Clouds amplified the 2022 Antarctic heatwave
Water-vapor and supercooled-cloud feedbacks added several degrees to the March 2022 East Antarctic heatwave compared with a preindustrial storyline.
Source
Impact attribution of the March 2022 Antarctic heatwave reveals amplification by cloud feedbacks and increased future meltwater
Study at a glance
- Design
- Computational / modelling — 27 km CRYOWRF factual vs pseudo-global-warming storylines of the March 2022 heatwave
- N
- Storyline simulations driven by ERA5 and six CMIP6 deltas; not an observational sample N
- Population
- East Antarctic atmosphere/firn during 15–20 March 2022 under present and counterfactual climates
- Outcome
- Cloud/longwave amplification of heatwave temperature and future meltwater implications
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Clouds amplified the 2022 Antarctic heatwave
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
This event could generate up to 0.079 Gt of meltwater by 2100 under SSP5-8.5.
This single cold-season event alone would generate up to 0.079 Gt of meltwater by the end of the century under the SSP5-8.5 scenario.
What extreme event is attributed in this paper?
In March of the same year, yet another AR caused widespread warming across the East Antarctic ice sheet, setting new temperature records over an estimated 3.3 million km 2 area and producing notable impacts on the SMB, ice sheet processes and polar ecosystems – .
What they did
The authors ran 27 km CRYOWRF storylines of 15–20 March 2022: a factual ERA5-driven case and counterfactuals for preindustrial, SSP2-4.5, and SSP5-8.5 climates using pseudo-global-warming deltas from six CMIP6 models, then diagnosed temperature, clouds, radiation, and firn hydrology.
What they found
Near Concordia the heatwave was amplified by 5.4 ± 0.2 °C versus preindustrial (15–25% of the anomaly). Current-climate peak temperature reached −12 °C (model −11.9 °C vs observed −11.6 °C). Incoming longwave radiation increased 16.0 ± 1.9 W m−2. Future coastal firn liquid water rises by factors of 2.4 (SSP2-4.5) and 5.6 (SSP5-8.5), up to 0.079 Gt of meltwater for this event under SSP5-8.5.
The limits
What it doesn't show
A single 27 km storyline of one event cannot sample all atmospheric-river trajectories. The model has a warm bias in the stable pre-event period and a too-high inversion. Cloud feedbacks remain a major CMIP6 uncertainty.
Key terms
- Storyline attribution
- Rerun a specific observed event under different climate backgrounds while keeping the synoptic sequence similar.
- Pseudo-global warming (PGW)
- Add climate-change ‘delta’ fields from GCMs to reanalysis initial and boundary conditions.
- Firn air content (FAC)
- Pore space in compacted snow; loss of FAC and ice-lens growth make the ice sheet less able to store meltwater.
Flashcards
0 of 11 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
The March 2022 Antarctic heatwave was associated with:
Common questions
Why did this model warm more than CESM1 storylines of the same event?
CRYOWRF’s non-hydrostatic 27 km grid and cloud microphysics captured supercooled liquid and longwave heating that coarse hydrostatic CESM missed (peak −20 °C there versus about −12 °C here).
Where does future amplification move?
Away from interior domes toward the coast, especially under SSP5-8.5.
Was the heatwave tied to ice-shelf change?
The March 2022 event has been linked to collapse of the Conger Ice Shelf, showing how extremes can affect ice-sheet stability.
More on Extreme events