2006
DOI: 10.1175/jcli3885.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Atmospheric Forcing on the Barents Sea Winter Ice Extent

Abstract: The atmospheric forcing on the Barents Sea ice extent during winter [December–February (DJF)] has been investigated for the period 1967–2002. The time series for the sea ice extent is updated and includes the winter of 2005, which marks a new record low in the wintertime Barents Sea ice extent, and a linear trend of −3.5% decade−1 in the ice extent was found. Covariability between the Barents Sea ice extent and the atmospheric mean seasonal flow and the synoptic cyclones has been discussed separately. For the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
103
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 149 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
7
103
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This lends support to the idea that it is the gradient at the interface of the Siberian high that is key in determining the sea ice evolution (discussed further below) and that this regional variability is not necessarily well represented by large-scale metrics such as the Arctic Oscillation. This result is consistent with previous studies that have suggested that local SLP gradients control interannual Barents Sea ice variability (Sorteberg and Kvingedal 2006;Schlichtholz and Houssais 2011;Inoue et al 2012;Herbaut et al 2015) and with studies that have suggested a combined role of both the Aleutian low and Siberian high in driving ice-ocean conditions in the Sea of Okhotsk (e.g., Parkinson 1990;Tachibana et al 1996;Nakanowatari et al 2015, among others).…”
Section: Fig 2 As Insupporting
confidence: 93%
“…This lends support to the idea that it is the gradient at the interface of the Siberian high that is key in determining the sea ice evolution (discussed further below) and that this regional variability is not necessarily well represented by large-scale metrics such as the Arctic Oscillation. This result is consistent with previous studies that have suggested that local SLP gradients control interannual Barents Sea ice variability (Sorteberg and Kvingedal 2006;Schlichtholz and Houssais 2011;Inoue et al 2012;Herbaut et al 2015) and with studies that have suggested a combined role of both the Aleutian low and Siberian high in driving ice-ocean conditions in the Sea of Okhotsk (e.g., Parkinson 1990;Tachibana et al 1996;Nakanowatari et al 2015, among others).…”
Section: Fig 2 As Insupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Many previous observational analyses provided only statistical connections between the southerly winds and sea ice cover. For example, the strength of southwesterlies over the Barents Sea is well correlated with sea ice cover in winter (Sorteberg and Kvingedal, 2006;Liptak and Strong, 2014), and the development of anomalous southerlies over the Pacific sector of the Arctic is often followed by a reduction of sea ice cover in the spring and summer (Wu et al, 2006;Serreze et al, 2003). We demonstrate that the southerly wind-induced sea ice advection, accelerated by wind-induced surface Ekman flow, can substantially decrease SIC over a timescale of 1 week.…”
Section: H-s Park and A L Stewart: An Analytical Model For Wind-dmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Though a progressive northward recovery of kelp forests extent is observed, its recovery status is still partial in northern Norway (Sivertsen, 2006;Rinde et al, 2014). (2) In northernmost part of the Barents sea, sea-ice extent is undergoing a particularly dramatic decrease (Parkinson et al, 1999) with a significant decrease rate of −3.5% per decade of winter ice extent (Sorteberg and Kvingedal, 2006) as a response to climate warming (Boitsov et al, 2014). This dramatic loss of habitat has consequences on the associated communities (Kovacs et al, 2011) as well as in the functioning of the Barents sea ecosystem as a whole (Wassmann et al, 2006).…”
Section: Evaluation Of the Assessment Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%