Search

Arctic rain on snow (ROS) deposits liquid water onto existing snowpacks. Upon refreezing, this can form icy crusts at the surface or within the snowpack. By altering radar backscatter and microwave emissivity, ROS over sea ice can influence the accuracy of sea ice variables retrieved from satellite radar altimetry, scatterometers, and passive microwave radiometers. During the Arctic Ocean MOSAiC (Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate) expedition, there was an unprecedented opportunity to observe a ROS event using in situ active and passive microwave instruments similar to those deployed on satellite platforms. During liquid water accumulation in the snowpack from rain and increased melt, there was a 4-fold decrease in radar energy returned at Ku- and Ka-bands. After the snowpack refroze and ice layers formed, this decrease was followed by a 6-fold increase in returned energy. Besides altering the radar backscatter, analysis of the returned waveforms shows the waveform shape changed in response to rain and refreezing. Microwave emissivity at 19 and 89 GHz increased with increasing liquid water content and decreased as the snowpack refroze, yet subsequent ice layers altered the polarization difference. Corresponding analysis of the CryoSat-2 waveform shape and backscatter as well as AMSR2 brightness temperatures further shows that the rain and refreeze were significant enough to impact satellite returns. Our analysis provides the first detailed in situ analysis of the impacts of ROS and subsequent refreezing on both active and passive microwave observations, providing important baseline knowledge for detecting ROS over sea ice and assessing their impacts on satellite-derived sea ice variables.

As the planet cooled from peak warmth in the early Cenozoic, extensive Northern Hemisphere ice sheets developed by 2.6 Ma ago, leading to changes in the circulation of both the atmosphere and oceans. From not, vert, similar2.6 to not, vert, similar1.0 Ma ago, ice sheets came and went about every 41 ka, in pace with cycles in the tilt of Earth’s axis, but for the past 700 ka, glacial cycles have been longer, lasting not, vert, similar100 ka, separated by brief, warm interglaciations, when sea level and ice volumes were close to present. The cause of the shift from 41 ka to 100 ka glacial cycles is still debated. During the penultimate interglaciation, not, vert, similar130 to not, vert, similar120 ka ago, solar energy in summer in the Arctic was greater than at any time subsequently. As a consequence, Arctic summers were not, vert, similar5 °C warmer than at present, and almost all glaciers melted completely except for the Greenland Ice Sheet, and even it was reduced in size substantially from its present extent. With the loss of land ice, sea level was about 5 m higher than present, with the extra melt coming from both Greenland and Antarctica as well as small glaciers. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) peaked not, vert, similar21 ka ago, when mean annual temperatures over parts of the Arctic were as much as 20 °C lower than at present. Ice recession was well underway 16 ka ago, and most of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets had melted by 6 ka ago. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) not, vert, similar11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1–3 °C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20t

Over the period of modern satellite observations, Arctic sea-ice extent at the end of the melt season (September) has declined at a rate of >11% per decade, and there is evidence that the rate of decline has accelerated during the last decade.While climate models project further decreases in seaice mass and extent through the 21st century, the model ensemble mean trend over the period of instrumental records is smaller than observed. Possible reasons for the apparent discrepancy between observations and model simulations include observational uncertainties, vigorous unforced climate variability in the high latitudes, and limitations and shortcomings of the models stemming in particular from gaps in understanding physical process. The economic significance of a seasonally sea-ice-free future Arctic, the increased connectivity of a warmer Arctic with changes in global climate, and large uncertainties in magnitude and timing of these impacts make the problem of rapid sea-ice loss in the Arctic a grand challenge of climate science. Meaningful prediction/projection of the Arctic sea-ice conditions for the coming decades and beyond requires determining priorities for observations and model development, evaluation of the ability of climate models to reproduce the observed sea-ice behavior as a part of the broader climate system, improved attribution of the causes of Arctic sea-ice change, and improved understanding of the predictability of sea-ice conditions on seasonal through centennial timescales in the wider context of the polar climate predictability.

Eight atmospheric regional climate models (RCMs) were run for the period September 1997 to October 1998 over the western Arctic Ocean. This period was coincident with the observational campaign of the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) project. The RCMs shared common domains, centred on the SHEBA observation camp, along with a common model horizontal resolution, but differed in their vertical structure and physical parameterizations. All RCMs used the same lateral and surface boundary conditions. Surface downwelling solar and terrestrial radiation, surface albedo, vertically integrated water vapour, liquid water path and cloud cover from each model are evaluated against the SHEBA observation data. Downwelling surface radiation, vertically integrated water vapour and liquid water path are reasonably well simulated at monthly and daily timescales in the model ensemble mean, but with considerable differences among individual models. Simulated surface albedos are relatively accurate in the winter season, but become increasingly inaccurate and variable in the melt season, thereby compromising the net surface radiation budget. Simulated cloud cover is more or less uncorrelated with observed values at the daily timescale. Even for monthly averages, many models do not reproduce the annual cycle correctly. The inter-model spread of simulated cloud-cover is very large, with no model appearing systematically superior. Analysis of the co-variability of terms controlling the surface radiation budget reveal some of the key processes requiring improved treatment in Arctic RCMs. Improvements in the parameterization of cloud amounts and surface albedo are most urgently needed to improve the overall performance of RCMs in the Arctic.

Simulations of eight different regional climate models (RCMs) have been performed for the period September 1997-September 1998, which coincides with the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) project period. Each of the models employed approximately the same domain covering the western Arctic, the same horizontal resolution of 50 km, and the same boundary forcing. The models differ in their vertical resolution as well as in the treatments of dynamics and physical parameterizations. Both the common features and differences of the simulated spatiotemporal patterns of geopotential, temperature, cloud cover, and long-/shortwave downward radiation between the individual model simulations are investigated. With this work, we quantify the scatter among the models and therefore the magnitude of disagreement and unreliability of current Arctic RCM simulations. Even with the relatively constrained experimental design we notice a considerable scatter among the different RCMs. We found the largest across-model scatter in the 2 m temperature over land, in the surface radiation fluxes, and in the cloud cover which implies a reduced confidence level for these variables.