Linking midlatitudes eddy heat flux trends and polar amplification

ABSTRACT Eddy heat fluxes play the important role of transferring heat from low to high latitudes, thus affecting midlatitude climate. The recent and projected polar warming, and its effects

on the meridional temperature gradients, suggests a possible weakening of eddy heat fluxes. We here examine this question in reanalyses and state-of-the-art global climate models. In the

Northern Hemisphere we find that the eddy heat flux has robustly weakened over the last four decades. We further show that this weakening emerged from the internal variability around the

year 2000, and we attribute it to increasing greenhouse gases. In contrast, in the Southern Hemisphere we find that the eddy heat flux has robustly strengthened, and we link this

strengthening to the recent multi-decadal cooling of Southern-Ocean surface temperatures. The inability of state-of-the-art climate models to simulate such cooling prevents them from

capturing the observed Southern Hemisphere strengthening of the eddy heat flux. This discrepancy between models and reanalyses provides a clear example of how model biases in polar regions

can affect the midlatitude climate. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS INTENSIFICATION OF EL NIÑO-INDUCED ATMOSPHERIC ANOMALIES UNDER GREENHOUSE WARMING Article 15 April 2021 EVOLVING

WINTER ATMOSPHERIC TELECONNECTION PATTERNS AND THEIR POTENTIAL TRIGGERS ACROSS WESTERN NORTH AMERICA Article Open access 07 March 2024 TROPICAL EASTERN PACIFIC COOLING TREND REINFORCED BY

HUMAN ACTIVITY Article Open access 24 July 2024 INTRODUCTION One of the largest signals of climate change in recent and future decades is polar amplification: the stronger low-level warming

of the poles relative to lower latitudes.1,2 Such an amplification acts to reduce the meridional temperature gradient, and several studies have suggested that the recent Arctic amplification

has affected midlatitudes extreme weather.3,4,5,6 However, while no one disputes the existence of Arctic amplification in recent decades, there is still much debate regarding its effects on

midlatitudes, since such effects are difficult to separate from the large internal climate variability.7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 Here, we investigate a new aspect of the possible

connection between high-latitude temperature changes and the midlatitude circulation: the eddy heat flux, which, as shown below, exhibits robust and clear trends over the last several

decades. Eddy heat fluxes have large climatic impacts at midlatitudes. Not only do they play an integral role in transferring heat from low to high latitudes, but also in driving the mean

meridional circulation, and in the initial stages of baroclinic eddy life cycles.17,18,19 To better understand the behavior of midlatitude eddies, previous studies have tried to relate eddy

fluxes to the gradient of the mean temperature.20,21 For example, using arguments from linear baroclinic instability theory, several studies22,23,24,25 have tried to relate changes in Eady

growth rate to changes in the fluxes. The relation between the eddies and the mean gradient has also been studied using simple diffusive closures,19,26,27,28 where the poleward eddy fluxes

are assumed to be proportional to the mean meridional gradient, for example, \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\propto -\overline{{T}_{y}}\), where _v_ is meridional velocity, _T_ is

temperature, the subscript _y_ denotes meridional derivative, and over-bar and prime denote mean and eddy terms, respectively. Such closures are also commonly used in baroclinic adjustment

theories, where the eddy fluxes act to stabilize the baroclinically unstable flow, and keep it marginally supercritical to baroclinic instability.29,30 Eddy heat fluxes are known to be more

sensitive to lower level changes in temperature gradient rather than to upper level changes,31,32 as long as the baroclinicity (temperature gradients) is concentrated in the lower levels of

the atmosphere, and is not controlled by changes in static stability.33,34 Thus, the recent (and projected) anthropogenic-induced Arctic amplification would imply a decline in Northern

Hemisphere (NH) meridional eddy heat flux, as a smaller heat transport is required to maintain a weaker temperature gradient. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), on the other hand, the recent

multi-decadal Southern Ocean cooling would imply a strengthening of eddy heat flux. The aim of this work is thus to examine the recent trends in midlatitude eddy heat flux, their connection

to recent changes in high-latitude temperatures, and the role of anthropogenic emissions in those trends. Note, that we do not aim to elucidate the mechanisms of polar amplification in this

manuscript, which might be affected, for example, by moisture fluxes,23,35,36,37,38 but simply to link the recent polar temperatures trends to the trends in midlatitudes eddy heat fluxes.

Our results also differ from previous studies who analyzed the recent trends in NH storm tracks.39,40 Unlike eddy heat fluxes, which constitute the early development of synoptic eddies and

are mostly linked to the meridional temperature gradient, storm tracks, and eddy kinetic energy (EKE) constitute the mature stages of synoptic eddies and are sensitive to both the meridional

and vertical temperature gradients33,34 (see Discussion for more details). RESULTS SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE It is instructive to start by considering the hemisphere where polar amplification

has, to date, not been observed. Figure 1a shows the SH 1979–2017 annual eddy heat fluxes (\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), calculated from daily data, Methods) trends in 13 models of

the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and in three different reanalyses (Methods). We here use the absolute value of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), so that

positive (negative) values indicate strengthening (weakening) in both hemispheres. CMIP5 models (blue bars) show large spread in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends: half of the

models simulate a strengthening over the last four decades, while the other half simulate a weakening. As a result, the very small multi-model mean (purple bar) shows no robust trend. In

contrast, the reanalyses (green bars) show a robust strengthening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), which is only captured by a few models. This discrepancy between reanalyses and

models can be further seen in the time evolution, relative to the 1979–1989 period, of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (Fig. 1c): the strengthening in reanalyses is not captured by

climate models, which in fact show a monotonic weakening until the end of the 21st century. We next address this discrepancy, and elucidate why climate models show such a large spread while

reanalyses do not. Model spread could stem from two sources: internal variability of the climate system (which is not averaged out in the individual model runs) or differences in the models’

formulations. To determine whether internal variability explains the spread across the models, we make use of the community earth system model (CESM) large ensemble (LE) (Methods). Figure

1b is similar to Fig. 1a, but shows the 1979–2017 trends in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) for 40 individual LE members (red bars), and the same reanalyses (green). Most LE members

(36) simulate a weakening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\). Only four members show a strengthening, and it is considerably weaker than the strengthening in the reanalyses. This

suggests that internal variability is likely not the main reason for the large spread across the CMIP5 models, and their discrepancy with the reanalyses, assuming that the variability in the

other models is similar to the one of the CESM (the spread across the LE members is half the spread across the CMIP5 models). We thus next examine the role of the different model

formulations in the modeled trends of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\). As discussed in the introduction, one expects a strong coupling between \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and

the meridional near-surface air temperature (SAT) gradient: it is thus tempting to relate the discrepancy in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends between reanalyses and models to

the models’ inability to capture the recent multi-decadal cooling of the Southern-Ocean surface temperature.41,42,43,44 To determine if this relation exists, we start by showing in Fig. 2a

the correlation between trends in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and trends in the meridional gradient of SAT (_Δ__y_SAT, estimated as the difference between low, 20°S–40°S, and high

latitudes, 55°S–75°S) in CMIP5 models (blue), LE members (red), and reanalyses (green). We also use the absolute value of _Δ__y_SAT so that positive (negative) values indicate strengthening

(weakening) in both hemispheres. The 39-year trends in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) are highly correlated with trends in _Δ__y_SAT, with _r_ = 0.92 across the CMIP5 models (and _r_ 

= 0.87 when including the LE members and reanalyses as well). Not only a good correlation exists between these two quantities, but CMIP5 models which show positive (strengthening) trends in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (open blue dots) also show positive (strengthening) trends in _Δ__y_SAT, whereas CMIP5 models which show negative (weakening) trends in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (filled blue dots) also show negative (weakening) trends in _Δ__y_SAT (most of this high correlation stems from transient, rather than from stationary,

eddies, Supplementary Fig. 4). Similarly, most LE members show negative trends in both \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and in _Δ__y_SAT. And finally, reanalyses show positive trends in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and correspondingly positive trends in _Δ__y_SAT. Since we are analyzing 13 CMIP5 models, it is conceivable that the spread across the models would

change if one would account for a larger subset of models. However, the large spread across the CMIP5 models in _Δ__y_SAT also appears when accounting for a larger ensemble of 38 CMIP5

models (Supplementary Fig. 5). Thus, given the good correlation between _Δ__y_SAT and \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), the large spread in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) across

the 13 CMIP5 models with available daily data, is expected to persist even when accounting a larger ensemble of models. Next we ask: does the spread in trends in _Δ__y_SAT stem from high or

low latitudes SAT trends? To answer this, we decompose the trends in _Δ__y_SAT into trends in low and high latitudes SAT separately (Fig. 2c). This shows that most of the spread in _Δ__y_SAT

indeed stems from high-latitude temperature trends: while all models and reanalyses show a comparable and positive low-latitude warming trend of ~0.01 k yr−1 (_y_-axis in Fig. 2c), models

with high-latitude warming stronger than their low-latitude warming (situated below the 1:1 dot-dashed line) show negative trends in _Δ__y_SAT and in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\)

(filled blue and red dots), whereas models with high-latitude warming weaker than their low-latitude warming (situated above the 1:1 dot-dashed line) show positive trends in _Δ__y_SAT and in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (open blue dots). Unlike most models, reanalyses show high-latitude cooling trends over the last decades (green dots), which are consistent with the

robust positive trends in _Δ__y_SAT and in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (Fig. 2a). Although causality arguments cannot be made based on correlation alone, these results clearly

suggest that the model spread in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends, and their partial inability to capture the \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends in reanalyses, might

indeed stem from biases in simulated surface temperature at high latitudes. To further demonstrate this, we show, in Supplementary Fig. 6, that while high-latitude SAT trends have high

correlations with trends in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (_r_ = −0.88 across the CMIP5 models, and when including all data sets together), low latitudes SAT trends have low

correlation (_r_ = −0.34 across the CMIP5 models, and _r_ = −0.51 when including all data sets together). To further examine the model biases in high-latitude temperature, and to ascertain

whether the reanalyses are indeed unaffected by such biases (reanalyses might also have biases in model formulations), we next compute temperature trends from observational data sets that

are untainted by any model biases: we show the NOAAGlobalTemp, GISTEMP, and HadCRUT4 trends (gray dashed lines and gray dots in Fig. 2a and c, respectively) (Methods). The high-latitude

cooling and the positive trends in _Δ__y_SAT in reanalyses are also present in all three observational data sets. Given the good correlation between _Δ__y_SAT and \(\overline{v^{\prime}

T^{\prime} }\), this agreement between the reanalyses and observations further corroborates our interpretation that the robust observed strengthening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\)

is not an artifact of the reanalyses, and that the large spread across the models stems from biases in temperature at high southern latitudes. Finally, we demonstrate that if one corrects

the models’ surface temperature biases one obtains the same robust strengthening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) found in the reanalyses. For this we make use of a 9-member ensemble

of CESM atmosphere-only runs (global ocean global atmosphere, LE-GOGA) simulations, which prescribed observed surface temperature (Methods). Figure 2b is similar to Fig. 1b but shows the

last available 37-year (1979–2015) trends in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) in both the LE-GOGA and reanalyses. Unlike the ocean–atmosphere coupled LE runs, which show a weakening in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), when the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and sea–ice are prescribed from observations all members show a strengthening in \(\overline{v^{\prime}

T^{\prime} }\) (purple bars), similar to the strengthening in the reanalyses (green bars). The strengthening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) across all GOGA members can be further

seen in the time evolution of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), which accompanies the evolution in the reanalyses (Fig. 2d). This confirms our interpretation that high-latitude biases

in simulated surface temperature affect the midlatitude climate trends. NORTHERN HEMISPHERE In contrast to the robust observed strengthening in the SH, \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\)

in the NH reanalyses shows a robust weakening over the last four decades (1979–2017) (green bars in Fig. 3a). Relative to the 1979–1989 period, by 2017 \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\)

has weakened by ~6%, and is projected to weaken by ~20% by the end of the 21st century (Fig. 3c). In addition, unlike the large model spread in the SH, in the NH most CMIP5 models agree on

the sign of trends, and also simulate a robust weakening between 1979 and 2017 (blue bars in Fig. 3a). As a result the multi-model mean (purple bar) also shows a weakening of 0.01 km s−1 

yr−1. As discussed in the introduction, such a weakening is consistent with the reduction in the meridional temperature gradient and warming of the Arctic. Figure 4a shows that the weakening

of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) is also correlated with the reduction in _Δ__y_SAT (estimated as the absolute value of the difference between high, 65°N–85°N, and low, 20°N–40°N,

latitudes) with _r_ = 0.62 across the CMIP5 models (which, similar to the SH, mostly stem from transient, rather than from stationary, eddies, Supplementary Fig. 4), and _r_ = 0.51 when

including the LE members and reanalyses as well. As in the SH, the spread in _Δ__y_SAT is mostly due to the warming at high latitudes (Arctic), and not at low latitudes (Fig. 4c). The

importance of high latitudes in changing the meridional temperature gradient was also documented using reanalyses45,46 and models under increased greenhouse gases.47 The lower correlation

between \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and _Δ__y_SAT in the NH than in the SH may be related to the fact that the longitudinal distribution of Arctic warming is different than that of

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\). Note that the weakening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) does not imply that eddies do not play an important role in the recent Arctic

amplification, since the latter might be driven by the enhanced poleward eddy moisture flux23,35,36,37,38 (Supplementary Fig. 7). Is the NH weakening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\)

part of the forced response to anthropogenic emissions, or merely part of the internal variability of the climate system? First, the fact that all CMIP5 models project that such a weakening

will continue in coming decades (Fig. 3c) suggests that the recent decline in reanalyses constitutes part of the emerged forced response to anthropogenic emissions. Second, in order to

quantitatively answer such a question one has to disentangle the forced response from the internal variability. Thus, we again make use of the CESM LE, where the spread across its members is

due to internal variability alone, and the mean of the ensemble is the forced response. Figure 3b shows the NH \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) 1979–2017 trends in the LE members (red)

and reanalyses (green). Similar to the reanalyses and CMIP5 models, all LE members (except one) show a weakening in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\). As a result, the mean of the LE

(yellow bar) also shows a weakening, which is approximately half of the weakening in the reanalyses. Assuming that the LE realistically simulates the internal variability of the climate

system (as demonstrated below), this would indicate that the recent decline in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) is partially (half) due to anthropogenic emissions: the other half is due

to internal variability. As the weakening is projected to continue in coming decades across all LE members (Fig. 3d), one suspects that the recent decline might constitutes the emergence of

the forced response to anthropogenic emissions. We next analyze this question. The “time of emergence” has been used in previous studies to identify when a forced signal appears as distinct

from the internal variability (the noise).48,49 While different studies have used different definitions for the signal and the noise, in all studies the time of emergence is estimated as

the time when the signal exceeds a certain threshold (usually one standard deviation) of the internal variability, defined as the noise. To assess whether an anthropogenic signal can be

detected in the recent trends of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), we here use two different approaches for estimating the time of emergence. In the first, following previous studies,49

we use the time evolution relative to a reference period (here we choose 1979–1989) of the LE in order to define the signal and the noise. The signal is defined as the time evolution of the

LE mean, and the noise as the time evolution of one standard deviation across all members. Using this approach the forced signal emerges out of the internal variability by 2009. In the

second approach we estimate the time of emergence for each realization separately, in both the LE and reanalyses, by comparing the signal to a distribution that lacks the forced

response.48,50 The signal is computed as trends over different lengths in each realization, and the noise as one standard deviation across all trends with corresponding lengths in the CESM

preindustrial control run (Methods). Following previous studies,50 we use this same noise for calculating the time of emergence in both the LE and reanalyses. The trends are first calculated

for each member and reanalysis over 10 years (from 1979 to 1988) and then over consecutive lengths of trends (from 1979 to 1989, 1990...) until the signal emerges. Figure 4b shows the

distribution of the time of emergence across the LE members (red bars). By 2010 most (74%) of the LE members show that the signal has emerged. The mean of the LE emerges by 2009 (yellow

vertical line), which is similar to the emergence of the forced response estimated by the first approach. Not only the LE shows that the signal of the weakening in \(\overline{v^{\prime}

T^{\prime} }\) has already emerged, but also the reanalyses: the green vertical lines in Fig. 4b show that in all reanalyses the weakening in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) has

already emerged out of the internal variability during the 1990s. By 2017, \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends in reanalyses could not be explained using the sole presence of

internal variability, attesting they constitute the forced signal (Supplementary Fig. 8). Calculating both the signal and noise of the reanalyses using their time evolution,48 rather than

using the preindustrial control run, yields the same time of emergence. To verify whether the LE adequately simulates the internal variability of NH \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\),

and thus whether its mean represents the forced response, we compare the LE trend distribution with the trend distribution from the preindustrial run and from the observational LE51

(Supplementary Fig. 9). These comparisons show that the ensemble size is sufficiently large to capture the variability, and that it overestimates the observed variability. Thus, the

emergence of the forced signal in the reanalyses might even have occurred before the late 90s. Is the forced signal that has been detected in the recent weakening of NH

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) anthropogenic or natural? To answer that we make use of a 20-member ensemble, which is identical to the LE simulations, but forced without the time

varying greenhouse gases (LE-fixGHG, Methods). We start by showing the LE-fixGHG mean time evolution, relative to the 1979–1989 period, of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (black line

in Fig. 3d). Fixing the greenhouse gases results in no forced \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) weakening in NH in recent and coming decades, attesting that the recent observed weakening

in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) can be attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases. Similarly, comparing the observed 1979–2017 trends in NH \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime}

}\) with the trends in the LE and LE-fixGHG shows that without the time varying greenhouse gases one cannot explain the recent weakening in NH \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (Fig.

4d). DISCUSSION The recent trends in NH and SH high-latitude temperatures, notably the remarkable warming of the Arctic, and the resulting changes in the meridional temperature gradient,

suggest that, in midlatitudes, \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) may has also been changing. We analyze four different reanalyses and show that over the last four decades while

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) has been weakening in the NH, it has been strengthening in the SH. The weakening in the NH is associated with a decrease in the meridional temperature

gradient, which arises from the warming of the Arctic. In contrast, the strengthening in the SH is associated with an increase in the meridional temperature gradient, which arises from the

recent multi-decadal high-latitude cooling of SST over the Southern Ocean. Since most CMIP5 models fail to capture the cooling of Southern Ocean surface temperature, they are unable to

capture the strengthening of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) in the SH. Furthermore, the large spread in SH high-latitude warming across the models results in a large spread in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends. Prescribing the surface temperature in models, e.g., by preforming atmosphere-only simulations, yields the observed \(\overline{v^{\prime}

T^{\prime} }\) trends in models, attesting that the simulated biases in high-latitude surface temperature affect the midlatitudes as well. In contrast, the recent weakening of

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) in the NH is well captured by climate models. The recent weakening is projected to continue in coming decades, suggesting that the observed trends

constitute the emergence of the forced response to anthropogenic (and specifically greenhouse gases) emissions. Using the CESM LE we detect an anthropogenic signature in the recent

weakening, as the forced anthropogenic signal already emerged out of the internal variability, which itself explains about half of the recent weakening in NH \(\overline{v^{\prime}

T^{\prime} }\). Given the coupling between the recent changes in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and Arctic SAT, and since the latter have been attributed to anthropogenic

emissions,52,53 our study offers a clear example of how human influences at high latitudes can affect the midlatitudes climate. Previous studies, which analyzed the recent changes in

midlatitudes eddies, have mostly focused on the NH storm tracks.39,40 Given that \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and EKE represent different stages in the development of eddies, and

have different sensitivity to changes in the temperature field,33,34 the simulated and observed behavior of \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) is not seen in recent EKE trends

(Supplementary Fig. 10); instead, one see a large spread across the CMIP5 models, with the observations falling within the modeled range, but no clear consensus in the models about the sign

of the EKE trends, in either hemisphere. Yet, some similarities are also seen between \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) and EKE, although these similarities are driven by different

physical mechanisms. For example, while we find that prescribing the surface temperature in models corrects the simulated trends in SH midlatitude \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\),

prescribing the surface temperature was also found to improve the agreement between simulated and observed climatology EKE in the NH.54,55 And, while we see a hemispheric asymmetry in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends over recent decades, which disappears by the end of the 21st century (Figs. 1c, d, and 3c, d), the projected changes in EKE also show

hemispherically asymmetric behavior.24 In summary, if the recent changes in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) (weakening in NH and strengthening in SH) are to continue in coming decades,

they will further impact the midlatitudes climate as eddy heat fluxes are a major player in midlatitudes circulation. Moreover, since \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) trends are linked

to polar temperature trends, it will be important to correct the high-latitude temperature trend biases in the models, specifically in the SH, in order to produce accurate projections of

midlatitudes climate. METHODS To examine the recent behavior of the annual stationary and transient eddy heat fluxes in reanalyses and models we make use of daily temperature and meridional

wind data, and compute \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), where bar and prime denote zonal and monthly averages, and deviation therefrom, respectively. As \(\overline{v^{\prime}

T^{\prime} }\) is maximum at midlatitudes and in the lower part of the troposphere we average it from the surface to 700 mb and between 40° and 70° in the NH, and between 40° and 60° in the

SH. We limit the averaging in the SH to 60° in order to avoid artificial near-surface values in pressure interpolated fields over the Antarctic continent (Supplementary Fig. 1). However,

averaging over a wider region in the SH (i.e., between 40° and 70°) does not affect the results (Supplementary Fig. 2). In addition, averaging over the entire atmospheric column yields

similar results since most of the changes in \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) are at the lower atmosphere (Supplementary Fig. 3). REANALYSES The eddy heat flux is analyzed across four

different reanalyses: The ECMWF Era-Interim56 (ERA-I), NCEP/DOE Reanalysis II,57 JRA-55,58 and CFSR V2.59 Due to strong biases in SH midlatitude eddies,60,61,62 we here only analyze the NCEP

data in the NH. CMIP5 MODELS We also analyze 13 models that participate in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 563 (CMIP5), between 1950 and 2100 under the historical and RCP8.5

scenarios (Supplementary Table 1): BCC-CSM1-1, BCC-CSM1-1(m), BNU-ESM, CanESM2, CMCC-CM, CMCC-CMS, CNRM-CM5, FGOALS-s2, INMCM4, MIROC5, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, MPI-ESM-LR, and MPI-ESM-MR. Although

a few models other than those listed have made daily data needed for calculating \(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\) available, those models show large low-level biases in

\(\overline{v^{\prime} T^{\prime} }\), and thus we have excluded them from our analysis. LE OF MODEL SIMULATIONS In order to disentangle the forced response to anthropogenic emissions from

internal variability, and determine whether recent trends have emerged out of the internal variability, we analyze four experiments with the CESM. The first, is an ocean–atmosphere coupled

LE that consists 40 simulations (members) with the same historical and RCP8.5 scenarios as for the CMIP5.64 The sole difference across the members of the LE is a slight perturbation in the

initial condition: each member is initialized with a random difference in atmospheric temperature (\({\mathcal{O}}1{0}^{-14}{\rm{K}}\)), resulting in different transient responses to the

same forcing (internal variability). The second is a nine-member ensemble of atmosphere-only runs (LE-GOGA), which are also forced by the historical and RCP8.5 scenarios between 1880 and

2015. In these simulations the SST and sea–ice are prescribed based on the NOAA ERSSTv465 and the Hadley Center HadISST66 data sets, respectively. The third, is an ocean–atmosphere coupled

1800-year preindustrial control simulation (LE-PI); since the radiative forcing is fixed at year 1850, only internal variability is present in that simulation. The fourth experiment is an

ocean–atmosphere coupled LE that consists 20 members with the same historical and RCP8.5 scenarios as for the CMIP5 between 1920 and 2080, but without time-evolving greenhouse gases

(LE-fixGHG). OBSERVATIONS Monthly mean near-SAT from all above reanalyses and CMIP5 models are validated against three different observed surface temperature data sets: the NOAAGlobalTemp,

the GISTEMP v3,67 and the HadCRUT4.68 These data sets use a combination of satellite and in situ measurements to produce global surface temperature over land and ocean. DATA AVAILABILITY The

data used in the manuscript is publicly available for CMIP5 data (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip5/), CESM (http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/), ERA-I (https://www.ecmwf.int), refu57

(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis2.html), JRA55, MERRA2, and CFSR2 (https://rda.ucar.edu/ and https://esgf.nccs.nasa.gov/projects/create-ip/). CODE

AVAILABILITY Any codes used in the paper available upon request from [email protected]. REFERENCES * IPCC. Summary of Policymakers. _Climate Change 2013: The Physical Basis_ (eds. Stocker,

T. F. et al.) 1–29 (Cambridge University Press, 2013). * Vallis, G. K., Zurita-Gotor, P., Cairns, C. & Kidston, J. Response of the large-scale structure of the atmosphere to global

warming. _Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc._ 141, 1479–1501 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Francis, J. A. & Vavrus, S. J. Evidence linking arctic amplification to extreme weather in

mid-latitudes. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 39, l06801 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Liu, J., Curry, J. A., Wang, H., Song, M. & Horton, R. M. Impact of declining arctic sea ice on winter

snowfall. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 109, 4074–4079 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Coumou, D., Petoukhov, V., Rahmstorf, S., Petri, S. & Schellnhuber, H. J. Quasi-resonant

circulation regimes and hemispheric synchronization of extreme weather in boreal summer. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 111, 12331–12336 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Tang, Q., Zhang, X.

& Francis, J. A. Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere. _Nature Cliamte Change_ 4, 45–50 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Barnes, E. A.

Revisiting the evidence linking arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 40, 4734–4739 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Screen, J. A. & Simmonds,

I. Exploring links between arctic amplification and mid-latitude weather. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 40, 959–964 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Cohen, J. et al. Recent arctic amplification

and extreme mid-latitude weather. _Nat. Geosci._ 7, 627–637 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Screen, J. A., Deser, C., Simmonds, I. & Tomas, R. Atmospheric impacts of arctic sea-ice

loss, 1979-2009: separating forced change from atmospheric internal variability. _Clim. Dyn._ 43, 333–344 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Vihma, T. Effects of arctic sea ice decline on

weather and climate: a review. _Surv. Geophys._ 35, 1175–1214 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Walsh, J. E. Intensified warming of the arctic: causes and impacts on middle latitudes.

_Glob. Planet. Chang._ 117, 52–63 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Barnes, E. A. & Polvani, L. M. Cmip5 projections of arctic amplification, of the north american/north atlantic

circulation, and of their relationship. _J. Climate_ 28, 5254–5271 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Hassanzadeh, P. & Kuang, Z. Blocking variability: arctic amplification versus arctic

oscillation. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 42, 8586–8595 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Blackport, R. & Kushner, P. J. The transient and equilibrium climate response to rapid summertime sea

ice loss in ccsm4. _J. Climate_ 29, 401–417 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Sun, L., Perlwitz, J. & Hoerling, M. What caused the recent "warm arctic, cold continents” trend

pattern in winter temperatures? _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 43, 5345–5352 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Simmons, A. J. & Hoskins, B. J. The life cycles of some nonlinear baroclinic waves.

_J. Atmos. Sci._ 35, 414–432 (1978). Article  Google Scholar  * Edmon, J. H. J., Hoskins, B. J. & Mcintyre, M. E. Eliassen-palm cross sections for the troposphere. _J. Atmos. Sci._ 37,

2600–2612 (1980). Article  Google Scholar  * Vallis, G. K. _Atmospheric and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics_ (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2006). Book  Google Scholar  * Chang, E. K.

M., Guo, Y. & Xia, X. Cmip5 multimodel ensemble projection of storm track change under global warming. _J. Geophys. Res._ 117, d23118 (2012). Google Scholar  * Li, C. et al. Midlatitude

atmospheric circulation responses under 1.5 and 2.0 °c warming and implications for regional impacts. _Earth Syst. Dyn._ 9, 359–382 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Yin, J. H. A consistent

poleward shift of the storm tracks in simulations of 21st century climate. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 32, l18701 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Wu, Y., Ting, M., Seager, R., Huang, H. &

Cane, M. A. Changes in storm tracks and energy transports in a warmer climate simulated by the gfdl cm2.1 model. _Clim. Dyn._ 37, 203–222 (2010). Google Scholar  * Lehmann, J., Coumou, D.,

Frieler, K., Eliseev, A. V. & Levermann, A. Future changes in extratropical storm tracks and baroclinicity under climate change. _Env. Res. Lett._ 9, 084002 (2014). 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  * Green, J. S. A. Transfer properties of the large-scale eddies and the general circulation of the atmosphere. _Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc._ 96, 157–185 (1970).

Article  Google Scholar  * Held, I. M. The vertical scale of an unstable baroclinic wave and its importance for eddy heat flux parameterizations. _J. Atmos. Sci._ 35, 572–576 (1978). Article

  Google Scholar  * Held, I. M. & Larichev, V. D. A scaling theory for horizontally homogeneous, baroclinically unstable flow on a beta plane. _J. Atmos. Sci._ 53, 946–952 (1996).

Article  Google Scholar  * Stone, P. H. Baroclinic adjustment. _J. Atmos. Sci._ 35, 561–571 (1978). Article  Google Scholar  * Zurita-Gotor, P. The sensitivity of the isentropic slope in a

primitive equation dry model. _J. Atmos. Sci._ 65, 43–65 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Held, I. M. & O’brien, E. Quasigeostrophic turbulence in a three-layer model: effects of

vertical structure in the mean shear. _J. Atmos. Sci._ 49, 1861–1876 (1992). Article  Google Scholar  * Pavan, V. Sensitivity of a multi-layer quasi-geostrophic _β_ -channel to the vertical

structure of the equilibrium meridional temperature gradient. _Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc._ 122, 55–72 (1996). Article  Google Scholar  * Yuval, J. & Kaspi, Y. Eddy activity sensitivity to

changes in the vertical structure of baroclinicity. _J. Atmos. Sci._ 73, 1709–1726 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Yuval, J. & Kaspi, Y. Eddy activity response to global warming-like

temperature changes. _J. Climate_ 33, 1381–1404 (2020). * Hwang, Y.-T., Frierson, D. M. W. & Kay, J. E. Coupling between arctic feedbacks and changes in poleward energy transport.

_Geophys. Res. Lett._ 38, l17704 (2011). 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. Climate_ 25, 5433–5450 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Zelinka, M. D. & Hartmann, D. L. Climate feedbacks and their implications for poleward

energy flux changes in a warming climate. _J. Climate_ 25, 608–624 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Lee, S. & Yoo, C. On the causal relationship between poleward heat flux and the

equator-to-pole temperature gradient: a cautionary tale. _J. Climate_ 27, 6519–6525 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Chang, E. K. M. & Yau, A. M. E. Northern hemisphere winter storm

track trends since 1959 derived from multiple reanalysis datasets. _Clim. Dyn._ 47, 1435–1454 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Chang, E. K. M., Ma, C., Zheng, C. & Yau, A. M. W.

Observed and projected decrease in northern hemisphere extratropical cyclone activity in summer and its impacts on maximum temperature. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 43, 2200–2208 (2016). Article 

Google Scholar  * Jones, J. M. et al. Assessing recent trends in high-latitude southern hemisphere surface climate. _Nat. Clim. Change_ 6, 917–926 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  *

Schneider, D. P. & Reusch, D. B. Antarctic and southern ocean surface temperatures in cmip5 models in the context of the surface energy budget. _J. Clim._ 29, 1689–1716 (2016). Article 

Google Scholar  * Smith, K. L. & Polvani, L. M. Spatial patterns of recent antarctic surface temperature trends and the importance of natural variability: lessons from multiple

reconstructions and the cmip5 models. _Clim. Dyn._ 48, 2653–2670 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Kostov, Y., Ferreira, D., Armour, K. C. & Marshall, J. Contributions of greenhouse gas

forcing and the southern annular mode to historical southern ocean surface temperature trends. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 45, 1086–1097 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * 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  * 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  * Ceppi, P., Zappa, G.,

Shepherd, T. G. & Gregory, J. M. Fast and slow components of the extratropical atmospheric circulation response to co2 forcing. _J. Climate_ 31, 1091–1105 (2018). Article  Google Scholar

  * Hawkins, E. & Sutton, R. Time of emergence of climate signals. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 39, l01702 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Deser, C., Terray, L. & Phillips, A. S. Forced

and internal components of winter air temperature trends over north america during the past 50 years: mechanisms and implications. _J. Clim._ 29, 2237–2258 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  *

Santer, B. D. et al. Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 110, 26–33 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Mckinnon, K. A., Poppick, A.,

Dunn-Sigouin, E. & Deser, C. An “observational large ensemble” to compare observed and modeled temperature trend uncertainty due to internal variability. _J. Clim._ 30, 7585–7598 (2017).

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  * Booth, J. F., Kwon, Y., Ko, S., Small, R. J. & Msadek, R. Spatial patterns and intensity of the surface storm tracks in cmip5 models. _J. Clim._ 30,

4965–4981 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Graff, L. S. et al. Arctic amplification under global warming of 1.5 and 2∘ c in noresm1-happi. _Earth Syst. Dyn._ 10, 569–598 (2019). Article 

Google Scholar  * Dee, D. P. et al. The era-interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. _Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc._ 137, 553–597 (2011). Article  Google

Scholar  * Kanamitsu, M. et al. Ncep-doe amip-ii reanalysis (r-2). _Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc._ 83, 1631–1643 (2002). Article  Google Scholar  * Kobayashi, S. et al. The jra-55 reanalysis:

general specifications and basic characteristics. _J. Meteor. Soc. Jpn._ 93, 5–48 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Saha, S. et al. The ncep climate forecast system version 2. _J. Clim._

27, 2185–2208 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Hines, K. M., Bromwich, D. H. & Marshall, G. J. Artificial surface pressure trends in the ncep-ncar reanalysis over the southern ocean

and antarctica. _J. Clim._ 13, 3940–3952 (2000). Article  Google Scholar  * Guo, Y. & Chang, E. K. M. Impacts of assimilation of satellite and rawinsonde observations on southern

hemisphere baroclinic wave activity in the ncep ncar reanalysis. _J. Clim._ 21, 3290–3309 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Guo, Y., Chang, E. K. M. & Leroy, S. S. How strong are the

southern hemisphere storm tracks? _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 36, l22806 (2009). 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  * 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  * Huang, B. et al. Extended

reconstructed sea surface temperature version 4 (ersst.v4). part I: upgrades and intercomparisons. _J. Clim._ 28, 911–930 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Rayner, N. A. et al. Global

analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. _J. Geophys. Res._ 108, 4407 (2003). Article  Google Scholar  * Hansen, J.,

Ruedy, R., Sato, M. & Lo, K. Global surface temperature change. _Rev. Geophys._ 48, rg4004 (2010). 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). Google

Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS R.C. and L.M.P. are founded by grants from the National Science Foundation to Columbia University. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS *

Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA Rei Chemke & Lorenzo M. Polvani * Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences,

and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, 10964, USA Lorenzo M. Polvani 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 CONTRIBUTIONS R.C. downloaded and analyzed the data and

together with L.M.P. 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. Linking midlatitudes eddy heat flux trends and polar amplification. _npj Clim Atmos Sci_ 3, 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0111-7

Download citation * Received: 21 September 2019 * Accepted: 30 January 2020 * Published: 19 February 2020 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0111-7 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