Assessment of contemporary Arctic river runoff based on observational discharge records

Lammers, Richard B.; Shiklomanov, A. I.; Vörösmarty, Charles J; Fekete, B M; Peterson, Bruce J.

doi:10.1029/2000jd900444

Cited by 344 publications

(338 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

327

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, the absolute network density is lowest in the basins with the greatest expected changes. Much of the decline is due to overall cost cutting efforts, and in Russia, also the fall of the former Soviet Union, with less priority given after that to government presence in remote locations (Lammers et al 2001). However, our analysis cannot distinguish between stations where observations have really stopped and stations with continued observation data that are no longer openly accessible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Monthly discharge data were gathered from the Water Survey of Canada (HYDAT, http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O/index_e.cfm?cname= main_e.cfm) for the three Canadian rivers included, from the Arctic Rapid Integrated Monitoring System (ArcticR-IMS, http://rims.unh.edu) for nine of the ten Russian rivers included and for one US river, and from the Regional, Hydrometeorological Data Network for the Pan-Arctic Region (R-ArcticNET; http://www.r-arcticnet.sr.unh.edu) (Lammers et al 2001) for one Russian river. The monthly data were then combined to calculate annual runoff.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relevance of Hydro-Climatic Change Projection and Monitoring for Assessment of Water Cycle Changes in the Arctic

Bring

Destouni

2010

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid changes to the Arctic hydrological cycle challenge both our process understanding and our ability to find appropriate adaptation strategies. We have investigated the relevance and accuracy development of climate change projections for assessment of water cycle changes in major Arctic drainage basins. Results show relatively good agreement of climate model projections with observed temperature changes, but high model inaccuracy relative to available observation data for precipitation changes. Direct observations further show systematically larger (smaller) runoff than precipitation increases (decreases). This result is partly attributable to uncertainties and systematic bias in precipitation observations, but still indicates that some of the observed increase in Arctic river runoff is due to water storage changes, for example melting permafrost and/or groundwater storage changes, within the drainage basins. Such causes of runoff change affect sea level, in addition to ocean salinity, and inland water resources, ecosystems, and infrastructure. Process-based hydrological modeling and observations, which can resolve changes in evapotranspiration, and groundwater and permafrost storage at and below river basin scales, are needed in order to accurately interpret and translate climate-driven precipitation changes to changes in freshwater cycling and runoff. In contrast to this need, our results show that the density of Arctic runoff monitoring has become increasingly biased and less relevant by decreasing most and being lowest in river basins with the largest expected climatic changes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance of Hydro-Climatic Change Projection and Monitoring for Assessment of Water Cycle Changes in the Arctic

Bring

Destouni

2010

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In PIOMAS, this adjustment is based on monthly climatological values of runoff input into the ocean using values of runoff discharge from Hibler and Bryan (1987). ECCO2 uses newer climatological values of monthly-mean estuarine fluxes of freshwater, which are based on the Regional, Electronic, Hydrographic Data Network for the Arctic Region (R-ArcticNET) dataset (Lammers et al 2001). These values are further adjusted for underestimated freshwater fluxes by multiplying for a factor of 1.2 (Nguyen et al 2011).…”

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arctic Ocean Circulation Patterns Revealed by GRACE

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurements of ocean bottom pressure (OBP) anomalies from the satellite mission Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), complemented by information from two ocean models, are used to investigate the variations and distribution of the Arctic Ocean mass from 2002 through 2011. The forcing and dynamics associated with the observed OBP changes are explored. Major findings are the identification of three primary temporal-spatial modes of OBP variability at monthly-to-interannual time scales with the following characteristics. Mode 1 (50% of the variance) is a wintertime basin-coherent Arctic mass change forced by southerly winds through Fram Strait, and to a lesser extent through Bering Strait. These winds generate northward geostrophic current anomalies that increase the mass in the Arctic Ocean. Mode 2 (20%) reveals a mass change along the Siberian shelves, driven by surface Ekman transport and associated with the Arctic Oscillation. Mode 3 (10%) reveals a mass dipole, with mass decreasing in the Chukchi, East Siberian, and Laptev Seas, and mass increasing in the Barents and Kara Seas. During the summer, the mass decrease on the East Siberian shelves is due to the basin-scale anticyclonic atmospheric circulation that removes mass from the shelves via Ekman transport. During the winter, the forcing mechanisms include a large-scale cyclonic atmospheric circulation in the eastern-central Arctic that produces mass divergence into the Canada Basin and the Barents Sea. In addition, strengthening of the Beaufort high tends to remove mass from the East Siberian and Chukchi Seas. Supporting previous modeling results, the month-to-month variability in OBP associated with each mode is predominantly of barotropic character.

show abstract

“…Following the general relation between catchment area and discharge (Prowse and Flegg, 2000) the total river inflow to the Arctic Ocean is dominated by contributions from Eurasia (Peterson et al, 2002;Lammers et al, 2001), with six rivers (Yenesei, Lena, Ob, Pechora, Kolyma and Severnaya Dvina) draining 2/3rds of the Eurasian Arctic landmass. Despite a widespread decline in hydrological monitoring since 1986 , Peterson et al still conclude that the average annual discharge from these six rivers has increased by 7% from 1936 to 1999, equivalent to an increase in discharge rate from 58 mSv to 62 mSv ('RR' in Fig.…”

Section: River Inputsmentioning

confidence: 99%