in warming the Arctic. As has been

noted by many studies, not only do these processes affect each other, but they are also affected by the Arctic amplification itself, making it difficult to determine the direction of

causality, especially when only linear regression and feedback analyses are performed. In particular, different effects of ocean heat flux convergence on Arctic amplification have been

suggested in the recent literature. While several studies suggested that ocean heat flux convergence acts to increase Arctic amplification18,33,34,35,36,37,38, others argued that ocean heat

flux convergence acts to slightly oppose it29,39, or to have only a minor effect on it40, or to actually be a response to it41. The different reported effects of dynamic ocean coupling on

Arctic amplification stem in part from the different regions, ocean components and forcings analyzed in the above studies, and in part from relying on regression and feedback analyses alone.

In order to isolate and quantify the different processes that affect Arctic amplification, some studies have conducted locking experiments, where a single process is held fixed and thus

cannot contribute to Arctic Amplification28,37,40,42. In such studies, the role of a single process is assessed as the difference between simulations with the process active and simulations

with the process locked. For instance, a recent cloud-locking study concluded that the impacts of cloud feedbacks on Arctic warming due to increased CO2 are negligible42. More directly

relevant to this paper, previous fixed-ocean-heat flux convergence studies (i.e., studies that contrasted fully coupled with slab-ocean models) found that, under doubling of CO2

concentrations, ocean heat fluxes (both horizontal and vertical heat transport) act to increase Arctic amplification37,40. Building on such studies, which were confined to an idealized

forcing scenario (i.e., abrupt CO2 doubling), we here use a hierarchy of ocean coupling experiments11 forced with a realistic transient forcing: the Historical (20th century) and the

Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5, 21st century) scenarios. The hierarchy of ocean coupling experiments allows us to quantify the net role of ocean coupling, and to separate

its thermodynamic and dynamic components, in Arctic amplification over the 20th and 21st centuries. RESULTS THE ROLE OF OCEAN COUPLING IN ARCTIC AMPLIFICATION We start by considering the

Arctic amplification (defined, using the near-surface air temperature, as the difference between the warming of the Arctic region and the warming of the rest of the Earth; the warming is

assessed relative to the 1980–1999 period, see Methods) across 38 models of the CMIP5 ensemble (Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project43, Methods) (Fig. 1a). By the end of this

century (i.e., over the 2080–2099 period), all CMIP5 models (gray bars) simulate an amplification of the Arctic temperature. CMIP5 models project an Arctic amplification in the range

3.9−7.2 K (± 1_σ_), with a multi-model mean value of 5.56 K (green line). To quantify the role of ocean coupling in Arctic amplification throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, we make use

of three ensembles of model integrations of the Community Earth System Model (CESM144) forced over the 20th and 21st centuries with the same Historical and RCP8.5 forcings as CMIP5

(Methods). Each integration is started from a slightly perturbed atmospheric initial condition, resulting in distinct transient behaviors under identical forcing: this allows for the

disentangling of the response of the climate system to external forcing from the internally generated climate variability. Averaging across the integrations in each ensemble eliminates much

of the internal variability and yields the forced response45. The first large ensemble (hereafter referred to as LE) consists of 40 integrations with the fully coupled model, comprising

atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea-ice components46. Thus, in LE both thermodynamic and dynamic ocean coupling can affect the warming of the Arctic over the 20th and 21st centuries. The second

ensemble, which consists of 20 integrations, is identical to the LE except for its ocean component: in this second ensemble (hereafter referred to as SOM LE), the full physics ocean model

is replaced by a slab ocean model (Methods). Note that in the SOM LE the model does include transient changes in thermodynamic coupling (i.e., ocean–atmosphere and ocean-ice heat fluxes) as

in the fully coupled LE; however, the ocean heat flux convergence is fixed at preindustrial values (such that that LE and SOM LE are initialized with a very similar preindustrial

climatology, see Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). Thus, since the sole difference between the LE and SOM LE is the presence/absence of changes in mixed-layer ocean heat flux convergence (for

simplicity, hereafter referred to as OHFC), comparing the Arctic response in the LE and SOM LE allows us to isolate and quantify the role of dynamic coupling in Arctic amplification over the

20th and 21st centuries (both the direct effect of OHFC on Arctic amplification, and its indirect effect via other climate system components). In the third ensemble (hereafter referred to

as NOM LE, which also consists of 20 integrations) there is no active ocean model, and the sea surface temperature in the slab ocean model is fixed at preindustrial values (i.e., both

dynamic and thermodynamic ocean coupling are fixed). Thus, comparing the Arctic response in LE and NOM LE isolates the role of net ocean coupling (for simplicity, hereafter referred to as

OCN), whereas, comparing the response in SOM LE and NOM LE isolates the role of thermodynamic coupling (surface (mixed layer) heat fluxes; for simplicity, hereafter referred to as SHF). Note

that the NOM experiment is different from the more common atmosphere-only runs, where both sea surface temperature and sea-ice are prescribed. Here the sea-ice is active in order to solely

isolate the role of ocean coupling. Lastly, we note that the smaller ensemble size (of 20 members) in SOM LE and NOM LE is sufficient to quantify the contribution of internal variability to

Arctic amplification (Methods, Supplementary Fig. 3). Before examining the role of ocean coupling, and its different components, in Arctic amplification in these three ensembles, we first

ensure that Arctic amplification in the LE is not an outlier within the CMIP5 models, and that the LE adequately captures the observed amplification in recent decades. First, the LE mean

shows a projected Arctic amplification similar to the mean CMIP5 (with a value of 6.62 K, as indicated by the red line in Fig. 1a), and is thus well within the value range of most models

(3.9−7.2 K). Second, the evolution of the Arctic amplification from 1920 to 2017 (as computed from the HadCRUT447 data set, Methods) is well captured by the LE (the black line falls within

the red shading in Supplementary Fig. 4). The LE, therefore, can be used for our purpose. Figure 1b shows the evolution across the 20th and 21st centuries of the Arctic amplification in LE

(red), and the contribution of net ocean coupling (OCN, purple) to Arctic amplification, along with the Arctic amplification internal variability (in gray, illustrated as two standard

deviations from the preindustrial control run, and centered around the mean preindustrial value, Methods). First, by the end of the 20th century ocean coupling accounts for most of the

initial warming of the Arctic (compare red and purple lines). As a result, ocean coupling causes the emergence of Arctic amplification from internal variability, which occurs around the year

2000 (when the amplification is first found to be statistically larger than preindustrial values). The large contribution of ocean coupling should not be interpreted as the ocean being the

source of the amplification, but rather that ocean–atmosphere and ocean–sea-ice coupling processes are key for producing the amplification. Furthermore, the role of ocean coupling in warming

the Arctic includes both the direct effect of ocean coupling on Arctic amplification, and its indirect effect via other climate system components (e.g., sea-ice, atmospheric circulation,

downward longwave radiation, etc.). Second, as the warming increases throughout the 21st century, ocean coupling is again responsible for most of the amplification: it accounts for ~80% of

the amplification by the end of the 21st century. Decomposing the effect of ocean coupling to thermodynamic (SHF, green) and dynamic (OHFC, blue) coupling (Fig. 1c) reveals that ocean

coupling drives the emergence of the amplification via thermodynamic coupling, whereas dynamic coupling contributes negatively, and with a smaller amplitude. It is clear that thermodynamic

coupling also drives the amplification throughout the 21st century (by the end of the 21st century it produces an amplification of ~10 K, relative to the 1980–1999 period), while dynamic

coupling acts to reduce the Arctic amplification (by reducing the Arctic warming more than the warming of the rest of the world); by the end of the 21st century OHFC reduces the Arctic

amplification by ~35%. These opposing roles of thermodynamic and dynamic ocean coupling are present throughout the Arctic, but mostly north of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago,

although the warming effect of net ocean coupling is relatively uniform in the Arctic region (Supplementary Fig. 5). In spite of the confidence we have in the LE’s ability to accurately

simulate the recent and projected Arctic amplification, it is conceivable that the mitigating effect of OHFC may be an artifact of the CESM1 model. We thus next qualitatively assess the role

of OHFC in Arctic amplification in a different model. Specifically, we compare the Arctic response, relative to preindustrial values, to abrupt 4 × CO2 forcing in fully coupled and slab

ocean configurations of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Model E2.1 (GISS Model E2.1) (Methods, Supplementary Fig. 6). While quadrupling CO2 concentrations is not identical to

the Historical and RCP8.5 forcings used in the LE, we qualitatively expect a similar role of OHFC in Arctic amplification, as the CO2 concentrations by the end of the 21st century is

approximately quadrupled relative to preindustrial values. Indeed, as in CESM1, we find that OHFC in GISS Model E2.1 reduces the Arctic amplification by 56% under 4 × CO2 forcing. This

suggests that at least the sign of the effect of OHFC, i.e., a considerable reduction in Arctic amplification over the 21st century, is not an artifact of the CESM1 model. The mitigating

effect of OHFC is at odds to the one reported by previous studies, who conducted similar OHFC-fixed experiments under abrupt 2 × CO2 forcing37,40 and found that OHFC acts to increase the

amplification. This suggests that an abrupt 2 × CO2 forcing might not be strong enough to capture the projected effects of OHFC in the Arctic. To corroborate this we also quantify the role

of OHFC in Arctic amplification under an abrupt 2 × CO2 forcing in the GISS Model E2.1 (Supplementary Fig. 6). Indeed, in response to doubling CO2 concentrations, OHFC is found to slightly

enhance the Arctic amplification. This emphasizes that in order to correctly assess the role of OHFC in the Arctic climate it is imperative to investigate a realistic transient forcing, or,

at least, an idealized forcing of a similar magnitude to one of the future forcing scenarios (e.g., RCP8.5). THE EFFECTS OF DYNAMIC AND THERMODYNAMIC OCEAN COUPLING We now turn to examine

the roles of dynamic and thermodynamic coupling in affecting the future Arctic response, and start by recalling that the fixed OHFC in SOM LE comprises both net vertical oceanic heat uptake

(i.e., the global mean OHFC) and horizontal heat redistribution by ocean heat transport and non-uniform heat uptake (the difference between OHFC and net heat uptake). To investigate their

different roles in the projected Arctic amplification (i.e., over the last 20 years of the 21st century), we normalize the Arctic amplification by the global mean sea surface temperature

response (difference between the 2080–2099 and 1980–1999 periods). The different global mean sea surface temperature response in LE and SOM LE is due to changes in the net oceanic heat

uptake (global mean mixed-layer vertical heat transport). Thus, the resulting normalized Arctic amplification in LE vs. SOM LE accounts only for the impacts of horizontal heat redistribution

by ocean heat transport. This procedure thus allows us to disentangle the roles of net heat uptake and horizontal heat redistribution; if, for example, net heat uptake has a major (minor)

effect on the amplification, then the normalization by the global mean sea surface temperature would have a major (minor) effect on the difference in Arctic amplification between the LE and

SOM LE. The Arctic amplification, over the period 2080–2099, normalized by the global mean surface temperature warming is ~17% stronger in LE than SOM LE (compare red and blue bars in Fig.

1d): SOM LE mean shows an amplification of 1.9 and LE mean of 2.3. This result is similar to previous studies who argued that meridional ocean heat transport contributes to Arctic

amplification18,33,34,35,36,37,38 (most of the mixed-layer heating from meridional ocean heat flux occurs in the North Atlantic, east of Greenland, rather than in the North Pacific,

Supplementary Fig. 7). Since the total OHFC reduces the amplification by ~35% (Fig. 1b), the relative minor effect of changes in horizontal heat redistribution by ocean heat transport is

overcome by the changes in net heat uptake. A similar result can be obtained by redefining the Arctic amplification as the ratio between the Arctic temperature response and the rest of the

world surface temperature response. This definition yields a weaker amplification in SOM LE than LE by ~4% (Supplementary Fig. 8a), emphasizing again that the large effect of the net oceanic

heat uptake to reduce the amplification overcomes the relative minor effect of horizontal heat redistribution by ocean heat transport to increase the amplification. In other words, for the

same mean surface temperature, the warming of the Arctic is merely the same for SOM LE and LE (Supplementary Fig. 8b). To further examine how much of the oceanic heat uptake effect takes

place in the Arctic we plot (in Supplementary Fig. 9) the response (differences between the 2080–2099 and 1980–1999 periods) of subsurface Arctic ocean heat content (per unit area) in the

mixed layer (red) and deep ocean (blue, defined from the bottom of the mixed layer to the bottom of the ocean). By the end of this century, in the LE mean the deep ocean warms by 7.7 × 109 

Jm−2 (blue line), while the mixed layer warms by 1.1 × 109 Jm−2 (red line). Assuming that changes in deep ocean heat content are solely due to oceanic heat uptake (i.e., no meridional heat

exchange with lower latitudes in the deep ocean), the latter acts to reduce the mixed layer warming by ~87%. Thus, heat uptake in the Arctic plays an important role in reducing the Arctic

amplification. Next we ask: how does ocean coupling affect Arctic sea-ice loss and polar amplification of atmospheric temperatures? To answer this question we start by investigating the heat

exchanges between the atmosphere and the ocean/sea-ice. In particular, we show in Fig. 2 the contribution of surface heat fluxes to the projected surface Arctic amplification (i.e., the

difference between the response of surface heat fluxes over the Arctic region and their response over the rest of the Earth; the response is defined as the differences between the 2080–2099

and 1980–1999 periods). We here account for the heat fluxes over both ocean and sea-ice, since ocean thermodynamic and dynamic coupling might affect the atmosphere–sea-ice fluxes via changes

in the sea-ice. First we focus on the surface heat fluxes components in LE (red bars). The shortwave radiative flux (SW) acts to increase the surface warming of the Arctic, which is related

to ice-albedo feedback (as shown below). This warming by SW may result in enhanced heat fluxes from the surface to the atmosphere, leading to the Arctic amplification of near-surface air

temperature7,26,27 (red line in Fig. 1b). Indeed, longwave radiative fluxes (LW), and latent (LH) and sensible (SH) heat fluxes act to reduce the surface warming of the Arctic in LE as they

transfer more heat (and water vapor) away from the surface to the atmosphere in the 21st century, relative to the 20th century, resulting in the Arctic amplification. The spatial patterns of

these processes reveal that the relative minor contribution from latent heating to the amplification stems from a cancellation over land and ocean (Supplementary Fig. 10). Note that even

after the Arctic becomes ice-free the contribution of thermodynamic coupling to Arctic amplification continues to increase, as the surface continues to warm (Supplementary Fig. 11). Second,

OHFC reduces all surface heat fluxes components (blue bars). The tendency of OHFC to reduce the surface warming effect of SW flux (by ~35%), not only suggests that OHFC might also affect the

melting of Arctic sea-ice (as shown below), but also that the reduced SW flux supports the OHFC tendency to reduce Arctic amplification: less warming of the surface, via both oceanic heat

uptake and the reduced SW flux, might result in less heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere. Indeed, OHFC also reduces the LW, LH, and SH fluxes, thus acting to oppose Arctic

amplification of near-surface air temperature; OHFC reduces the LW, LH, and SH fluxes by ~25, ~90, and ~35%, respectively (as for the thermodynamic coupling, the effect of dynamic coupling

to decrease the amplification continues even after the Arctic becomes ice-free, Supplementary Fig. 11). The reduction in LW, LH, and SH fluxes by OHFC suggests that OHFC might affect the

atmospheric temperature response to anthropogenic emissions (as shown below). We next examine the impacts of OHFC and SHF on Arctic sea-ice loss and atmospheric temperature. Recall that the

LE not only adequately captures the observed Arctic amplification, but also the recent observed Arctic sea-ice changes: the LE was shown to accurately simulate the climatological seasonal

cycle of Arctic sea-ice extent and its variability, including the spatial distribution of Arctic sea-ice thickness, and the changes in Arctic sea-ice extent over recent decades48,49,50. The

evolution of the observed September Arctic sea-ice extent (estimated from the NSIDC data set51, Methods) is well captured by the LE (the black line falls within the red shading in

Supplementary Fig. 12). This confirms our confidence in using the LE for quantifying the role of ocean coupling in Arctic sea-ice loss. To examine the effects of ocean coupling on Arctic

sea-ice we start by comparing the evolution of September Arctic sea-ice extent in the LE (red) and the contribution for the time evolution from net oceanic coupling (OCN, purple),

thermodynamic coupling (SHF, green), and dynamic coupling (OHFC, blue), along with its internal variability (gray) (Fig. 3). First, not surprisingly, ocean coupling accounts for nearly all

changes in Arctic sea-ice (purple line sits on top of the red line). Thus, ocean coupling is responsible for the emergence of sea-ice loss from the internal variability, which occurs around

the year 2000 (the emergence of the red and purple lines from the gray region), and the melting of sea-ice throughout the 21st century. Second, similar to the evolution of Arctic

amplification (Fig. 1c), decomposing the effects of ocean coupling into thermodynamic and dynamic coupling reveals that thermodynamic coupling is responsible for both the emergence of

sea-ice loss from the internal variability, and the melting of sea-ice throughout the 21st century: by 2030 SHF results in sea-ice loss of 7.25 × 106 km2, relative to sea-ice loss of 4.6 × 

106 km2 in LE mean. Dynamic coupling, on the other hand, has a minor effect on the emergence of sea-ice loss, and acts to substantially delay the melting of Arctic sea-ice in the 21st

century: by 2030 OHFC reduces the sea-ice loss by ~35%, thus delaying ice-free conditions by 15 years (defined as the five consecutive years of sea-ice extent ≤106 km21). The reduced melting

of Arctic sea-ice by OHFC decreases the additional surface warming by SW radiation (via the ice-albedo feedback), and thus also reduces the heat transfer between the surface and atmosphere

and the resulting Arctic amplification (Fig. 2). Lastly, the contribution from dynamic coupling shows an interesting evolution that peaks around 2020–2030. One possible explanation for this

behavior is that it stems from the tendency of dynamic coupling to damp the sea-ice changes. Assuming that \(\frac{\partial {{{\rm{SIE}}}}}{\partial t}=-G({{{\rm{OHFC}}}})\), where SIE is

the sea-ice extent and _G_ is the contribution of dynamic coupling to Arctic sea-ice changes, then one would expect the dynamic coupling contribution (_G_) to peak when the sea-ice changes

are largest. Indeed the rate of sea-ice change and the contribution of dynamic coupling exhibit similar evolutions, peaking around the 2020–2030 period (Supplementary Fig. 13). We next

examine the regional impacts of ocean coupling on Arctic sea-ice loss. Figure 4 shows the normalized September Arctic sea-ice response (difference between sea-ice concentrations over the

2020–2040 period and the 1980–1999 period, normalized by the 1980–1999 period) in the mean LE (panel a) and the contribution from OCN (panel b), SHF (panel c), and OHFC (panel d). We choose

the 2020–2040 period, rather the last two decades of the 21st century, since there are very low concentrations of sea-ice by the end of the current century, and the effects of SHF and OHFC

on Arctic sea-ice are largest over the 2020–2040 period. In addition, we examine the normalized sea-ice response in order to account for the different reference sea-ice states (i.e., the

sea-ice in the 1980–1999 period) in NOM LE, SOM LE, and LE. In LE most of the melting occurs over the Beaufort sea, the Eastern Arctic seas, and along East Greenland. This melting pattern is

largely due to the ocean coupling, and in particular due to thermodynamic coupling. The positive values in Fig. 4d illustrate how OHFC reduces the melting of Arctic sea-ice, notably north

of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago. The opposite effects of SHF and OHFC north of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago explain the weaker melting over these regions, in comparison

to the melting over the Beaufort sea, the Eastern Arctic seas, and along East Greenland seen in the LE mean. Interestingly, over the same period, the near-surface air temperature response

exhibits a relatively uniform warming over the Arctic, which also stems from thermodynamic coupling (Supplementary Fig. 14). The different patterns of near-surface air temperature warming

and sea-ice loss suggest that regions where most melting is projected to occur (i.e., over the Beaufort sea, the Eastern Arctic seas, and along East Greenland) might be more sensitive to

surface warming. In addition, while ocean coupling plays an important role in future September temperature and sea-ice, September sea level pressure, which is associated with a cyclonic flow

over the Arctic, is only weakly affected by ocean coupling, due to the cancellation of thermodynamic and dynamic components (Supplementary Fig. 15). Lastly, we examine the effect of ocean

coupling on atmospheric temperature. Figure 5 shows the response (differences between the 2080–2099 and 1980–1999 periods) of Northern Hemisphere zonal mean atmospheric temperature in the

mean LE (panel a) and the contribution from OCN (panel b), SHF (panel c), and OHFC (panel d). A global warming pattern of upper tropical tropospheric warming and polar amplification is

evident in LE. Ocean coupling accounts for most of this warming pattern, which is a product of thermodynamic coupling. On the other hand, OHFC also acts to reduce the warming of the entire

atmosphere, especially over the Arctic: OHFC reduces the warming by 40−45% over the Arctic region. This is consistent with the effect of OHFC to reduce the LW, LH, and SH fluxes from the

surface to the atmosphere, and thus Arctic amplification. DISCUSSION Motivated by the desire to explain Arctic amplification, many previous studies have proposed different mechanisms to

elucidate the processes responsible for it. In particular, both thermodynamic and dynamic ocean coupling have been shown to affect the Arctic climate, but their effects have not been

separately quantified to date under a realistic forcing. This has led, for example, to different reported effects of ocean heat transport/uptake on Arctic amplification. Here, using a

hierarchy of ocean configurations, run over the 20th and 21st centuries, we have quantified the role of ocean coupling, both its thermodynamic and dynamic components, in the Arctic climate

response to anthropogenic emissions. We have shown that, mostly via thermodynamic coupling, ocean coupling accounts for 80% of the Arctic amplification, and nearly all of the sea-ice loss

over the 21st century. In addition, thermodynamic coupling is responsible for the emergence of Arctic amplification and sea-ice loss from internal variability. On the other hand, dynamic

coupling (the effects of ocean heat flux convergence, i.e., ocean heat transport/uptake) has a smaller effect on the Arctic amplification and sea-ice loss over the 20th century, and acts to

reduce the Arctic response by ~35% over the 21st century. This mitigating effect of ocean heat flux convergence stems from net oceanic heat uptake, which overcomes the relative minor effect

of meridional heat redistribution to increase the Arctic amplification. The key role of ocean coupling in the Arctic does not mean that the ocean is solely responsible for the amplification,

as other processes (e.g., local radiative feedbacks, atmospheric circulation, etc.) might affect the warming via ocean coupling processes. The effect of net oceanic heat uptake to reduce

the global surface warming was discussed in earlier studies who emphasized the role of oceanic mixing in delaying global warming52,53. For example, under an abrupt increase of CO2 the

climate sensitivity was found to be larger in slab ocean configurations than in a fully coupled configurations, due to the role of ocean heat uptake40,53. Thus, the continuously increasing

forcing in coming decades suggests that the role of net oceanic heat uptake to reduce the Arctic amplification is expected to continue to increase. Furthermore, since the effect of dynamic

coupling on Arctic amplification is less sensitive to surface warming than the effect of thermodynamic coupling (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Fig. 16), under emission scenarios weaker than the

RCP8.5, the different roles of thermodynamic and dynamic ocean coupling in Arctic amplification are expected to become more comparable. It is important to note that while we have here

examined the role of ocean coupling in the Arctic temperature and sea-ice response to anthropogenic emissions, ocean coupling also affects the Arctic atmospheric circulation response.

Examining the projected annual mean sea level pressure changes by the end of this century reveals that, unlike the minor role of ocean coupling by mid-21st century (Supplementary Fig. 15),

net ocean coupling contributes to the increase in sea level pressure over the North Atlantic, and to the decrease over the Eastern Arctic seas, a pattern that enhances a westerly flow over

the Arctic (Supplementary Fig. 17). This pattern of sea level pressure occurs because dynamic coupling acts to increase the sea level pressure, mostly around Greenland, whereas the

thermodynamic coupling acts to reduce it over the Arctic. Finally, the important role of dynamic coupling—which significantly reduces the projected Arctic amplification and sea-ice loss—and

thermodynamic coupling—which is responsible for the recent and projected changes in the Arctic—prompt further investigation and monitoring of the Arctic oceanic circulation, heat content,

and air–sea heat fluxes. In addition, our results suggest that new locking experiments with other processes (e.g., atmospheric circulation, downward longwave radiation, etc.) that have a

large effect on the Arctic response to anthropogenic emissions should be carried out, as this method is central to quantifying the relative importance of different mechanisms causing Arctic

amplification. A careful quantification of the relative importance of various mechanisms in the Arctic climate’s response to anthropogenic emissions will not only deepen our understanding on

human-caused climate change signals, but will also help better constrain climate projections. METHODS ARCTIC AMPLIFICATION AND SEA-ICE EXTENT Arctic amplification is defined as the

difference between the warming of the annual mean near-surface air temperature over the Arctic (averaged over 66∘N−90∘N) and the warming over the rest of the Earth. The warming is assessed

relative to the 1980–1999 period. Averaging the Arctic temperature over 75∘N−90∘N yields similar results. This definition of Arctic amplification, based on differences rather than ratios, is

chosen in order to avoid dividing by zero in years when the planet as a whole has not warmed; it also allows us to describe the entire evolution of Arctic Amplification over both the 20th

and 21 centuries. In addition, defining the Arctic amplification using temperature differences has important implications for the atmospheric and oceanic circulations, which are driven by

the meridional temperature gradients. Arctic sea-ice extent is computed by summing the area of all grid cells in the Northern Hemisphere with more than 15% sea-ice concentrations. CMIP5

MODELS We use monthly data from 38 models that participate in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 543 (CMIP5), and select only the ’r1i1p1’ member between 1850–2099 with the

Historical and RCP8.5 scenarios (Supplementary Table 1), in order to weigh all models equally. CESM1 LARGE ENSEMBLES Ocean coupling can be investigated via the mixed-layer heat equation,

$$\rho {c}_{p}h\frac{\partial T}{\partial t}={{{\rm{SHF}}}}+{{{\rm{OHFC}}}},$$ (1) where, _ρ_ is the sea-water density, _c__p_ is the ocean specific heat capacity, _h_ is the mixed layer

depth, _T_ is the mixed-layer temperature, SHF represents the net heat flux (radiative and turbulent) into the ocean (i.e., thermodynamic coupling), and OHFC the ocean heat flux convergence

( ∇ × (V_T_), dynamic coupling). Note that SHF comprises both ocean–atmosphere heat fluxes and ocean-ice heat fluxes. To study the role of ocean coupling in the Arctic amplification over the

20th and 21st centuries we use three ensembles of model simulations that isolate the roles of the different components in Eq. (1). These are carried out with the state-of-the-art Community

Earth System Model (CESM144), which comprises atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea-ice components with about 1∘ horizontal resolution. The first ensemble uses the full CESM1 configuration (LE),

and consists of 40 members running from 1920–2099 under the same Historical (through 2005) and the RCP8.5 (through 2099) forcing as for the CMIP5 models. In this ensemble both changes in

thermodynamic and dynamic coupling can affect the climate’s transient response to external forcing. The first member in the ensemble is initialized from a preindustrial control run, and the

other members branch off the first member at year 1920, with a minor change in air temperature (\({{{\mathcal{O}}}}\left(1{0}^{-14}\right){{{\rm{K}}}}\))46, which, due to the chaotic nature

of the system, leads to distinct transient behaviors across the members. The spread across the members allows one to compute the system’s forced response to external forcing, since by

averaging across the different members one almost eliminates the internal variability. The second ensemble consists of 20 simulations integrated from 1920–2099 under the same Historical and

RCP8.5 forcing, and has the exact same model configuration as the first ensemble, except for the full-physics ocean component which is replaced with a slab ocean model (SOM LE). As in the

LE, the first member in SOM LE is initialized from the SOM preindustrial run, and the other members branch off the first member at year 1920. The slab ocean includes changes in

ocean–atmosphere and ocean–sea-ice thermodynamic coupling, but not in dynamic coupling: the OHFC in the slab ocean model, is fixed at preindustrial values. Thus, taking the difference

between the transient behavior in the mean LE and SOM LE allows one to isolate and quantify the role of OHFC in the climate’s transient response: the sole difference between the two

ensembles is the presence/absence of changes in both horizontal heat transport and oceanic heat uptake. Note that not only OHFC is fixed at preindustrial values but also the mixed layer

depth. Thus, the difference between the mean LE and SOM LE also accounts for vertical heat transport processes within the mixed-layer, i.e., changes in the mixed-layer heat capacity due to

turbulent mixing. A smaller number of members in the SOM LE is sufficient for capturing the variability since the lack of changes in OHFC reduces the internal variability in this slab ocean

configuration. While Arctic amplification variability in the LE is nearly the same (captures 99% of the variability) for an ensemble size larger than 13 members, in the SOM LE, the

variability is nearly the same for an ensemble size larger than 7 members (Supplementary Fig. 3). The third ensemble also consists of 20 simulations integrated over the 20th and 21st

centuries under the same Historical and RCP8.5 forcing. It uses the same slab ocean model as in SOM LE, only here the sea surface temperature is fixed at preindustrial values (i.e., both

oceanic dynamic and thermodynamic coupling are fixed). Thus, as there is no active ocean model in this ensemble (NOM LE), comparing the transient behavior in the LE and NOM LE allows one to

isolate and quantify the role of net ocean coupling (both oceanic dynamic and thermodynamic) in the climate’s transient response. In addition, taking the difference between the mean SOM LE

and NOM LE isolates the role of thermodynamic coupling (SHF; the impacts of ocean-atmosphere and ocean-ice heat fluxes on the mixed-layer temperature). Similar to the LE, in the NOM LE, the

variability of Arctic amplification is nearly the same for an ensemble size larger than 14 members (Supplementary Fig. 3), and thus the NOM LE ensemble size is sufficiently large for

capturing the variability. Finally, it is important to initialize all ensembles from the same preindustrial climatology in order to ensure that their different transient behaviors are only

due to changes in ocean processes, and not due to different background states. Thus, the monthly OHFC and annual mixed-layer depth used in SOM LE, and the sea surface temperature used in NOM

LE are computed using the OHFC, mixed layer depth, and sea surface temperature climatology from 1100 years of the preindustrial run of the fully coupled model54, to ensure the same

preindustrial climatology (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). The preindustrial run with the fully coupled CESM1 configuration is 1800-years long with constant 1850 forcings, and thus all

time-dependence is due only to the internal climate variability46. OBSERVATIONS The observed surface air temperature (1880–2017) is taken from the HadCRUT447 data set, which uses a

combination of satellite and in-situ measurements to produce monthly means of global surface temperature over land and ocean. The observed sea-ice extent is taken from the National Snow and

Ice Data Center (NSIDC51), which uses satellite-based multichannel passive-microwave data to produce monthly mean of sea-ice extent. GISS MODELE We also compare the Arctic response to

anthropogenic emissions in the fully coupled and slab ocean configurations of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE E2.155. In particular, we examine the response (last 40

years of 150-year and 60-year fully coupled and slab ocean runs, respectively), relative to preindustrial values, in each of these configurations to quadrupling and doubling of CO2

concentrations. We use the abrupt 4 × CO2 experiment in order to qualitatively validate the CESM1 results, and the abrupt 2 × CO2 experiment to validate the results of previous studies. DATA

AVAILABILITY The data used in the manuscript is publicly available for CMIP5 data (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip5/), CESM LE (http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/), NSIDC

(https://nsidc.org), and HadCRUT4 (https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature//nsidc.org). The SOM LE and NOM LE data is available upon request from [email protected]. CODE

AVAILABILITY Any codes used in the manuscript are available upon request from [email protected]. REFERENCES * Stocker, T. F. et al. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013). * Serreze, M. C., Barrett, A. P., Stroeve, J.

C., Kindig, D. N. & Holland, M. M. The emergence of surface-based Arctic amplification. _Cryosphere_ 3, 11–19 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Serreze, M. C. & Barry, R. G.

Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: a research synthesis. _Glob. Planet. Chang._ 77, 85–96 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Gillett, N. P. et al. Attribution of polar warming to

human influence. _Nat. Geosci._ 1, 750–754 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A. & Christidis, N. Attribution of observed historical near-surface temperature

variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations. _J. Geophys. Res._ 118, 4001–4024 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Stroeve, J. C. et al. Trends in Arctic sea ice

extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 39, L16502 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Screen, J. A. & Simmonds, I. The central role of diminishing sea ice in

recent Arctic temperature amplification. _Nature_ 464, 1334–1337 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * Peings, Y. & Magnusdottir, G. Response of the Wintertime Northern Hemisphere

atmospheric circulation to current and projected Arctic sea ice decline: a numerical study with CAM5. _J. Clim._ 27, 244–264 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Deser, C., Tomas, R. A. &

Sun, L. The role of ocean-atmosphere coupling in the zonal-mean atmospheric response to Arctic sea ice loss. _J. Clim._ 28, 2168–2186 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Sun, L., Deser, C.

& Tomas, R. A. Mechanisms of stratospheric and tropospheric circulation response to projected Arctic sea ice loss. _J. Clim._ 28, 7824–7845 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Deser, C.,

Sun, L., Tomas, R. A. & Screen, J. Does ocean coupling matter for the northern extratropical response to projected Arctic sea ice loss? _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 43, 2149–2157 (2016).

Article  Google Scholar  * Oudar, T. et al. Respective roles of direct GHG radiative forcing and induced Arctic sea ice loss on the northern hemisphere atmospheric circulation. _Clim. Dyn._

49, 3693–3713 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Smith, D. M. et al. Atmospheric response to Arctic and Antarctic sea ice: the importance of ocean-atmosphere coupling and the background

state. _J. Clim._ 30, 4547–4565 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Tomas, R. A., Deser, C. & Sun, L. The role of ocean heat transport in the global climate response to projected Arctic

sea ice loss. _J. Clim._ 29, 6841–6859 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Wang, K., Deser, C., Sun, L. & A., T. R. Fast response of the tropics to an abrupt loss of arctic sea ice via

ocean dynamics. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 45 (2018). * Screen, J. A. et al. Consistency and discrepancy in the atmospheric response to Arctic sea-ice loss across climate models. _Nat. Geosci._

11, 155–163 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Chemke, R., Polvani, L. M. & Deser, C. The effect of Arctic sea ice loss on the Hadley circulation. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 46, 963–972

(2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Hwang, Y., Frierson, D. M. W. & Kay, J. E. Coupling between Arctic feedbacks and changes in poleward energy transport. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 38, L17704

(2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Chemke, R. & Polvani, L. M. Linking polar amplification and eddy heat flux trends. _npj Clim. Atmos. Sci._ 3, 8 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  *

Deser, C. & Teng, H. Evolution of Arctic sea ice concentration trends and the role of atmospheric circulation forcing, 1979-2007. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 35, L02504 (2008). Article  Google

Scholar  * Lee, S., Gong, T., Johnson, N., Feldstein, S. B. & Pollard, D. On the possible link between tropical convection and the northern hemisphere Arctic surface air temperature

change between 1958 and 2001. _J. Clim._ 24, 4350–4367 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Luo, B., Luo, D., Wu, L., Zhong, L. & Simmonds, I. Atmospheric circulation patterns which

promote winter Arctic sea ice decline. _Env. Res. Lett._ 12, 054017 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Woods, C. & Caballero, R. The role of moist intrusions in winter Arctic warming and

sea ice decline. _J. Clim._ 29, 4473–4485 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Cho, D. & Kim, K. Role of Ural blocking in Arctic sea ice loss and its connection with Arctic warming in

winter. _Clim. Dyn._ 56, 1571–1588 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Screen, J. A. & Simmonds, I. Increasing fall-winter energy loss from the Arctic Ocean and its role in Arctic

temperature amplification. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 37, L16707 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * Screen, J. A. & Francis, J. A. Contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic amplification is

regulated by Pacific Ocean decadal variability. _Nat. Clim. Change_ 6, 856–860 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Dai, A., Luo, D., Song, M. & Liu, J. Arctic amplification is caused by

sea-ice loss under increasing CO2. _Nat. Commun._ 10, 121 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Graversen, R. G. & Wang, M. Polar amplification in a coupled climate model with locked

albedo. _Clim. Dyn._ 33, 629–643 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Pithan, F. & Mauritsen, T. Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models.

_Nat. Geosci._ 7, 181–184 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Park, D. R., Lee, S. & Feldstein, S. B. Attribution of the recent winter sea ice decline over the Atlantic Sector of the

Arctic ocean. _J. Clim._ 28, 4027–4033 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Lee, S., Gong, T., Feldstein, S. B., Screen, J. A. & Simmonds, I. Revisiting the cause of the 1989-2009 Arctic

surface warming using the surface energy budget: downward infrared radiation dominates the surface fluxes. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 44, 10,654–10,661 (2017). Google Scholar  * Feldl, N.,

Po-Chedley, S., Singh, H. K. A., Hay, S. & Kushner, P. J. Sea ice and atmospheric circulation shape the high-latitude lapse rate feedback. _npj Clim. Atmos. Sci._ 3, 41 (2020). Article 

Google Scholar  * Holland, M. M. & Bitz, C. M. Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. _Clim. Dyn._ 21, 221–232 (2003). Article  Google Scholar  * Mahlstein, I. &

Knutti, R. Ocean heat transport as a cause for model uncertainty in projected Arctic warming. _J. Clim._ 24, 1451–1460 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Spielhagen, R. F. et al. Enhanced

Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water. _Science_ 331, 450 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Nummelin, A., Li, C. & Hezel, P. J. Connecting ocean heat transport

changes from the midlatitudes to the Arctic Ocean. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 44, 1899–1908 (2017). Google Scholar  * Singh, H. A., Rasch, P. J. & Rose, B. E. J. Increased ocean heat

convergence into the high latitudes with CO2 doubling enhances polar-amplified warming. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 44, 10 (2017). Google Scholar  * Årthun, M., Eldevik, T. & Smedsrud, L. H.

The role of Atlantic heat transport in future Arctic winter sea ice loss. _J. Clim._ 32, 3327–3341 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Goosse, H. et al. Quantifying climate feedbacks in polar

regions. _Nat. Commun._ 9, 1919 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Kay, J. E. et al. The influence of local feedbacks and northward heat transport on the equilibrium Arctic climate response

to increased greenhouse gas forcing. _J. Clim._ 25, 5433–5450 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Bitz, C. M., Gent, P. R., Woodgate, R. A., Holland, M. M. & Lindsay, R. The influence of

sea ice on ocean heat uptake in response to increasing CO2. _J. Clim._ 19, 2437 (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Middlemas, E. A., Kay, J. E., Medeiros, B. M. & Maroon, E. A.

Quantifying the influence of cloud radiative feedbacks on Arctic surface warming using cloud locking in an earth system model. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 47, e89207 (2020). Article  Google

Scholar  * Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. _Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc._ 93, 485–498 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Hurrell,

J. W. et al. The community earth system model: a framework for collaborative research. _Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc._ 94, 1339–1360 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Deser, C., Phillips, A.,

Bourdette, V. & Teng, H. Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability. _Clim. Dyn._ 38, 527–546 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Kay, J. E. et al. The

Community Earth System Model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability. _Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc._ 96,

1333–1349 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A. & Jones, P. D. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an

ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set. _J. Geophys. Res._ 117, D08101 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Barnhart, K. R., Miller, C. R., Overeem, I. & Kay, J. E.

Mapping the future expansion of Arctic open water. _Nat. Clim. Change_ 6, 280–285 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Jahn, A., Kay, J. E., Holland, M. M. & Hall, D. M. How predictable is

the timing of a summer ice-free Arctic? _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 43, 9113–9120 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * England, M. R., Jahn, A. & Polvani, L. M. Nonuniform contribution of

internal variability to recent Arctic sea ice loss. _J. Clim._ 32, 4039–4053 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Fetterer, F., Knowles, K., Meier, W. N., Savoie, M. & Windangel, A. K. Sea

Ice Index, Version 3. Sea ice extent (2017). Boulder, Colorado USA. NSIDC: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Accessed 27 Oct 2019. * Hansen, J. et al. Climate response times: dependence on

climate sensitivity and ocean mixing. _Science_ 229, 857–859 (1985). Article  Google Scholar  * Gregory, J. M. et al. A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity.

_Geophys. Res. Lett._ 31, L03205 (2004). Google Scholar  * Bitz, C. M. et al. Climate sensitivity of the Community Climate System Model, Version 4. _J. Clim._ 25, 3053–3070 (2012). Article 

Google Scholar  * Kelley, M. et al. GISS-E2.1: configurations and climatology. _J. Adv. Mod. Earth Syst._ 12, e2019MS002025 (2020). Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We

are grateful to Ivan Mitevski for analyzing the GISS ModelE data. R.C. was supported by the Israeli Science Foundation Grant 906/21. L.M.P. is grateful for the continued support of the U.S.

Nat. Sci. Foundation. J.E.K. was funded by NSF Award #1554659. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science,

Rehovot, Israel Rei Chemke * Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Lorenzo M. Polvani & Clara Orbe * Department of Earth and

Environmental Sciences, and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA Lorenzo M. Polvani * Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, and

Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA Jennifer E. Kay * NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA Clara Orbe

Authors * Rei Chemke View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Lorenzo M. Polvani View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Jennifer E. Kay View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Clara Orbe View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS R.C. conducted, downloaded, and analyzed the data and together with L.M.P., J.E.K. and C.O. discussed and wrote the paper. CORRESPONDING

AUTHOR Correspondence to Rei Chemke. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains

neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This

article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as

you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party

material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s

Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Chemke, R., Polvani, L.M., Kay, J.E. _et al._

Quantifying the role of ocean coupling in Arctic amplification and sea-ice loss over the 21st century. _npj Clim Atmos Sci_ 4, 46 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00204-8 Download

citation * Received: 17 April 2021 * Accepted: 13 September 2021 * Published: 08 October 2021 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00204-8 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the

following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer

Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative