scholarly journals Interannual sea ice thickness variability in the Bay of Bothnia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iina Ronkainen ◽  
Jonni Lehtiranta ◽  
Mikko Lensu ◽  
Eero Rinne ◽  
Jari Haapala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Interannual Variability ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Fast Ice ◽  
Ridged Ice

Abstract. While variations of Baltic Sea ice extent and fast ice thickness have been extensively studied, there is little information about the sea ice thickness distribution and its variability. In our study, we quantify the interannual variability of sea ice thickness in the Bay of Bothnia during the years 2003–2016. We use various different data sets: official ice charts, drilling data from the regular monitoring stations in the coastal fast ice zone and from helicopter- and ship-borne electromagnetic soundings. We analyze the different data sets and compare them to each other to characterize the interannual variability, to discuss the ratio of level and deformed ice, and to derive ice thickness distributions in the drift ice zone. In the fast ice zone the average ice thickness is 0.58 ± 0.13 m. Deformed ice increases the variability of ice conditions in the drift ice zone where the average ice thickness is 0.92 ± 0.33 m. In heavily ridged ice regions near the coast, mean ice thickness can be even manyfold thicker than in a pure thermodynamically grown fast ice. Drift ice exhibits larger inter-annual variability than fast ice.

scholarly journals Interannual sea ice thickness variability in the Bay of Bothnia

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3459-3476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iina Ronkainen ◽  
Jonni Lehtiranta ◽  
Mikko Lensu ◽  
Eero Rinne ◽  
Jari Haapala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Interannual Variability ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Fast Ice ◽  
Ridged Ice

Abstract. While variations of Baltic Sea ice extent and thickness have been extensively studied, there is little information about drift ice thickness, distribution, and its variability. In our study, we quantify the interannual variability of sea ice thickness in the Bay of Bothnia during the years 2003–2016. We use various different data sets: official ice charts, drilling data from the regular monitoring stations in the coastal fast ice zone, and helicopter and shipborne electromagnetic soundings. We analyze the different data sets and compare them to each other to characterize the interannual variability, to discuss the ratio of level and deformed ice, and to derive ice thickness distributions in the drift ice zone. In the fast ice zone the average ice thickness is 0.58±0.13 m. Deformed ice increases the variability of ice conditions in the drift ice zone, where the average ice thickness is 0.92±0.33 m. On average, the fraction of deformed ice is 50 % to 70 % of the total volume. In heavily ridged ice regions near the coast, mean ice thickness is approximately half a meter thicker than that of pure thermodynamically grown fast ice. Drift ice exhibits larger interannual variability than fast ice.

Sea ice representation in CMIP6 simulations with EC-Earth3-Veg

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torben Koenigk ◽  
Evelien Dekker
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Emission Scenario ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
First Year ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Arctic Sea

<p>In this study, we compare the sea ice in ensembles of historical and future simulations with EC-Earth3-Veg to the sea ice of the NSIDC and OSA-SAF satellite data sets. The EC-Earth3-Veg Arctic sea ice extent generally matches well to the observational data sets, and the trend over 1980-2014 is captured correctly. Interestingly, the summer Arctic sea ice area minimum occurs already in August in the model. Mainly east of Greenland, sea ice area is overestimated. In summer, Arctic sea ice is too thick compared to PIOMAS. In March, sea ice thickness is slightly overestimated in the Central Arctic but in the Bering and Kara Seas, the ice thickness is lower than in PIOMAS.</p><p>While the general picture of Arctic sea ice looks good, EC-Earth suffers from a warm bias in the Southern Ocean. This is also reflected by a substantial underestimation of sea ice area in the Antarctic.</p><p>Different ensemble members of the future scenario projections of sea ice show a large range of the date of first year with a minimum ice area below 1 million square kilometers in the Arctic. The year varies between 2024 and 2056. Interestingly, this range does not differ very much with the emission scenario and even under the low emission scenario SSP1-1.9 summer Arctic sea ice almost totally disappears.</p>

scholarly journals Sea-ice thickness variability in Storfjorden, Svalbard

2011 ◽  
Vol 52 (57) ◽  
pp. 61-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Hendricks ◽  
S. Gerland ◽  
L.H. Smedsrud ◽  
C. Haas ◽  
A.A. Pfaffhuber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Central Arctic Ocean ◽  
Reanalysis Dataset ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Fast Ice ◽  
Thickness Variations

AbstractResults from electromagnetic induction surveys of sea-ice thickness in Storfjorden, Svalbard, reveal large interannual ice-thickness variations in a region which is typically characterized by a reoccurring polynya. the surveys were performed in March 2003, May 2006 and March 2007 with helicopter- and ship-based sensors. the thickness distributions are influenced by sea-ice and atmospheric boundary conditions 2 months prior to the surveys, which are assessed with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images, regional QuikSCAT backscatter maps and wind information from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) reanalysis dataset. Locally formed thin ice from the Storfjorden polynya was frequently observed in 2003 and 2007 (mean thickness 0.55 and 0.37 m, respectively) because these years were characterized by prevailing northeasterly winds. In contrast, the entire fjord was covered with thick external sea ice in 2006 (mean thickness 2.21 m), when ice from the Barents Sea was driven into the fjord by predominantly southerly winds. the modal thickness of this external ice in 2006 increased from 1.2m in the northern fjord to 2.4 m in the southern fjord, indicating stronger deformation in the southern part. This dynamically thickened ice was even thicker than multi-year ice advected from the central Arctic Ocean in 2003 (mean thickness 1.83 m). the thermodynamic ice thickness of fast ice as boundary condition is investigated with a one-dimensional sea-ice growth model (1DICE) forced with meteorological data from the weather station at the island of Hopen, southeast of Storfjorden. the model results are in good agreement with the modal thicknesses of fast-ice measurements in all years.

scholarly journals Faster decline and higher variability in the sea ice thickness of the marginal Arctic seas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbie D. C. Mallett ◽  
Julienne C. Stroeve ◽  
Michel Tsamados ◽  
Jack C. Landy ◽  
Rosemary Willatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Interannual Variability ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Arctic Seas ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Marginal Seas ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Satellite Radar ◽  
Arctic Climate Change ◽  
Strong Control

Abstract. Mean sea ice thickness is a sensitive indicator of Arctic climate change and in long-term decline despite significant interannual variability. Current thickness estimations from satellite radar altimeters employ a snow climatology for converting range measurements to sea ice thickness, but this introduces unrealistically low interannual variability and trends. When the sea ice thickness in the period 2002–2018 is calculated using new snow data with more realistic variability and trends, we find mean sea ice thickness in three of the seven marginal seas to be declining between 70–100 % faster than when calculated with the conventional method. When analysed as an aggregate, the mean ice thickness in the marginal seas is now in statistically significant decline for four of seven winter months. This is observed despite a 58% increase in interannual variability between the methods in the same time period. On a seasonal timescale we find that snow data exerts an increasingly strong control on thickness variability over the growth season, contributing only 20 % in October but 72 % by April. Higher variability and faster decline in the sea ice thickness of the marginal seas has wide implications for our understanding of the polar climate system and our predictions for its change, as well as for stakeholders involved in Arctic shipping and natural resource extraction.

scholarly journals Comparing sea ice, hydrography and circulation between NEMO3.6 LIM3 and LIM2

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 1009-1031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petteri Uotila ◽  
Doroteaciro Iovino ◽  
Martin Vancoppenolle ◽  
Mikko Lensu ◽  
Clement Rousset
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Intermediate Water ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
System Sensitivity ◽  
Ice Model

Abstract. A set of hindcast simulations with the new version 3.6 of the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) ocean–ice model in the ORCA1 configuration and forced by the DRAKKAR Forcing Set version 5.2 (DFS5.2) atmospheric data was performed from 1958 to 2012. Simulations differed in their sea-ice component: the old standard version Louvain-la-Neuve Sea Ice Model (LIM2) and its successor LIM3. Main differences between these sea-ice models are the parameterisations of sub-grid-scale sea-ice thickness distribution, ice deformation, thermodynamic processes, and sea-ice salinity. Our main objective was to analyse the response of the ocean–ice system sensitivity to the change in sea-ice physics. Additional sensitivity simulations were carried out for the attribution of observed differences between the two main simulations.In the Arctic, NEMO-LIM3 compares better with observations by realistically reproducing the sea-ice extent decline during the last few decades due to its multi-category sea-ice thickness. In the Antarctic, NEMO-LIM3 more realistically simulates the seasonal evolution of sea-ice extent than NEMO-LIM2. In terms of oceanic properties, improvements are not as evident, although NEMO-LIM3 reproduces a more realistic hydrography in the Labrador Sea and in the Arctic Ocean, including a reduced cold temperature bias of the Arctic Intermediate Water at 250 m. In the extra-polar regions, the oceanographic conditions of the two NEMO-LIM versions remain relatively similar, although they slowly drift apart over decades. This drift is probably due to a stronger deep water formation around Antarctica in LIM3.

scholarly journals Faster decline and higher variability in the sea ice thickness of the marginal Arctic seas when accounting for dynamic snow cover

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 2429-2450
Author(s):  
Robbie D. C. Mallett ◽  
Julienne C. Stroeve ◽  
Michel Tsamados ◽  
Jack C. Landy ◽  
Rosemary Willatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Interannual Variability ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Arctic Seas ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Marginal Seas ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Satellite Radar ◽  
Arctic Climate Change ◽  
Strong Control

Abstract. Mean sea ice thickness is a sensitive indicator of Arctic climate change and is in long-term decline despite significant interannual variability. Current thickness estimations from satellite radar altimeters employ a snow climatology for converting range measurements to sea ice thickness, but this introduces unrealistically low interannual variability and trends. When the sea ice thickness in the period 2002–2018 is calculated using new snow data with more realistic variability and trends, we find mean sea ice thickness in four of the seven marginal seas to be declining between 60 %–100 % faster than when calculated with the conventional climatology. When analysed as an aggregate area, the mean sea ice thickness in the marginal seas is in statistically significant decline for 6 of 7 winter months. This is observed despite a 76 % increase in interannual variability between the methods in the same time period. On a seasonal timescale we find that snow data exert an increasingly strong control on thickness variability over the growth season, contributing 46 % in October but 70 % by April. Higher variability and faster decline in the sea ice thickness of the marginal seas has wide implications for our understanding of the polar climate system and our predictions for its change.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Sea-ice thickness and Snow-depth distributions of the Summer landfast ice in Lützow-Holm Bay, East Antarctica

2006 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 281-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shotaro Uto ◽  
Haruhito Shimoda ◽  
Shuki Ushio
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Interannual Variability ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
East Antarctica ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
First Year ◽  
Total Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Landfast Ice ◽  
Northeasterly Wind

AbstractSea-ice observations have been conducted on board icebreaker shirase as a part of the Scientific programs of the Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition. We Summarize these to investigate Spatial and interannual variability of ice thickness and Snow depth of the Summer landfast ice in Lützow-Holm Bay, East Antarctica. Electromagnetic–inductive observations, which have been conducted Since 2000, provide total thickness distributions with high Spatial resolution. A clear discontinuity, which Separates thin first-year ice from thick multi-year ice, was observed in the total thickness distributions in two voyages. Comparison with Satellite images revealed that Such phenomena reflected the past breakup of the landfast ice. Within 20–30km from the Shore, total thickness as well as Snow depth decrease toward the Shore. This is due to the Snowdrift by the Strong northeasterly wind. Video observations of Sea-ice thickness and Snow depth were conducted on 11 voyages Since December 1987. Probability density functions derived from total thickness distributions in each year are categorized into three types: a thin-ice, thick-ice and intermediate type. Such interannual variability primarily depends on the extent and duration of the Successive break-up events.

scholarly journals New insight from CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness for sea ice modelling

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schröder ◽  
Danny L. Feltham ◽  
Michel Tsamados ◽  
Andy Ridout ◽  
Rachel Tilling
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Melt Pond ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness are available from the CryoSat-2 (CS2) radar altimetry mission during ice growth seasons since 2010. We derive the sub-grid scale ice thickness distribution (ITD) with respect to 5 ice thickness categories used in a sea ice component (CICE) of climate simulations. This allows us to initialize the ITD in stand-alone simulations with CICE and to verify the simulated cycle of ice thickness. We find that a default CICE simulation strongly underestimates ice thickness, despite reproducing the inter-annual variability of summer sea ice extent. We can identify the underestimation of winter ice growth as being responsible and show that increasing the ice conductive flux for lower temperatures (bubbly brine scheme) and accounting for the loss of drifting snow results in the simulated sea ice growth being more realistic. Sensitivity studies provide insight into the impact of initial and atmospheric conditions and, thus, on the role of positive and negative feedback processes. During summer, atmospheric conditions are responsible for 50 % of September sea ice thickness variability through the positive sea ice and melt pond albedo feedback. However, atmospheric winter conditions have little impact on winter ice growth due to the dominating negative conductive feedback process: the thinner the ice and snow in autumn, the stronger the ice growth in winter. We conclude that the fate of Arctic summer sea ice is largely controlled by atmospheric conditions during the melting season rather than by winter temperature. Our optimal model configuration does not only improve the simulated sea ice thickness, but also summer sea ice concentration, melt pond fraction, and length of the melt season. It is the first time CS2 sea ice thickness data have been applied successfully to improve sea ice model physics.

scholarly journals ICESat observations of seasonal and interannual variations of sea-ice freeboard and estimated thickness in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica (2003–2009)

2011 ◽  
Vol 52 (57) ◽  
pp. 43-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donghui Yi ◽  
H. Jay Zwally ◽  
John W. Robbins
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Weddell Sea ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Earth Observing System ◽  
Pack Ice ◽  
Snow Water ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Seasonal And Interannual Variations

AbstractSea-ice freeboard heights for 17 ICESat campaign periods from 2003 to 2009 are derived from ICESat data. Freeboard is combined with snow depth from Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) data and nominal densities of snow, water and sea ice, to estimate sea-ice thickness. Sea-ice freeboard and thickness distributions show clear seasonal variations that reflect the yearly cycle of growth and decay of the Weddell Sea (Antarctica) pack ice. During October–November, sea ice grows to its seasonal maximum both in area and thickness; the mean freeboards are 0.33–0.41m and the mean thicknesses are 2.10–2.59 m. During February–March, thinner sea ice melts away and the sea-ice pack is mainly distributed in the west Weddell Sea; the mean freeboards are 0.35–0.46m and the mean thicknesses are 1.48–1.94 m. During May–June, the mean freeboards and thicknesses are 0.26–0.29m and 1.32–1.37 m, respectively. the 6 year trends in sea-ice extent and volume are (0.023±0.051)×106 km2 a–1 (0.45% a–1) and (0.007±0.092)×103 km3 a–1 (0.08% a–1); however, the large standard deviations indicate that these positive trends are not statistically significant.

Winter Arctic sea ice freeboard, snow depth and thickness variability from ICESat-2 and NESOSIM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alek Petty ◽  
Nicole Keeney ◽  
Alex Cabaj ◽  
Paul Kushner ◽  
Nathan Kurtz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Cloud ◽  
Ice Drift ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Arctic Ice

<div> <div> <div> <div> <p>National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite‐ 2 (ICESat‐2) mission was launched in September 2018 and is now providing routine, very high‐resolution estimates of surface height/type (the ATL07 product) and freeboard (the ATL10 product) across the Arctic and Southern Oceans. In recent work we used snow depth and density estimates from the NASA Eulerian Snow on Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM) together with ATL10 freeboard data to estimate sea ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean. Here we provide an overview of updates made to both the underlying ATL10 freeboard product and the NESOSIM model, and the subsequent impacts on our estimates of sea ice thickness including updated comparisons to the original ICESat mission and ESA’s CryoSat-2. Finally we compare our Arctic ice thickness estimates from the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 winters and discuss possible causes of these differences based on an analysis of atmospheric data (ERA5), ice drift (NSIDC) and ice type (OSI SAF).</p> </div> </div> </div> </div>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document