Comparison of polar ozone loss rates simulated by one-dimensional and three-dimensional models with Match observations in recent Antarctic and Arctic winters

Simulations of ozone loss rates using a three-dimensional chemical transport model and a box model during recent Antarctic and Arctic winters are compared with experimental loss rates. The study focused on the Antarctic winter 2003, during which the first Antarctic Match campaign was organized, and on Arctic winters 1999/2000, 2002/2003. The maximum ozone loss rates retrieved by the Match technique for the winters and levels studied reached 6 ppbv/sunlit hour and both types of simulations could generally reproduce the observations at 2-sigma error bar level. In some cases, for example, for the Arctic winter 2002/2003 at 475 K level, an excellent agreement within 1-sigma standard deviation level was obtained. An overestimation was also found with the box model simulation at some isentropic levels for the Antarctic winter and the Arctic winter 1999/2000, indicating an overestimation of chlorine activation in the model. Loss rates in the Antarctic show signs of saturation in September, which have to be considered in the comparison. Sensitivity tests were performed with the box model in order to assess the impact of kinetic parameters of the ClO-Cl2O2 catalytic cycle and total bromine content on the ozone loss rate. These tests resulted in a maximum change in ozone loss rates of 1.2 ppbv/sunlit hour, generally in high solar zenith angle conditions. In some cases, a better agreement was achieved with fastest photolysis of Cl2O2 and additional source of total inorganic bromine but at the expense of overestimation of smaller ozone loss rates derived later in the winter.

High resolution simulation of recent Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric chemical ozone loss compared to observations

Simulations of polar ozone losses were performed using the three-dimensional high-resolution (1∘ × 1∘) chemical transport model MIMOSA-CHIM. Three Arctic winters 1999–2000, 2001–2002, 2002–2003 and three Antarctic winters 2001, 2002, and 2003 were considered for the study. The cumulative ozone loss in the Arctic winter 2002–2003 reached around 35% at 475 K inside the vortex, as compared to more than 60% in 1999–2000. During 1999–2000, denitrification induces a maximum of about 23% extra ozone loss at 475 K as compared to 17% in 2002–2003. Unlike these two colder Arctic winters, the 2001–2002 Arctic was warmer and did not experience much ozone loss. Sensitivity tests showed that the chosen resolution of 1∘ × 1∘ provides a better evaluation of ozone loss at the edge of the polar vortex in high solar zenith angle conditions. The simulation results for ozone, ClO, HNO3, N2O, and NO y for winters 1999–2000 and 2002–2003 were compared with measurements on board ER-2 and Geophysica aircraft respectively. Sensitivity tests showed that increasing heating rates calculated by the model by 50% and doubling the PSC (Polar Stratospheric Clouds) particle density (from 5 × 10−3 to 10−2 cm−3) refines the agreement with in situ ozone, N2O and NO y levels. In this configuration, simulated ClO levels are increased and are in better agreement with observations in January but are overestimated by about 20% in March. The use of the Burkholder et al. (1990) Cl2O2 absorption cross-sections slightly increases further ClO levels especially in high solar zenith angle conditions. Comparisons of the modelled ozone values with ozonesonde measurement in the Antarctic winter 2003 and with Polar Ozone and Aerosol Measurement III (POAM III) measurements in the Antarctic winters 2001 and 2002, shows that the simulations underestimate the ozone loss rate at the end of the ozone destruction period. A slightly better agreement is obtained with the use of Burkholder et al. (1990) Cl2O2 absorption cross-sections.

Identifying uncertainties in Arctic climate change projections

Wide ranging climate changes are expected in the Arctic by the end of the 21st century, but projections of the size of these changes vary widely across current global climate models. This variation represents a large source of uncertainty in our understanding of the evolution of Arctic climate. Here we systematically quantify and assess the model uncertainty in Arctic climate changes in two CO2 doubling experiments: a multimodel ensemble (CMIP3) and an ensemble constructed using a single model (HadCM3) with multiple parameter perturbations (THC-QUMP). These two ensembles allow us to assess the contribution that both structural and parameter variations across models make to the total uncertainty and to begin to attribute sources of uncertainty in projected changes. We find that parameter uncertainty is an major source of uncertainty in certain aspects of Arctic climate. But also that uncertainties in the mean climate state in the 20th century, most notably in the northward Atlantic ocean heat transport and Arctic sea ice volume, are a significant source of uncertainty for projections of future Arctic change. We suggest that better observational constraints on these quantities will lead to significant improvements in the precision of projections of future Arctic climate change.

The Greenland Ice Sheet's surface mass balance in a seasonally sea-ice free Arctic

General circulation models predict a rapid decrease in sea ice extent with concurrent increases in near surface air temperature and precipitation in the Arctic over the 21st century. This has led to suggestions that some Arctic land ice masses may experience an increase in accumulation due to enhanced evaporation from a seasonally sea ice free Arctic Ocean. To investigate the impact of this phenomenon on Greenland ice sheet climate and surface mass balance (SMB) a regional climate model, HadRM3, was used to force an insolation-temperature melt SMB model. A set of experiments designed to investigate the role of sea ice independently from sea surface temperature (SST) forcing are described. In the warmer and wetter SI + SST simulation Greenland experiences a 23% increase in winter SMB but 65% reduced summer SMB, resulting in a net decrease in the annual value. This study shows that sea ice decline contributes to the increased winter balance, causing 25% of the increase in winter accumulation; this is largest in eastern Greenland as the result of increased evaporation in the Greenland Sea. These results indicate that the seasonal cycle of Greenland's SMB will increase dramatically as global temperatures increase, with the largest changes in temperature and precipitation occurring in winter. This demonstrates that the accurate prediction of changes in sea ice cover is important for predicting Greenland SMB and ice sheet evolution.

Twenty-first-century climate impacts from a declining Arctic sea ice cover

A steady decline in Arctic sea ice has been observed over recent decades. General circulation models predict further decreases under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. Sea ice plays an important role in the climate system in that it influences ocean-to-atmosphere fluxes, surface albedo, and ocean buoyancy. The aim of this study is to isolate the climate impacts of a declining Arctic sea ice cover during the current century. The Hadley Centre Atmospheric Model (HadAM3) is forced with observed sea ice from 1980 to 2000 (obtained from satellite passive microwave radiometer data derived with the Bootstrap algorithm) and predicted sea ice reductions until 2100 under one moderate scenario and one severe scenario of ice decline, with a climatological SST field and increasing SSTs. Significant warming of the Arctic occurs during the twenty-first century (mean increase of between 1.6° and 3.9°C), with positive anomalies of up to 22°C locally. The majority of this is over ocean and limited to high latitudes, in contrast to recent observations of Northern Hemisphere warming. When a climatological SST field is used, statistically significant impacts on climate are only seen in winter, despite prescribing sea ice reductions in all months. When correspondingly increasing SSTs are incorporated, changes in climate are seen in both winter and summer, although the impacts in summer are much smaller. Alterations in atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns are more widespread than temperature, extending down to midlatitude storm tracks. Results suggest that areas of Arctic land ice may even undergo net accumulation due to increased precipitation that results from loss of sea ice. Intensification of storm tracks implies that parts of Europe may experience higher precipitation rates.

The atmospheric impact of uncertainties in recent Arctic Sea ice reconstructions

There are significant discrepancies between observational datasets of Arctic sea ice concentrations covering the last three decades, which result in differences of over 20% in Arctic summer sea ice extent/area and 5%–10% in winter. Previous modeling studies have shown that idealized sea ice anomalies have the potential for making a substantial impact on climate. In this paper, this theory is further developed by performing a set of simulations using the third Hadley Centre Coupled Atmospheric Model (HadAM3). The model was driven with monthly climatologies of sea ice fractions derived from three of these records to investigate potential implications of sea ice inaccuracies for climate simulations. The standard sea ice climatology from the Met Office provided a control. This study focuses on the effects of actual inaccuracies of concentration retrievals, which vary spatially and are larger in summer than winter. The smaller sea ice discrepancies in winter have a much larger influence on climate than the much greater summer sea ice differences. High sensitivity to sea ice prescription was observed, even though no SST feedbacks were included. Significant effects on surface fields were observed in the Arctic, North Atlantic, and North Pacific. Arctic average surface air temperature anomalies in winter vary by 2.5°C, and locally exceed 12°C. Arctic mean sea level pressure varies by up to 5 mb locally. Anomalies extend to 45°N over North America and Eurasia but not to lower latitudes, and with limited changes in circulation above the boundary layer. No statistically significant impact on climate variability was simulated, in terms of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Results suggest that the uncertainty in summer sea ice prescription is not critical but that winter values require greater accuracy, with the caveats that the influences of ocean–sea ice feedbacks were not included in this study.

A continuum model of melt pond evolution on Arctic sea ice

[1] During the Northern Hemisphere summer, absorbed solar radiation melts snow and the upper surface of Arctic sea ice to generate meltwater that accumulates in ponds. The melt ponds reduce the albedo of the sea ice cover during the melting season, with a significant impact on the heat and mass budget of the sea ice and the upper ocean. We have developed a model, designed to be suitable for inclusion into a global circulation model (GCM), which simulates the formation and evolution of the melt pond cover. In order to be compatible with existing GCM sea ice models, our melt pond model builds upon the existing theory of the evolution of the sea ice thickness distribution. Since this theory does not describe the topography of the ice cover, which is crucial to determining the location, extent, and depth of individual ponds, we have needed to introduce some assumptions. We describe our model, present calculations and a sensitivity analysis, and discuss our results.

Consistent and contrasting decadal Arctic sea ice thickness predictions from a highly optimized sea ice model

[1] Decadal hindcast simulations of Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness made by a modern dynamic-thermodynamic sea ice model and forced independently by both the ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data sets are compared for the first time. Using comprehensive data sets of observations made between 1979 and 2001 of sea ice thickness, draft, extent, and speeds, we find that it is possible to tune model parameters to give satisfactory agreement with observed data, thereby highlighting the skill of modern sea ice models, though the parameter values chosen differ according to the model forcing used. We find a consistent decreasing trend in Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness since 1979, and a steady decline in the Eastern Arctic Ocean over the full 40-year period of comparison that accelerated after 1980, but the predictions of Western Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness between 1962 and 1980 differ substantially. The origins of differing thickness trends and variability were isolated not to parameter differences but to differences in the forcing fields applied, and in how they are applied. It is argued that uncertainty, differences and errors in sea ice model forcing sets complicate the use of models to determine the exact causes of the recently reported decline in Arctic sea ice thickness, but help in the determination of robust features if the models are tuned appropriately against observations.

Optimization of a sea ice model using basinwide observations of Arctic sea ice thickness, extent, and velocity

A stand-alone sea ice model is tuned and validated using satellite-derived, basinwide observations of sea ice thickness, extent, and velocity from the years 1993 to 2001. This is the first time that basin-scale measurements of sea ice thickness have been used for this purpose. The model is based on the CICE sea ice model code developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, with some minor modifications, and forcing consists of 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40) and Polar Exchange at the Sea Surface (POLES) data. Three parameters are varied in the tuning process: Ca, the air–ice drag coefficient; P*, the ice strength parameter; and α, the broadband albedo of cold bare ice, with the aim being to determine the subset of this three-dimensional parameter space that gives the best simultaneous agreement with observations with this forcing set. It is found that observations of sea ice extent and velocity alone are not sufficient to unambiguously tune the model, and that sea ice thickness measurements are necessary to locate a unique subset of parameter space in which simultaneous agreement is achieved with all three observational datasets.

Improving the spatial distribution of modeled Arctic sea ice thickness

The spatial distribution of ice thickness/draft in the Arctic Ocean is examined using a sea ice model. A comparison of model predictions with submarine observations of sea ice draft made during cruises between 1987 and 1997 reveals that the model has the same deficiencies found in previous studies, namely ice that is too thick in the Beaufort Sea and too thin near the North Pole. We find that increasing the large scale shear strength of the sea ice leads to substantial improvements in the model's spatial distribution of sea ice thickness, and simultaneously improves the agreement between modeled and ERS-derived 1993–2001 mean winter ice thickness.

Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice

We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from prescribed ice-free summer conditions in simulations of 21st century climate in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the ice-free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat. Our results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the ice–albedo feedback is alleviated by large-scale recovery mechanisms. Hence, hysteretic threshold behavior (or a “tipping point”) is unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer sea-ice cover in the 21st century.

Predictability of large interannual Arctic sea-ice anomalies

In projections of twenty-first century climate, Arctic sea ice declines and at the same time exhibits strong interannual anomalies. Here, we investigate the potential to predict these strong sea-ice anomalies under a perfect-model assumption, using the Max-Planck-Institute Earth System Model in the same setup as in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). We study two cases of strong negative sea-ice anomalies: a 5-year-long anomaly for present-day conditions, and a 10-year-long anomaly for conditions projected for the middle of the twenty-first century. We treat these anomalies in the CMIP5 projections as the truth, and use exactly the same model configuration for predictions of this synthetic truth. We start ensemble predictions at different times during the anomalies, considering lagged-perfect and sea-ice-assimilated initial conditions. We find that the onset and amplitude of the interannual anomalies are not predictable. However, the further deepening of the anomaly can be predicted for typically 1 year lead time if predictions start after the onset but before the maximal amplitude of the anomaly. The magnitude of an extremely low summer sea-ice minimum is hard to predict: the skill of the prediction ensemble is not better than a damped-persistence forecast for lead times of more than a few months, and is not better than a climatology forecast for lead times of two or more years. Predictions of the present-day anomaly are more skillful than predictions of the mid-century anomaly. Predictions using sea-ice-assimilated initial conditions are competitive with those using lagged-perfect initial conditions for lead times of a year or less, but yield degraded skill for longer lead times. The results presented here suggest that there is limited prospect of predicting the large interannual sea-ice anomalies expected to occur throughout the twenty-first century.

Seasonal to interannual Arctic sea-ice predictability in current GCMs

We establish the first inter-model comparison of seasonal to interannual predictability of present-day Arctic climate by performing coordinated sets of idealized ensemble predictions with four state-of-the-art global climate models. For Arctic sea-ice extent and volume, there is potential predictive skill for lead times of up to three years, and potential prediction errors have similar growth rates and magnitudes across the models. Spatial patterns of potential prediction errors differ substantially between the models, but some features are robust. Sea-ice concentration errors are largest in the marginal ice zone, and in winter they are almost zero away from the ice edge. Sea-ice thickness errors are amplified along the coasts of the Arctic Ocean, an effect that is dominated by sea-ice advection. These results give an upper bound on the ability of current global climate models to predict important aspects of Arctic climate.