Spatiotemporal evolution of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice
Author:
Webster Melinda A.1, Holland Marika2, Wright Nicholas C.3, Hendricks Stefan4, Hutter Nils4, Itkin Polona5, Light Bonnie6, Linhardt Felix7, Perovich Donald K.8, Raphael Ian A.8, Smith Madison M.6, von Albedyll Luisa4, Zhang Jinlun6
Affiliation:
1. Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA 2. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA 3. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, USA 4. Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven, Germany 5. Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway 6. Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 7. Institut für Geographie, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany 8. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Abstract
Melt ponds on sea ice play an important role in the Arctic climate system. Their presence alters the partitioning of solar radiation: decreasing reflection, increasing absorption and transmission to the ice and ocean, and enhancing melt. The spatiotemporal properties of melt ponds thus modify ice albedo feedbacks and the mass balance of Arctic sea ice. The Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition presented a valuable opportunity to investigate the seasonal evolution of melt ponds through a rich array of atmosphere-ice-ocean measurements across spatial and temporal scales. In this study, we characterize the seasonal behavior and variability in the snow, surface scattering layer, and melt ponds from spring melt to autumn freeze-up using in situ surveys and auxiliary observations. We compare the results to satellite retrievals and output from two models: the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) and the Marginal Ice Zone Modeling and Assimilation System (MIZMAS). During the melt season, the maximum pond coverage and depth were 21% and 22 ± 13 cm, respectively, with distribution and depth corresponding to surface roughness and ice thickness. Compared to observations, both models overestimate melt pond coverage in summer, with maximum values of approximately 41% (MIZMAS) and 51% (CESM2). This overestimation has important implications for accurately simulating albedo feedbacks. During the observed freeze-up, weather events, including rain on snow, caused high-frequency variability in snow depth, while pond coverage and depth remained relatively constant until continuous freezing ensued. Both models accurately simulate the abrupt cessation of melt ponds during freeze-up, but the dates of freeze-up differ. MIZMAS accurately simulates the observed date of freeze-up, while CESM2 simulates freeze-up one-to-two weeks earlier. This work demonstrates areas that warrant future observation-model synthesis for improving the representation of sea-ice processes and properties, which can aid accurate simulations of albedo feedbacks in a warming climate.
Publisher
University of California Press
Subject
Atmospheric Science,Geology,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology,Ecology,Environmental Engineering,Oceanography
Reference69 articles.
1. Anhaus, P, Katlein, C, Nicolaus, M, Hoppmann, M, Haas, C. 2021. From bright windows to dark spots: Snow cover controls melt pond optical properties during refreezing. Geophysical Research Letters48(23): e2021GL095369. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10507628.2. 2. Bailey, DA, Holland, MM, DuVivier, AK, Hunke, EC, Turner, AK. 2020. Impact of a new sea ice thermodynamic formulation in the CESM2 sea ice component. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems12: e2020MS002154. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002154. 3. Brandt, RE, Warren, SG, Worby, AP, Grenfell, TC. 2005. Surface albedo of the Antarctic sea-ice zone. Journal of Climate18: 3606–3622. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3489.1. 4. Buckley, EM, Farrell, SL, Duncan, K, Connor, LN, Kuhn, JM, Dominguez, RT. 2020. Classification of sea ice summer melt features in high-resolution IceBridge imagery. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans125. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015738. 5. Danabasoglu, G, Lamarque, JF, Bachmeister, J, Bailey, DA, DuVivier, AK, Edwards, J, Emmons, LK, Fasullo, J, Garcia, R, Gettelman, A, Hannay, C, Holland, MM, Large, WG, Lauritzen, PH, Lawrence, DM, Lenaerts, JTM, Lindsay, K, Lipscomb, WH, Mills, MJ, Neale, R, Oleson, KW, Otto-Bliesner, B, Phillips, AS, Sacks, W, Tilmes, S, van Kampenhout, L, Vertenstein, M, Bertini, A, Dennis, J, Deser, C, Fischer, C, Fox-Kemper, B, Kay, JE, Kinnison, D, Kushner, PJ, Larson, VE, Long, MC, Mickelson, S, Moore, JK, Nienhouse, E, Polvani, L, Rasch, PJ, Strand, WG. 2020. The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2). Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916.
Cited by
36 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|