Search for: All records

During the Arctic winter, the conductive heat flux through the sea ice and snow balances the radiative and turbulent heat fluxes at the surface. Snow on sea ice is a thermal insulator that reduces the magnitude of the conductive flux. The thermal conductivity of snow, that is, how readily energy is conducted, is known to vary significantly in time and space from observations, but most forecast and climate models use a constant value. This work begins with a demonstration of the importance of snow thermal conductivity in a regional coupled forecast model. Varying snow thermal conductivity impacts the magnitudes of all surface fluxes, not just conduction, and their responses to atmospheric forcing. Given the importance of snow thermal conductivity in models, we use observations from sea ice mass balance buoys installed during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate expedition to derive the profiles of thermal conductivity, density, and conductive flux. From 13 sites, median snow thermal conductivity ranges from 0.33 W m−1 K−1 to 0.47 W m−1 K−1 with a median from all data of 0.39 W m−1 K−1 from October to February. In terms of surface energy budget closure, estimated conductive fluxes are generally smaller than the net atmospheric flux by as much as 20 W m−2, but the average residual during winter is −6 W m−2, which is within the uncertainties. The spatial variability of conductive heat flux is highest during clear and cold time periods. Higher surface temperature, which often occurs during cloudy conditions, and thicker snowpacks reduce temporal and spatial variability. These relationships are compared between observations and the coupled forecast model, emphasizing both the importance and challenge of describing thermodynamic parameters of snow cover for modeling the Arctic as a coupled system. 

As part of the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC), four autonomous seasonal ice mass balance buoys were deployed in first- and second-year ice. These buoys measured position, barometric pressure, snow depth, ice thickness, ice growth, surface melt, bottom melt, and vertical profiles of temperature from the air, through the snow and ice, and into the upper ocean. Observed air temperatures were similar at all four sites; however, snow–ice interface temperatures varied by as much as 10°C, primarily due to differences in snow depth. Observed winter ice growth rates (November to May) were <1 cm day−1, with summer melt rates (June to July) as large as 5 cm day−1. Air temperatures changed as much as 2°C hour−1 but were dampened to <0.3°C hour−1 at the snow–ice interface. Initial October ice thicknesses ranged from 0.3 m in first-year ice to 1.2 m in second-year ice. By February, this range was only 1.20–1.46 m, due in part to differences in the onset of basal freezing. In second-year ice, this delay was due to large brine-filled voids in the ice; propagating the cold front through this ice required freezing the brine. Mass balance results were similar to those measured by autonomous buoys deployed at the North Pole from 2000 to 2013. Winter average estimates of the ocean heat flux ranged from 0 to 3 W m−2, with a large increase in June 2020 as the floe moved into warmer water. Estimates of average snow thermal conductivity measured at two buoys during periods of linear temperature profiles were 0.41 and 0.42 W m−1 °C−1, higher than previously published estimates. Results from these ice mass balance buoys can contribute to efforts to close the MOSAiC heat budget. 

Precise measurements of Arctic sea ice mass balance are necessary to understand the rapidly changing sea ice cover and its representation in climate models. During the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition, we made repeat point measurements of snow and ice thickness on primarily level first- and second-year ice (FYI, SYI) using ablation stakes and ice thickness gauges. This technique enabled us to distinguish surface and bottom (basal) melt and characterize the importance of oceanic versus atmospheric forcing. We also evaluated the time series of ice growth and melt in the context of other MOSAiC observations and historical mass balance observations from the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic (SHEBA) campaign and the North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO). Despite similar freezing degree days, average ice growth at MOSAiC was greater on FYI (1.67 m) and SYI (1.23 m) than at SHEBA (1.45 m, 0.53 m), due in part to initially thinner ice and snow conditions on MOSAiC. Our estimates of effective snow thermal conductivity, which agree with SHEBA results and other MOSAiC observations, are unlikely to explain the difference. On MOSAiC, FYI grew more and faster than SYI, demonstrating a feedback loop that acts to increase ice production after multi-year ice loss. Surface melt on MOSAiC (mean of 0.50 m) was greater than at NPEO (0.18 m), with considerable spatial variability that correlated with surface albedo variability. Basal melt was relatively small (mean of 0.12 m), and higher than NPEO observations (0.07 m). Finally, we present observations showing that false bottoms reduced basal melt rates in some FYI cases, in agreement with other observations at MOSAiC. These detailed mass balance observations will allow further investigation into connections between the carefully observed surface energy budget, ocean heat fluxes, sea ice, and ecosystem at MOSAiC and during other campaigns. 

Abstract Atmospheric gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) concentrations in the Arctic exhibit a clear summertime maximum, while the origin of this peak is still a matter of debate in the community. Based on summertime observations during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition and a modeling approach, we further investigate the sources of atmospheric Hg in the central Arctic. Simulations with a generalized additive model (GAM) show that long-range transport of anthropogenic and terrestrial Hg from lower latitudes is a minor contribution (~2%), and more than 50% of the explained GEM variability is caused by oceanic evasion. A potential source contribution function (PSCF) analysis further shows that oceanic evasion is not significant throughout the ice-covered central Arctic Ocean but mainly occurs in the Marginal Ice Zone (MIZ) due to the specific environmental conditions in that region. Our results suggest that this regional process could be the leading contributor to the observed summertime GEM maximum. In the context of rapid Arctic warming and the observed increase in width of the MIZ, oceanic Hg evasion may become more significant and strengthen the role of the central Arctic Ocean as a summertime source of atmospheric Hg. 

Abstract. The annual sea ice freeze–thaw cycle plays a crucial role in theArctic atmosphere—ice–ocean system, regulating the seasonal energy balanceof sea ice and the underlying upper-ocean. Previous studies of the sea icefreeze–thaw cycle were often based on limited accessible in situ or easilyavailable remotely sensed observations of the surface. To better understandthe responses of the sea ice to climate change and its coupling to the upperocean, we combine measurements of the ice surface and bottom usingmultisource data to investigate the temporal and spatial variations in thefreeze–thaw cycle of Arctic sea ice. Observations by 69 sea ice mass balancebuoys (IMBs) collected from 2001 to 2018 revealed that the average ice basalmelt onset in the Beaufort Gyre occurred on 23 May (±6 d),approximately 17 d earlier than the surface melt onset. The average icebasal melt onset in the central Arctic Ocean occurred on 17 June (±9 d), which was comparable with the surface melt onset. This difference wasmainly attributed to the distinct seasonal variations of oceanic heatavailable to sea ice melt between the two regions. The overall average onsetof basal ice growth of the pan Arctic Ocean occurred on 14 November (±21 d), lagging approximately 3 months behind the surface freezeonset. This temporal delay was caused by a combination of cooling the seaice, the ocean mixed layer, and the ocean subsurface layer, as well as thethermal buffering of snow atop the ice. In the Beaufort Gyre region, both(Lagrangian) IMB observations (2001–2018) and (Eulerian) moored upward-looking sonar (ULS) observations (2003–2018) revealed a trend towardsearlier basal melt onset, mainly linked to the earlier warming of thesurface ocean. A trend towards earlier onset of basal ice growth was alsoidentified from the IMB observations (multiyear ice), which we attributed tothe overall reduction of ice thickness. In contrast, a trend towards delayedonset of basal ice growth was identified from the ULS observations, whichwas explained by the fact that the ice cover melted almost entirely by theend of summer in recent years. 

The western Arctic Ocean is rapidly acidifying due to sea ice loss. 

Low-salinity meltwater from Arctic sea ice and its snow cover accumulates and creates under-ice meltwater layers below sea ice. These meltwater layers can result in the formation of new ice layers, or false bottoms, at the interface of this low-salinity meltwater and colder seawater. As part of the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of the Arctic Climate (MOSAiC), we used a combination of sea ice coring, temperature profiles from thermistor strings and underwater multibeam sonar surveys with a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to study the areal coverage and temporal evolution of under-ice meltwater layers and false bottoms during the summer melt season from mid-June until late July. ROV surveys indicated that the areal coverage of false bottoms for a part of the MOSAiC Central Observatory (350 by 200 m2) was 21%. Presence of false bottoms reduced bottom ice melt by 7–8% due to the local decrease in the ocean heat flux, which can be described by a thermodynamic model. Under-ice meltwater layer thickness was larger below first-year ice and thinner below thicker second-year ice. We also found that thick ice and ridge keels confined the areas in which under-ice meltwater accumulated, preventing its mixing with underlying seawater. While a thermodynamic model could reproduce false bottom growth and melt, it could not describe the observed bottom melt rates of the ice above false bottoms. We also show that the evolution of under-ice meltwater-layer salinity below first-year ice is linked to brine flushing from the above sea ice and accumulating in the meltwater layer above the false bottom. The results of this study aid in estimating the contribution of under-ice meltwater layers and false bottoms to the mass balance and salt budget for Arctic summer sea ice. 

During the Arctic melt season, relatively fresh meltwater layers can accumulate under sea ice as a result of snow and ice melt, far from terrestrial freshwater inputs. Such under-ice meltwater layers, sometimes referred to as under-ice melt ponds, have been suggested to play a role in the summer sea ice mass balance both by isolating the sea ice from saltier water below, and by driving formation of ‘false bottoms’ below the sea ice. Such layers form at the interface of the fresher under-ice layer and the colder, saltier seawater below. During the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of the Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition in the Central Arctic, we observed the presence of under-ice meltwater layers and false bottoms throughout July 2020 at primarily first-year ice locations. Here, we examine the distribution, prevalence, and drivers of under-ice ponds and the resulting false bottoms during this period. The average thickness of observed false bottoms and freshwater equivalent of under-ice meltwater layers was 0.08 m, with false bottom ice comprised of 74–87% FYI melt and 13–26% snow melt. Additionally, we explore these results using a 1D model to understand the role of dynamic influences on decoupling the ice from the seawater below. The model comparison suggests that the ice-ocean friction velocity was likely exceptionally low, with implications for air-ice-ocean momentum transfer. Overall, the prevalence of false bottoms was similar to or higher than noted during other observational campaigns, indicating that these features may in fact be common in the Arctic during the melt season. These results have implications for the broader ice-ocean system, as under-ice meltwater layers and false bottoms provide a source of ice growth during the melt season, potentially reduce fluxes between the ice and the ocean, isolate sea ice primary producers from pelagic nutrient sources, and may alter light transmission to the ocean below.