scholarly journals An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 951-982
Author(s):  
Ann Keen ◽  
Ed Blockley ◽  
David A. Bailey ◽  
Jens Boldingh Debernard ◽  
Mitchell Bushuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Formation ◽  
Mass Budget ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Frazil Ice ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
Basal Melting

Abstract. We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice for 15 models submitted to the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), using new diagnostics that have not been available for previous model inter-comparisons. These diagnostics allow us to look beyond the standard metrics of ice cover and thickness to compare the processes of sea ice growth and loss in climate models in a more detailed way than has previously been possible. For the 1960–1989 multi-model mean, the dominant processes causing annual ice growth are basal growth and frazil ice formation, which both occur during the winter. The main processes by which ice is lost are basal melting, top melting and advection of ice out of the Arctic. The first two processes occur in summer, while the latter process is present all year. The sea ice budgets for individual models are strikingly similar overall in terms of the major processes causing ice growth and loss and in terms of the time of year during which each process is important. However, there are also some key differences between the models, and we have found a number of relationships between model formulation and components of the ice budget that hold for all or most of the CMIP6 models considered here. The relative amounts of frazil and basal ice formation vary between the models, and the amount of frazil ice formation is strongly dependent on the value chosen for the minimum frazil ice thickness. There are also differences in the relative amounts of top and basal melting, potentially dependent on how much shortwave radiation can penetrate through the sea ice into the ocean. For models with prognostic melt ponds, the choice of scheme may affect the amount of basal growth, basal melt and top melt, and the choice of thermodynamic scheme is important in determining the amount of basal growth and top melt. As the ice cover and mass decline during the 21st century, we see a shift in the timing of the top and basal melting in the multi-model mean, with more melt occurring earlier in the year and less melt later in the summer. The amount of basal growth reduces in the autumn, but it increases in the winter due to thinner sea ice over the course of the 21st century. Overall, extra ice loss in May–June and reduced ice growth in October–November are partially offset by reduced ice melt in August and increased ice growth in January–February. For the individual models, changes in the budget components vary considerably in terms of magnitude and timing of change. However, when the evolving budget terms are considered as a function of the changing ice state itself, behaviours common to all the models emerge, suggesting that the sea ice components of the models are fundamentally responding in a broadly consistent way to the warming climate. It is possible that this similarity in the model budgets may represent a lack of diversity in the model physics of the CMIP6 models considered here. The development of new observational datasets for validating the budget terms would help to clarify this.

scholarly journals An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Keen ◽  
Ed Blockley ◽  
David Bailey ◽  
Jens Boldingh Debernard ◽  
Mitchell Bushuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Ice Cover ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Formation ◽  
Mass Budget ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
Basal Melting

Abstract. We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice for 14 models submitted to the latest Climate Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP6), using new diagnostics that have not been available for previous model inter-comparisons. Using these diagnostics allows us to look beyond the standard metrics of ice cover and thickness, to compare the processes of sea ice growth and loss in climate models in a more detailed way than has previously been possible. For the 1960–89 multi-model mean, the dominant processes causing annual ice growth are basal growth and frazil ice formation, which both occur during the winter. The main processes by which ice is lost are basal melting, top melting and advection of ice out of the Arctic. The first two processes occur in summer, while the latter process is present all year. The sea-ice budgets for individual models are strikingly similar overall in terms of the major processes causing ice growth and loss, and in terms of the time of year during which each process is important. However, there are also some key differences between the models. The relative amounts of frazil and basal ice formation varies between the models. This is, to some extent at least, attributable to exactly how the frazil growth is formulated within each model. There are also differences in the relative amounts of top and basal melting. As the ice cover and mass decline during the 21st century, we see a shift in the timing of the top and basal melting in the multi-model mean, with more melt occurring earlier in the year, and less melt later in the summer. The amount of basal growth in the autumn reduces, but the amount of basal growth later in the winter increases due to the ice being thinner. Overall, extra ice loss in May–June and reduced ice growth in October-November is partially offset by reduced ice melt in August and increased ice growth in January–February. For the individual models, changes in the budget components vary considerably in terms of magnitude and timing of change. However, when the evolving budget terms are considered as a function of the changing ice state itself, behaviours common to all the models emerge, suggesting that the sea ice components of the models are fundamentally responding in a broadly consistent way to the warming climate. Additional results from a forced ocean-ice model show that although atmospheric forcing is crucial for the sea ice mass budget, the sea ice physics also plays an important role.

scholarly journals Investigating future changes in the volume budget of the Arctic sea ice in a coupled climate model

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2855-2868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Keen ◽  
Ed Blockley
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Ice Cover ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Basal Ice ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. We present a method for analysing changes in the modelled volume budget of the Arctic sea ice as the ice declines during the 21st century. We apply the method to the CMIP5 global coupled model HadGEM2-ES to evaluate how the budget components evolve under a range of different forcing scenarios. As the climate warms and the ice cover declines, the sea ice processes that change the most in HadGEM2-ES are summer melting at the top surface of the ice due to increased net downward radiation and basal melting due to extra heat from the warming ocean. There is also extra basal ice formation due to the thinning ice. However, the impact of these changes on the volume budget is affected by the declining ice cover. For example, as the autumn ice cover declines the volume of ice formed by basal growth declines as there is a reduced area over which this ice growth can occur. As a result, the biggest contribution to Arctic ice decline in HadGEM2-ES is the reduction in the total amount of basal ice growth during the autumn and early winter. Changes in the volume budget during the 21st century have a distinctive seasonal cycle, with processes contributing to ice decline occurring in May–June and September to November. During July and August the total amount of sea ice melt decreases, again due to the reducing ice cover. The choice of forcing scenario affects the rate of ice decline and the timing and magnitude of changes in the volume budget components. For the HadGEM2-ES model and for the range of scenarios considered for CMIP5, the mean changes in the volume budget depend strongly on the evolving ice area and are independent of the speed at which the ice cover declines.

scholarly journals Interannual variability in Transpolar Drift ice thickness and potential impact of Atlantification

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Jakob Belter ◽  
Thomas Krumpen ◽  
Luisa von Albedyll ◽  
Tatiana A. Alekseeva ◽  
Sergei V. Frolov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Fram Strait ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
Transpolar Drift ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Changes in Arctic sea ice thickness are the result of complex interactions of the dynamic and variable ice cover with atmosphere and ocean. Most of the sea ice exits the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait, which is why long-term measurements of ice thickness at the end of the Transpolar Drift provide insight into the integrated signals of thermodynamic and dynamic influences along the pathways of Arctic sea ice. We present an updated time series of extensive ice thickness surveys carried out at the end of the Transpolar Drift between 2001 and 2020. Overall, we see a more than 20 % thinning of modal ice thickness since 2001. A comparison with first preliminary results from the international Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) shows that the modal summer thickness of the MOSAiC floe and its wider vicinity are consistent with measurements from previous years. By combining this unique time series with the Lagrangian sea ice tracking tool, ICETrack, and a simple thermodynamic sea ice growth model, we link the observed interannual ice thickness variability north of Fram Strait to increased drift speeds along the Transpolar Drift and the consequential variations in sea ice age and number of freezing degree days. We also show that the increased influence of upward-directed ocean heat flux in the eastern marginal ice zones, termed Atlantification, is not only responsible for sea ice thinning in and around the Laptev Sea, but also that the induced thickness anomalies persist beyond the Russian shelves and are potentially still measurable at the end of the Transpolar Drift after more than a year. With a tendency towards an even faster Transpolar Drift, winter sea ice growth will have less time to compensate the impact of Atlantification on sea ice growth in the eastern marginal ice zone, which will increasingly be felt in other parts of the sea ice covered Arctic.

scholarly journals Suppression of Arctic sea ice growth by winter clouds and snowfall

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won-il Lim ◽  
Hyo-Seok Park ◽  
Andrew Stewart ◽  
Kyong-Hwan Seo
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Longwave Radiation ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Downward Longwave Radiation ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The ongoing Arctic warming has been pronounced in winter and has been associated with an increase in downward longwave radiation. While previous studies have demonstrated that poleward moisture flux into the Arctic strengthens downward longwave radiation, less attention has been given to the impact of the accompanying increase in snowfall. Here, utilizing state-of-the art sea ice models, we show that typical winter snowfall anomalies of 1.0 cm, accompanied by positive downward longwave radiation anomalies of ~5 W m-2 can decrease sea ice thickness by around 5 cm in the following spring over the Eurasian Seas. This basin-wide ice thinning is followed by a shrinking of summer ice extent in extreme cases. In the winter of 2016–17, anomalously strong warm/moist air transport combined with ~2.5 cm increase in snowfall decreased spring ice thickness by ~10 cm and decreased the following summer sea ice extent by 5–30%. Projected future reductions in the thickness of Arctic sea ice and snow will amplify the impact of anomalous winter snowfall events on winter sea ice growth and seasonal sea ice thickness.

scholarly journals Effect of frequent winter warming events (storms) and snow on sea-ice growth – a case from the Atlantic sector of the Arctic Ocean during the N-ICE2015 campaign

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (82) ◽  
pp. 164-170
Author(s):  
Ioanna Merkouriadi ◽  
Bin Cheng ◽  
Stephen R. Hudson ◽  
Mats A. Granskog
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Cover ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Winter Period ◽  
Storm Events ◽  
Atlantic Sector ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Arctic Sea

AbstractWe examine the relative effect of warming events (storms) and snow cover on thermodynamic growth of Arctic sea ice in winter. We use a 1-D snow and ice thermodynamic model to perform sensitivity experiments. Observations from the winter period of the Norwegian young sea ICE (N-ICE2015) campaign north of Svalbard are used to initiate and force the model. The N-ICE2015 winter was characterized by frequent storm events that brought pulses of heat and moisture, and a thick snow cover atop the sea ice (0.3–0.5 m). By the end of the winter, sea-ice bottom growth was negligible. We show that the thermodynamic effect of storms to the winter sea-ice growth is controlled by the amount of snow on sea ice. For 1.3 m initial ice thickness, the decrease in ice growth caused by the warming events ranged from −1.4% (for 0.5 m of snow) to −7.5% (for snow-free conditions). The decrease in sea-ice growth caused by the thick snow (0.5 m) was more important, ranging from −17% (with storms) to −23% (without storms). The results showcase the critical role of snow on winter Arctic sea-ice growth.

scholarly journals Insignificant effect of climate change on winter haze pollution in Beijing

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (23) ◽  
pp. 17489-17496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu Shen ◽  
Daniel J. Jacob ◽  
Loretta J. Mickley ◽  
Yuxuan Wang ◽  
Qiang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Eastern China ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Haze Pollution ◽  
Arctic Sea

Abstract. Several recent studies have suggested that 21st century climate change will significantly worsen the meteorological conditions, leading to very high concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in Beijing in winter (Beijing haze). We find that 81 % of the variance in observed monthly PM2.5 during 2010–2017 winters can be explained by a single meteorological mode, the first principal component (PC1) of the 850 hPa meridional wind velocity (V850) and relative humidity (RH). V850 and RH drive stagnation and chemical production of PM2.5, respectively, and thus have a clear causal link to Beijing haze. PC1 explains more of the variance in PM2.5 than either V850 or RH alone. Using additional meteorological variables does not explain more of the variance in PM2.5. Therefore PC1 can serve as a proxy for Beijing haze in the interpretation of long-term climate records and in future climate projections. Previous studies suggested that shrinking Arctic sea ice would worsen winter haze conditions in eastern China, but we show with the PC1 proxy that Beijing haze is correlated with a dipole structure in the Arctic sea ice rather than with the total amount of sea ice. Beijing haze is also correlated with dipole patterns in Pacific sea surface temperatures (SSTs). We find that these dipole patterns of Arctic sea ice and Pacific SSTs shift and change sign on interdecadal scales, so that they cannot be used reliably as future predictors for the haze. Future 21st century trends of the PC1 haze proxy computed from the CMIP5 ensemble of climate models are statistically insignificant. We conclude that climate change is unlikely to significantly offset current efforts to decrease Beijing haze through emission controls.

scholarly journals Interannual variability in Transpolar Drift summer sea ice thickness and potential impact of Atlantification

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 2575-2591
Author(s):  
H. Jakob Belter ◽  
Thomas Krumpen ◽  
Luisa von Albedyll ◽  
Tatiana A. Alekseeva ◽  
Gerit Birnbaum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Fram Strait ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
Transpolar Drift

Abstract. Changes in Arctic sea ice thickness are the result of complex interactions of the dynamic and variable ice cover with atmosphere and ocean. Most of the sea ice exiting the Arctic Ocean does so through Fram Strait, which is why long-term measurements of ice thickness at the end of the Transpolar Drift provide insight into the integrated signals of thermodynamic and dynamic influences along the pathways of Arctic sea ice. We present an updated summer (July–August) time series of extensive ice thickness surveys carried out at the end of the Transpolar Drift between 2001 and 2020. Overall, we see a more than 20 % thinning of modal ice thickness since 2001. A comparison of this time series with first preliminary results from the international Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) shows that the modal summer thickness of the MOSAiC floe and its wider vicinity are consistent with measurements from previous years at the end of the Transpolar Drift. By combining this unique time series with the Lagrangian sea ice tracking tool, ICETrack, and a simple thermodynamic sea ice growth model, we link the observed interannual ice thickness variability north of Fram Strait to increased drift speeds along the Transpolar Drift and the consequential variations in sea ice age. We also show that the increased influence of upward-directed ocean heat flux in the eastern marginal ice zones, termed Atlantification, is not only responsible for sea ice thinning in and around the Laptev Sea but also that the induced thickness anomalies persist beyond the Russian shelves and are potentially still measurable at the end of the Transpolar Drift after more than a year. With a tendency towards an even faster Transpolar Drift, winter sea ice growth will have less time to compensate for the impact processes, such as Atlantification, have on sea ice thickness in the eastern marginal ice zone, which will increasingly be felt in other parts of the sea-ice-covered Arctic.

Evaluation of a multilayer snow scheme in NEMO-LIM3

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaëlle Gilson ◽  
Thierry Fichefet ◽  
Olivier Lecomte ◽  
Pierre-Yves Barriat ◽  
Jean Sterlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Ocean Circulation ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Optimum Number ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
The Impact

<p>Arctic sea ice is a major component of the Earth’s climate system and has been experiencing a drastic decline over the past decades, with important consequences regionally and globally. With the sustained warming of the Arctic, sea ice loss is expected to continue in the future. However, the estimation of its magnitude is model-dependent. As a result, the representation of sea ice in climate models requires further consideration. A major issue relates to the long-standing misrepresentation of snow properties on sea ice. However, the presence of snow strongly impacts sea ice growth and surface energy balance. Through its high albedo, snow reflects more solar radiation than bare sea ice does. When a snow cover is present, sea ice growth is reduced because snow is an effective insulator, with a thermal conductivity an order of magnitude lower than that of sea ice. Ocean circulation models usually use multiple layers to resolve sea ice thermodynamics but only one single layer for snow. Lecomte et al. (2013) developed a multilayer snow scheme for ocean circulation models and improved the snow depth distribution by considering the macroscopic effects of wind packing and redeposition. Since then, this snow scheme has been revisited and implemented in a more recent and much more robust NEMO-LIM version, using a simpler technical approach. In addition, new instrumental observations of snow thickness, distribution and density are available since these exploratory works. They are used in the current study to: 1) evaluate the performance of the multilayer snow scheme for sea ice in the NEMO-LIM3 model, and 2) investigate the climatic importance of this snow scheme. Here, we present results of simulations with a varying number of snow layers. By comparing these to the latest observational datasets, we recommend an optimum number of snow  layers to be used in ocean circulation models in both hemispheres. Finally, we explore the impact of a few specific parameterizations of snow thermophysical properties on the representation of sea ice in climate models.</p>

scholarly journals Arctic sea ice area in CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate model ensembles – variability and change

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1077-1131 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. A. Semenov ◽  
T. Martin ◽  
L. K. Behrens ◽  
M. Latif
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Seasonal Cycle ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
Arctic Sea

Abstract. The shrinking Arctic sea ice cover observed during the last decades is probably the clearest manifestation of ongoing climate change. While climate models in general reproduce the sea ice retreat in the Arctic during the 20th century and simulate further sea ice area loss during the 21st century in response to anthropogenic forcing, the models suffer from large biases and the model results exhibit considerable spread. The last generation of climate models from World Climate Research Programme Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), when compared to the previous CMIP3 model ensemble and considering the whole Arctic, were found to be more consistent with the observed changes in sea ice extent during the recent decades. Some CMIP5 models project strongly accelerated (non-linear) sea ice loss during the first half of the 21st century. Here, complementary to previous studies, we compare results from CMIP3 and CMIP5 with respect to regional Arctic sea ice change. We focus on September and March sea ice. Sea ice area (SIA) variability, sea ice concentration (SIC) variability, and characteristics of the SIA seasonal cycle and interannual variability have been analysed for the whole Arctic, termed Entire Arctic, Central Arctic and Barents Sea. Further, the sensitivity of SIA changes to changes in Northern Hemisphere (NH) averaged temperature is investigated and several important dynamical links between SIA and natural climate variability involving the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and sea level pressure gradient (SLPG) in the western Barents Sea opening serving as an index of oceanic inflow to the Barents Sea are studied. The CMIP3 and CMIP5 models not only simulate a coherent decline of the Arctic SIA but also depict consistent changes in the SIA seasonal cycle and in the aforementioned dynamical links. The spatial patterns of SIC variability improve in the CMIP5 ensemble, particularly in summer. Both CMIP ensembles depict a significant link between the SIA and NH temperature changes. Our analysis suggests that, on average, the sensitivity of SIA to external forcing is enhanced in the CMIP5 models. The Arctic SIA variability response to anthropogenic forcing is different in CMIP3 and CMIP5. While the CMIP3 models simulate increased variability in March and September, the CMIP5 ensemble shows the opposite tendency. A noticeable improvement in the simulation of summer SIA by the CMIP5 models is often accompanied by worse results for winter SIA characteristics. The relation between SIA and mean AMOC changes is opposite in September and March, with March SIA changes being positively correlated with AMOC slowing. Finally, both CMIP ensembles demonstrate an ability to capture, at least qualitatively, important dynamical links of SIA to decadal variability of the AMOC, NAO and SLPG. SIA in the Barents Sea is strongly overestimated by the majority of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, and projected SIA changes are characterized by a large spread giving rise to high uncertainty.

scholarly journals The influence of snow on sea ice as assessed from simulations of CESM2

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 4981-4998
Author(s):  
Marika M. Holland ◽  
David Clemens-Sewall ◽  
Laura Landrum ◽  
Bonnie Light ◽  
Donald Perovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Accumulation ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Conductive Heat ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Mass Budget ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Ice Melt ◽  
The Antarctic

Abstract. We assess the influence of snow on sea ice in experiments using the Community Earth System Model version 2 for a preindustrial and a 2xCO2 climate state. In the preindustrial climate, we find that increasing simulated snow accumulation on sea ice results in thicker sea ice and a cooler climate in both hemispheres. The sea ice mass budget response differs fundamentally between the two hemispheres. In the Arctic, increasing snow results in a decrease in both congelation sea ice growth and surface sea ice melt due to the snow's impact on conductive heat transfer and albedo, respectively. These factors dominate in regions of perennial ice but have a smaller influence in seasonal ice areas. Overall, the mass budget changes lead to a reduced amplitude in the annual cycle of ice thickness. In the Antarctic, with increasing snow, ice growth increases due to snow–ice formation and is balanced by larger basal ice melt, which primarily occurs in regions of seasonal ice. In a warmer 2xCO2 climate, the Arctic sea ice sensitivity to snow depth is small and reduced relative to that of the preindustrial climate. In contrast, in the Antarctic, the sensitivity to snow on sea ice in the 2xCO2 climate is qualitatively similar to the sensitivity in the preindustrial climate. These results underscore the importance of accurately representing snow accumulation on sea ice in coupled Earth system models due to its impact on a number of competing processes and feedbacks that affect the melt and growth of sea ice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document