Abstract

Based on adjoint sensitivities of the coupled Massachusetts Institute of Technology ocean–sea ice circulation model, the potential influence of thermodynamic atmospheric forcing on the interannual variability of the September sea ice area (AREA) and volume (VOLUME) in the Arctic is investigated for the three periods 1980–1989, 1990–1999 and 2000–2009. Sensitivities suggest that only large forcing anomalies prior to the spring melting onset in May can influence the September sea ice characteristics while even small changes in the atmospheric variables during subsequent months can significantly influence September sea ice state. Specifically, AREA close to the ice edge in the Arctic seas is highly sensitive to thermodynamic atmospheric forcing changes from June to July. In contrast, VOLUME is highly sensitive to atmospheric temperature changes occurring during the same period over the central parts of the Arctic Ocean. A comparison of the sea ice conditions and sensitivities during three different periods reveals that, due to the strong decline of sea ice concentration and sea ice thickness, sea ice area became substantially more sensitive to the same amplitude thermodynamic atmospheric forcing anomalies during 2000–2009 relative to the earlier periods. To obtain a quantitative estimate of changes that can be expected from existing atmospheric trends, adjoint sensitivities are multiplied by monthly temperature differences between 1980s and two following decades. Strongest contributions of surface atmospheric temperature differences to AREA and VOLUME changes are observed during May and September. The strongest contribution from the downward long-wave heat flux to AREA changes occurs in September and to VOLUME changes in July–August. About 62 % of the AREA decrease simulated by the model can be explained by summing all contributions to the thermodynamic atmospheric forcing. The changing sea ice state (sensitivity) is found to enhance the decline and accounts for about one third of the explained reduction. For the VOLUME decrease, the explained fraction of the decrease is only about 37 %.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.