Search for: All records

Abstract Snow and ice topography impact and are impacted by fluxes of mass, energy, and momentum in Arctic sea ice. We measured the topography on approximately a 0.5 km²drifting parcel of Arctic sea ice on 42 separate days from 18 October 2019 to 9 May 2020 via Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS). These data are aligned into an ice-fixed, lagrangian reference frame such that topographic changes (e.g., snow accumulation) can be observed for time periods of up to six months. Usingin-situmeasurements, we have validated the vertical accuracy of the alignment to ± 0.011 m. This data collection and processing workflow is the culmination of several prior measurement campaigns and may be generally applied for repeat TLS measurements on drifting sea ice. We present a description of the data, a software package written to process and align these data, and the philosophy of the data processing. These data can be used to investigate snow accumulation and redistribution, ice dynamics, surface roughness, and they can provide valuable context for co-located measurements. 

Abstract The conductive heat flux through the snow and ice is a critical component of the mass and energy budgets in the Arctic sea ice system. We use high horizontal resolution (3–15 cm) measurements of snow topography to explore the impacts of sub-meter-scale snow surface roughness on heat flux as simulated by the Finite Element method. Simulating horizontal heat flux in a variable snow cover modestly increases the total simulated heat flux. With horizontal heat flux, as opposed to simple 1D-vertical heat flux modeling, the simulated heat flux is 10% greater than that for uniform snow with the same mean snow thickness for a 31.5 × 21 m region of sea ice (the largest region we studied). Vertical-only (1D) heat flux simulates just a 6% increase for the same region. However, this is highly dependent on observation resolution. Had we measured the snow cover at 1 m horizontal spacing or greater, simulating horizontal heat flux would not have changed the net heat flux from that simulated with vertical-only heat flux. These findings suggest that measuring and modeling snow roughness at sub-meter horizontal scales may be necessary to accurately represent horizontal heat flux on level Arctic sea ice. 

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 0.47Wm_1 K_1 with a median from all data of 0.39Wm_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 20Wm_2, but the average residual during winter is _6 Wm_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. 

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. 

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. 

Central Arctic properties and processes are important to the regional and global coupled climate system. The Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) Distributed Network (DN) of autonomous ice-tethered systems aimed to bridge gaps in our understanding of temporal and spatial scales, in particular with respect to the resolution of Earth system models. By characterizing variability around local measurements made at a Central Observatory, the DN covers both the coupled system interactions involving the ocean-ice-atmosphere interfaces as well as three-dimensional processes in the ocean, sea ice, and atmosphere. The more than 200 autonomous instruments (“buoys”) were of varying complexity and set up at different sites mostly within 50 km of the Central Observatory. During an exemplary midwinter month, the DN observations captured the spatial variability of atmospheric processes on sub-monthly time scales, but less so for monthly means. They show significant variability in snow depth and ice thickness, and provide a temporally and spatially resolved characterization of ice motion and deformation, showing coherency at the DN scale but less at smaller spatial scales. Ocean data show the background gradient across the DN as well as spatially dependent time variability due to local mixed layer sub-mesoscale and mesoscale processes, influenced by a variable ice cover. The second case (May–June 2020) illustrates the utility of the DN during the absence of manually obtained data by providing continuity of physical and biological observations during this key transitional period. We show examples of synergies between the extensive MOSAiC remote sensing observations and numerical modeling, such as estimating the skill of ice drift forecasts and evaluating coupled system modeling. The MOSAiC DN has been proven to enable analysis of local to mesoscale processes in the coupled atmosphere-ice-ocean system and has the potential to improve model parameterizations of important, unresolved processes in the future. 

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.