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 Models struggle to accurately simulate observed sea ice thickness changes, which could be partially due to inadequate representation of thermodynamic processes. We analyzed co‐located winter observations of the Arctic sea ice from the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of the Arctic Climate for evaluating and improving thermodynamic processes in sea ice models, aiming to enable more accurate predictions of the warming climate system. We model the sea ice and snow heat conduction for observed transects forced by realistic boundary conditions to understand the impact of the non‐resolved meter‐scale snow and sea ice thickness heterogeneity on horizontal heat conduction. Neglecting horizontal processes causes underestimating the conductive heat flux of 10% or more. Furthermore, comparing model results to independent temperature observations reveals a ∼5 K surface temperature overestimation over ice thinner than 1 m, attributed to shortcomings in parameterizing surface turbulent and radiative fluxes rather than the conduction. Assessing the model deficiencies and parameterizing these unresolved processes is required for improved sea ice representation. 

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. 

The Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) produced a wealth of observational data along the drift of the R/V Polarstern in the Arctic Ocean from October 2019 to September 2020. These data can further process-level understanding and improvements in models. However, the observational records contain temporal gaps and are provided in different formats. One goal of the MOSAiC Single Column Model Working Group (MSCMWG: https://mosaic-expedition.org/science/cross-cutting_groups/) is to provide consistently-formatted, gap-filled, merged datasets representing the conditions at the MOSAiC Central Observatory (the intensively studied region within a few km of R/V Polarstern) that are suitable for driving models on this spatial domain (e.g., single column models, large eddy simulations, etc). The MSCMWG is an open group, please contact the dataset creators if you would like to contribute to future versions of these merged datasets (including new variables). This dataset contains version 1 of these merged datasets, and comprises the variables necessary to force a single column ice model (e.g., Icepack: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.1213462). The atmospheric variables are primarily derived from Met City (~66 percent (%) of record, https://doi.org/10.18739/A2PV6B83F), with temporal gaps filled by bias and advection corrected data from Atmospheric Surface Flux Stations ( https://doi.org/10.18739/A2XD0R00S, https://doi.org/10.18739/A25X25F0P, https://doi.org/10.18739/A2FF3M18K). Some residual gaps in shortwave radiation were filled with ARM ship-board radiometer data. Three different options for snowfall precipitation rate (prsn) are provided, based on in-situ observations that precipitation greatly exceeded accumulation on level ice, and accumulation rates varied on different ice types. MOSAiC_kazr_snow_MDF_20191005_20201001.nc uses 'snowfall_rate1' derived from the vertically-pointing, ka-band radar on the vessel (https://doi.org/10.5439/1853942). MOSAiC_Raphael_snow_fyi_MDF_20191005_20201001.nc and MOSAiC_Raphael_snow_syi_MDF_20191005_20201001.nc use snow accumulation measurements from manual mass balance sites (https://doi.org/10.18739/A2NK36626) to derived a pseudo-precipitation. MOSAiC_Raphael_snow_fyi_MDF_20191005_20201001.nc is based on the First Year Ice (fyi) sites. MOSAiC_Raphael_snow_syi_MDF_20191005_20201001.nc is based on the Second Year Ice (syi) sites. The other atmospheric variables for these files are identical. Oceanic variables are in MOSAiC_ocn_MDF_20191006_20200919.nc and are derived from https://doi.org/10.18739/A21J9790B. The data are netCDF files formatted according to the Merged Data File format (https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2413, https://gitlab.com/mdf-makers/mdf-toolkit). The code 'recipes' that were used to produce these data are available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10819497. If you use these datasets, please also cite the appropriate publications: Meteorological variables (excluding precipitation): Cox et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02415-5) Oceanographic variables: Schulz et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.31223/X5TT2W) KAZR-derived precipitation: Matrosov et al., 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00101) Accumulation-derived pseudo-precipitation: Raphael et al., in review. The following are known issues that will be addressed in future dataset releases: 1. Residual gaps occupy approximately 20% of the data record (see addendum) 2. Some transitions to shiprad downwelling shortwave are unreasonable abrupt 3. MDF format does not currently include a field for point-by-point data source Addendum: For atmospheric variables, below indicates the percentage sourced from each dataset (and the amount missing a.k.a NaN) Air Temperature metcity 0.661943 NaN 0.193333 asfs30 0.134910 asfs40 0.008607 asfs50 0.001207 Specific Humidity metcity 0.658890 NaN 0.196298 asfs40 0.008695 Wind Velocity metcity 0.666334 NaN 0.255003 asfs30 0.068828 asfs40 0.008630 asfs50 0.001205 Downwelling Longwave metcity 0.549417 asfs30 0.241502 NaN 0.209081 Downwelling Shortwave metcity 0.674166 NaN 0.158814 asfs30 0.140794 shipradS1 0.026226 Note that the 21 day gap from the end of Central Observatory 2 to the start of Central Observatory 3 occupies 5.8% of the record. 

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. Climate simulation uncertainties arise from internal variability, model structure, and external forcings. Model intercomparisons (such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project; CMIP) and single-model large ensembles have provided insight into uncertainty sources. Under the Community Earth System Model (CESM) project, large ensembles have been performed for CESM2 (a CMIP6-era model) and CESM1 (a CMIP5-era model). We refer to these as CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE. The external forcing used in these simulations has changed to be consistent with their CMIP generation. As a result, differences between CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE ensemble means arise from changes in both model structure and forcing. Here we present new ensemble simulations which allow us to separate the influences of these model structural and forcing differences. Our new CESM2 simulations are run with CMIP5 forcings equivalent to those used in the CESM1-LE. We find a strong influence of historical forcing uncertainty due to aerosol effects on simulated climate. For the historical period, forcing drives reduced global warming and ocean heat uptake in CESM2-LE relative to CESM1-LE that is counteracted by the influence of model structure. The influence of the model structure and forcing vary across the globe, and the Arctic exhibits a distinct signal that contrasts with the global mean. For the 21st century, the importance of scenario forcing differences (SSP3–7.0 for CESM2-LE and RCP8.5 for CESM1-LE) is evident. The new simulations presented here allow us to diagnose the influence of model structure on 21st century change, despite large scenario forcing differences, revealing that differences in the meridional distribution of warming are caused by model structure. Feedback analysis reveals that clouds and their impact on shortwave radiation explain many of these structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1. In the Arctic, albedo changes control transient climate evolution differences due to structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1.