Search

Understanding the variability of Antarctic sea ice is still a challenge. After decades of modest growth, an unprecedented minimum in the sea ice extent (SIE) was registered in summer 2017, and, following years of anomalously low SIE, a new record was established in early 2022. These two memorable minima have received great attention as single cases, but a comprehensive analysis of summer SIE minima is currently lacking. Indeed, other similar events are present in the observational record, although they are minor compared to the most recent ones, and a full analysis of all summer SIE minima is essential to separate potential common drivers from event-specific dynamics in order to ultimately improve our understanding of the Antarctic sea ice and climate variability. In this work, we examine sea ice and atmospheric conditions during and before all summer SIE minima over the satellite period up to 2022. We use observations and reanalysis data and compare our main findings with results from an ocean–sea ice model (NEMO–LIM) driven by prescribed atmospheric fields from ERA5. Examining SIE and sea ice concentration (SIC) anomalies, we find that the main contributors to the summer minima are the Ross and Weddell sectors. However, the two regions play different roles, and the variability of the Ross Sea explains most of the minima, with typical negative SIE anomalies about twice as large as the ones in the Weddell Sea. Furthermore, the distribution of SIC anomalies is also different: in the Weddell Sea, they exhibit a dipolar structure, with increased SIC next to the continent and decreased SIC at the sea ice margin, while the Ross Sea displays a more homogenous decrease. We also examine the role of wintertime sea ice conditions before the summer SIE minima and find mixed results depending on the period: the winter conditions are relevant in the most recent events, after 2017, but they are marginal for previous years. Next, we consider the influence of the atmosphere on the SIE minima, which is shown to play a major role: after analyzing the anomalous atmospheric circulation during the preceding spring, we find that different large-scale anomalies can lead to similar regional prevailing winds that drive the summer minima. Specifically, the SIE minima are generally associated with dominant northwesterly anomalous winds in the Weddell Sea, while a southwesterly anomalous flow prevails in the Ross Sea. Finally, we investigate the relative contribution of dynamic (e.g., ice transport) and thermodynamic (e.g., local melting) processes to the summer minima. Our results indicate that the exceptional sea ice loss in both the Ross and Weddell sectors is dominated at the large scale by thermodynamic processes, while dynamics are also present but with a minor role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atmospheric reanalyses are valuable datasets for driving ocean–sea ice general circulation models and for proposing multidecadal reconstructions of the ocean–sea ice system in polar regions. However, these reanalyses exhibit biases in these regions. It was previously found that the representation of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice in models participating in the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2 (OMIP2, using the updated Japanese 55-year atmospheric reanalysis, JRA55-do) was significantly more realistic than in OMIP1 (forced by the atmospheric state from the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments version 2, CORE-II). To understand why, we study the sea ice concentration budget and its relations to surface heat and momentum fluxes as well as the connections between the simulated ice drift and the ice concentration, the ice thickness and the wind stress in a subset of three models (CMCC-CM2-SR5, MRI-ESM2-0 and NorESM2-LM). These three models are representative of the ensemble and are the only ones to provide the surface fluxes and the tendencies of ice concentrations attributed to dynamic and thermodynamic processes required for the ice concentration budget analysis. The sea ice simulations of two other models (EC-Earth3 and MIROC6) forced by both CORE-II and JRA55-do reanalysis are also included in the analysis. It is found that negative summer biases in high-ice-concentration regions and positive biases in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA) and central Weddell Sea (CWS) regions are reduced from OMIP1 to OMIP2 due to surface heat flux changes. Net shortwave radiation fluxes provide key improvements in the Arctic interior, CAA and CWS regions. There is also an influence of improved surface wind stress in OMIP2 giving better winter Antarctic ice concentration and the Arctic ice drift magnitude simulations near the ice edge. The ice velocity direction simulations in the Beaufort Gyre and the Pacific and Atlantic sectors of the Southern Ocean in OMIP2 are also improved owing to surface wind stress changes. This study provides clues on how improved atmospheric reanalysis products influence sea ice simulations. Our findings suggest that attention should be paid to the radiation fluxes and winds in atmospheric reanalyses in polar regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The seasonal cycle of the Antarctic sea ice extent is strongly asymmetric, with a relatively slow increase after the summer minimum followed by a more rapid decrease after the winter maximum. This cycle is intimately linked to the seasonal cycle of the insolation received at the top of the atmosphere, but sea ice processes as well as the exchanges with the atmosphere and ocean may also play a role. To quantify these contributions, a series of idealized sensitivity experiments have been performed with an eddy-permitting (1/4 ∘) NEMO-LIM3 (Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean–Louvain-la-Neuve sea ice model version 3) Southern Ocean configuration, including a representation of ice shelf cavities, in which the model was either driven by an atmospheric reanalysis or coupled to the COSMO-CLM 2 regional atmospheric model. In those experiments, sea ice thermodynamics and dynamics as well as the exchanges with the ocean and atmosphere are strongly perturbed. This perturbation is achieved by modifying snow and ice thermal conductivities, the vertical mixing in the ocean top layers, the effect of freshwater uptake and release upon sea ice growth and melt, ice dynamics, and surface albedo. We find that the evolution of sea ice extent during the ice advance season is largely independent of the direct effect of the perturbation and appears thus mainly controlled by initial state in summer and subsequent insolation changes. In contrast, the melting rate varies strongly between the experiments during the retreat, in particular if the surface albedo or sea ice transport are modified, demonstrating a strong contribution of those elements to the evolution of ice coverage through spring and summer. As with the advance phase, the retreat is also influenced by conditions at the beginning of the melt season in September. Atmospheric feedbacks enhance the model winter ice extent response to any of the perturbed processes, and the enhancement is strongest when the albedo is modified. The response of sea ice volume and extent to changes in entrainment of subsurface warm waters to the ocean surface is also greatly amplified by the coupling with the atmosphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ocean–sea-ice coupled models constrained by various observations provide different ice thickness estimates in the Antarctic. We evaluate contemporary monthly ice thickness from four reanalyses in the Weddell Sea: the German contribution of the project Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean Version 2 (GECCO2), the Southern Ocean State Estimate (SOSE), the Ensemble Kalman Filter system based on the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO-EnKF) and the Global Ice–Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (GIOMAS). The evaluation is performed against reference satellite and in situ observations from ICESat-1, Envisat, upward-looking sonars and visual ship-based sea-ice observations. Compared with ICESat-1, NEMO-EnKF has the highest correlation coefficient (CC) of 0.54 and lowest root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.44 m. Compared with in situ observations, SOSE has the highest CC of 0.77 and lowest RMSE of 0.72 m. All reanalyses underestimate ice thickness near the coast of the western Weddell Sea with respect to ICESat-1 and in situ observations even though these observational estimates may be biased low. GECCO2 and NEMO-EnKF reproduce the seasonal variation in first-year ice thickness reasonably well in the eastern Weddell Sea. In contrast, GIOMAS ice thickness performs best in the central Weddell Sea, while SOSE ice thickness agrees most with the observations from the southern coast of the Weddell Sea. In addition, only NEMO-EnKF can reproduce the seasonal evolution of the large-scale spatial distribution of ice thickness, characterized by the thick ice shifting from the southwestern and western Weddell Sea in summer to the western and northwestern Weddell Sea in spring. We infer that the thick ice distribution is correlated with its better simulation of northward ice motion in the western Weddell Sea. These results demonstrate the possibilities and limitations of using current sea-ice reanalysis for understanding the recent variability of sea-ice volume in the Antarctic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We use model simulations from the CESM1-CAM5-BGC-LE dataset to characterise the Arctic sea ice thickness internal variability both spatially and temporally. These properties, and their stationarity, are investigated in three different contexts: (1) constant pre-industrial, (2) historical and (3) projected conditions. Spatial modes of variability show highly stationary patterns regardless of the forcing and mean state. A temporal analysis reveals two peaks of significant variability, and despite a non-stationarity on short timescales, they remain more or less stable until the first half of the 21st century, where they start to change once summer ice-free events occur, after 2050. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work evaluates the statistical predictability of the Arctic sea ice volume (SIV) anomaly – here defined as the detrended and deseasonalized SIV – on the interannual timescale. To do so, we made use of six datasets, from three different atmosphere–ocean general circulation models, with two different horizontal grid resolutions each. Based on these datasets, we have developed a statistical empirical model which in turn was used to test the performance of different predictor variables, as well as to identify optimal locations from where the SIV anomaly could be better reconstructed and/or predicted. We tested the hypothesis that an ideal sampling strategy characterized by only a few optimal sampling locations can provide in situ data for statistically reproducing and/or predicting the SIV interannual variability. The results showed that, apart from the SIV itself, the sea ice thickness is the best predictor variable, although total sea ice area, sea ice concentration, sea surface temperature, and sea ice drift can also contribute to improving the prediction skill. The prediction skill can be enhanced further by combining several predictors into the statistical model. Applying the statistical model with predictor data from four well-placed locations is sufficient for reconstructing about 70 % of the SIV anomaly variance. As suggested by the results, the four first best locations are placed at the transition Chukchi Sea–central Arctic–Beaufort Sea (79.5 ∘ N, 158.0 ∘ W), near the North Pole (88.5 ∘ N, 40.0 ∘ E), at the transition central Arctic–Laptev Sea (81.5 ∘ N, 107.0 ∘ E), and offshore the Canadian Archipelago (82.5 ∘ N, 109.0 ∘ W), in this respective order. Adding further to six well-placed locations, which explain about 80 % of the SIV anomaly variance, the statistical predictability does not substantially improve taking into account that 10 locations explain about 84 % of that variance. An improved model horizontal resolution allows a better trained statistical model so that the reconstructed values better approach the original SIV anomaly. On the other hand, if we inspect the interannual variability, the predictors provided by numerical models with lower horizontal resolution perform better when reconstructing the original SIV variability. We believe that this study provides recommendations for the ongoing and upcoming observational initiatives, in terms of an Arctic optimal observing design, for studying and predicting not only the SIV values but also its interannual variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ocean–sea ice reanalyses are one of the main sources of Arctic sea ice thickness data both in terms of spatial and temporal resolution, since observations are still sparse in time and space. In this work, we first aim at comparing how the sea ice thickness from an ensemble of 14 reanalyses compares with different sources of observations, such as moored upward-looking sonars, submarines, airbornes, satellites, and ice boreholes. Second, based on the same reanalyses, we intend to characterize the timescales (persistence) and length scales of sea ice thickness anomalies. We investigate whether data assimilation of sea ice concentration by the reanalyses impacts the realism of sea ice thickness as well as its respective timescales and length scales. The results suggest that reanalyses with sea ice data assimilation do not necessarily perform better in terms of sea ice thickness compared with the reanalyses which do not assimilate sea ice concentration. However, data assimilation has a clear impact on the timescales and length scales: reanalyses built with sea ice data assimilation present shorter timescales and length scales. The mean timescales and length scales for reanalyses with data assimilation vary from 2.5 to 5.0 months and 337.0 to 732.5 km, respectively, while reanalyses with no data assimilation are characterized by values from 4.9 to 7.8 months and 846.7 to 935.7 km, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent Arctic sea ice reduction comes with an increase in the ice-free season duration, with comparable contributions of earlier ice retreat and later advance. CMIP5 models all project that the trend towards later advance should progressively exceed and ultimately double the trend towards earlier retreat, causing the ice-free season to shift into autumn. We show that such a shift is a basic feature of the thermodynamic response of seasonal ice to warming. The detailed analysis of an idealised thermodynamic ice–ocean model stresses the role of two seasonal amplifying feedbacks. The summer feedback generates a 1.6-day-later advance in response to a 1-day-earlier retreat. The underlying physics are the property of the upper ocean to absorb solar radiation more efficiently than it can release heat right before ice advance. The winter feedback is comparatively weak, prompting a 0.3-day-earlier retreat in response to a 1-day shift towards later advance. This is because a shorter growth season implies thinner ice, which subsequently melts away faster. However, the winter feedback is dampened by the relatively long ice growth period and by the inverse relationship between ice growth rate and thickness. At inter-annual timescales, the thermodynamic response of ice seasonality to warming is obscured by inter-annual variability. Nevertheless, in the long term, because all feedback mechanisms relate to basic and stable elements of the Arctic climate system, there is little inter-model uncertainty on the projected long-term shift into autumn of the ice-free season. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sea ice cover and thickness have substantially decreased in the Arctic Ocean since the beginning of the satellite era. As a result, sea ice strength has been reduced, allowing more deformation and fracturing and leading to increased sea ice drift speed. We use the version 3.6 of the global ocean-sea ice NEMO-LIM model (Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean coupled to the Louvain-la-Neuve sea Ice Model), satellite, buoy and submarine observations, as well as reanalysis data over the period from 1979 to 2013 to study these relationships. Overall, the model agrees well with observations in terms of sea ice extent, concentration and thickness. The seasonal cycle of sea ice drift speed is reasonably well reproduced by the model. NEMOLIM3.6 is able to capture the relationships between the seasonal cycles of sea ice drift speed, concentration and thickness, with higher drift speed for both lower concentration and lower thickness, in agreement with observations. Model experiments are carried out to test the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice drift speed, thickness and concentration to changes in sea ice strength parameter P*. These show that higher values of P* generally lead to lower sea ice deformation and lower sea ice thickness, and that no single value of P* is the best option for reproducing the observed drift speed and thickness. The methodology proposed in this analysis provides a benchmark for a further model intercomparison related to the relationships between sea ice drift speed and strength, which is especially relevant in the context of the upcoming Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]