Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018)

Abstract

Large-scale changes in Arctic sea ice thickness, volume and multiyear sea ice (MYI) coverage with available measurements from submarine sonars, satellite altimeters (ICESat and CryoSat-2), and satellite scatterometers are summarized. The submarine record spans the period between 1958 and 2000, the satellite altimeter records between 2003 and 2018, and the scatterometer records between 1999 and 2017. Regional changes in ice thickness (since 1958) and within the data release area of the Arctic Ocean, previously reported by Kwok and Rothrock (2009 Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 L15501), have been updated to include the 8 years of CryoSat-2 (CS-2) retrievals. Between the pre-1990 submarine period (1958)(1959)(1960)(1961)(1962)(1963)(1964)(1965)(1966)(1967)(1968)(1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976)) and the CS-2 period (2011-2018) the average thickness near the end of the melt season, in six regions, decreased by 2.0 m or some 66% over six decades. Within the data release area (∼38% of the Arctic Ocean) of submarine ice draft, the thinning of ∼1.75 m in winter since 1980 (maximum thickness of 3.64 m in the regression analysis) has not changed significantly; the mean thickness over the CS-2 period is ∼2 m. The 15 year satellite record depicts losses in sea ice volume at 2870 km 3 /decade and 5130 km 3 /decade in winter (February-March) and fall (October-November), respectively: more moderate trends compared to the sharp decreases over the ICESat period, where the losses were weighted by record-setting melt in 2007. Over the scatterometer record (1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017), the Arctic has lost more than 2×10 6 km 2 of MYI-a decrease of more than 50%; MYI now covers less than one-third of the Arctic Ocean. Independent MYI coverage and volume records co-vary in time, the MYI area anomalies explain ∼85% of the variance in the anomalies in Arctic sea ice volume. If losses of MYI continue, Arctic thickness/volume will be controlled by seasonal ice, suggesting that the thickness/volume trends will be more moderate (as seen here) but more sensitive to climate forcing.

Towards connecting biodiversity and geodiversity across scales with satellite remote sensing

“…Climatic variables can be derived from MODIS (e.g., Wan et al, ), SMAP (e.g., Chan et al, ), GPM (e.g., Hou et al, ), AMSR (e.g., Parinussa, Holmes, Wanders, Dorigo, & Jeu, ) and other spaceborne sensors and platforms, and provide the basis for compiling standard bioclimatic variables at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Other satellite sensors, such as GRACE and ICESat‐2, can provide new information about groundwater and the cryosphere, respectively (e.g., Kwok, ; Landerer & Swenson, ). These advances are coupled with a long history of optical satellite and airborne data.…”

Arctic Ocean Response to Greenland Sea Wind Anomalies in a Suite of Model Simulations

“…Over the past decades the Arctic has warmed twice as fast as the global mean (IPCC, 2014), a characteristic RESEARCH ARTICLE 10 Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2019JC015101 often termed "polar amplification" (Screen & Simmonds, 2010;Serreze & Barry, 2011). This Arctic warming manifests in many ways, for example, a dramatic and unprecedented decrease in sea ice extent (Carmack et al, 2015;Onarheim et al, 2018) and volume (Kwok, 2018). Since satellite observations began in the late 1970s, the Arctic summer sea ice extent has declined by approximately 50% (Vihma, 2014), and winter sea ice extent has steadily declined of 2.6% per decade (Cavalieri & Parkinson, 2012).…”

Contrasting Ice Algae and Snow‐Dependent Irradiance Relationships Between First‐Year and Multiyear Sea Ice

“…Warming of the global climate is thinning sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, in part due to the disappearance of multiyear sea ice (MYI; e.g., Kwok, ; Stroeve & Notz, ). The impact of these changes on Arctic marine ecosystems is not yet fully understood largely due to geographical knowledge gaps, particularly in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) and in poorly accessible regions such as the area between Canada, Greenland, and the North Pole (Gerland et al, ).…”