Articles | Volume 18, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4687-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4687-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
15 Oct 2024
Research article |
| 15 Oct 2024
| 15 Oct 2024
Assessing the representation of Arctic sea ice and the marginal ice zone in ocean–sea ice reanalyses
Francesco Cocetta
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Bologna, Italy
Lorenzo Zampieri
CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Bologna, Italy
Julia Selivanova
CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Bologna, Italy
Doroteaciro Iovino
CMCC Foundation – Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change, Bologna, Italy
Related authors
Julia Selivanova, Doroteaciro Iovino, and Francesco Cocetta
The Cryosphere, 18, 2739–2763, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2739-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2739-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models show differences in sea ice representation in comparison to observations. Increasing the model resolution is a recognized way to improve model realism and obtain more reliable future projections. We find no strong impact of resolution on sea ice representation; it rather depends on the analysed variable and the model used. By 2050, the marginal ice zone (MIZ) becomes a dominant feature of the Arctic ice cover, suggesting a shift to a new regime similar to that in Antarctica.
Alex C. Ruane, Charlotte L. Pascoe, Claas Teichmann, David J. Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Ibrahima Diouf, Jesus Fernandez, Paula L. M. Gonzalez, Birgit Hassler, Vanessa Hernaman, Ulas Im, Doroteaciro Iovino, Martin Juckes, Iréne L. Lake, Timothy Lam, Xiaomao Lin, Jiafu Mao, Negin Nazarian, Sylvie Parey, Indrani Roy, Wan-Ling Tseng, Briony Turner, Andrew Wiebe, Lei Zhao, and Damaris Zurell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3408, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3408, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes how the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project organized its 7th phase (CMIP7) to encourage the production of Earth system model outputs relevant for impacts and adaptation. Community engagement identified 13 opportunities for application across human and natural systems, 60 variable groups and 539 unique variables. We also show how simulations can more efficiently meet applications needs by targeting appropriate resolution, time slices, experiments and variable groups.
Baylor Fox-Kemper, Patricia DeRepentigny, Anne Marie Treguier, Christian Stepanek, Eleanor O’Rourke, Chloe Mackallah, Alberto Meucci, Yevgeny Aksenov, Paul J. Durack, Nicole Feldl, Vanessa Hernaman, Céline Heuzé, Doroteaciro Iovino, Gaurav Madan, André L. Marquez, François Massonnet, Jenny Mecking, Dhrubajyoti Samanta, Patrick C. Taylor, Wan-Ling Tseng, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The earth system model variables needed for studies of the ocean and sea ice are prioritized and requested.
Thomas Rackow, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Milinski, Irina Sandu, Razvan Aguridan, Peter Bechtold, Sebastian Beyer, Jean Bidlot, Souhail Boussetta, Willem Deconinck, Michail Diamantakis, Peter Dueben, Emanuel Dutra, Richard Forbes, Rohit Ghosh, Helge F. Goessling, Ioan Hadade, Jan Hegewald, Thomas Jung, Sarah Keeley, Lukas Kluft, Nikolay Koldunov, Aleksei Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Josh Kousal, Christian Kühnlein, Pedro Maciel, Kristian Mogensen, Tiago Quintino, Inna Polichtchouk, Balthasar Reuter, Domokos Sármány, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Jan Streffing, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Steffen Tietsche, Mirco Valentini, Benoît Vannière, Nils Wedi, Lorenzo Zampieri, and Florian Ziemen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 33–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Detailed global climate model simulations have been created based on a numerical weather prediction model, offering more accurate spatial detail down to the scale of individual cities ("kilometre-scale") and a better understanding of climate phenomena such as atmospheric storms, whirls in the ocean, and cracks in sea ice. The new model aims to provide globally consistent information on local climate change with greater precision, benefiting environmental planning and local impact modelling.
Karina von Schuckmann, Lorena Moreira, Mathilde Cancet, Flora Gues, Emmanuelle Autret, Jonathan Baker, Clément Bricaud, Romain Bourdalle-Badie, Lluis Castrillo, Lijing Cheng, Frederic Chevallier, Daniele Ciani, Alvaro de Pascual-Collar, Vincenzo De Toma, Marie Drevillon, Claudia Fanelli, Gilles Garric, Marion Gehlen, Rianne Giesen, Kevin Hodges, Doroteaciro Iovino, Simon Jandt-Scheelke, Eric Jansen, Melanie Juza, Ioanna Karagali, Thomas Lavergne, Simona Masina, Ronan McAdam, Audrey Minière, Helen Morrison, Tabea Rebekka Panteleit, Andrea Pisano, Marie-Isabelle Pujol, Ad Stoffelen, Sulian Thual, Simon Van Gennip, Pierre Veillard, Chunxue Yang, and Hao Zuo
State Planet, 4-osr8, 1, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-1-2024, 2024
Qian Wang, Yang Zhang, Fei Chai, Y. Joseph Zhang, and Lorenzo Zampieri
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7067–7081, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7067-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7067-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We coupled an unstructured hydro-model with an advanced column sea ice model to meet the growing demand for increased resolution and complexity in unstructured sea ice models. Additionally, we present a novel tracer transport scheme for the sea ice coupled model and demonstrate that this scheme fulfills the requirements for conservation, accuracy, efficiency, and monotonicity in an idealized test. Our new coupled model also has good performance in realistic tests.
Julia Selivanova, Doroteaciro Iovino, and Francesco Cocetta
The Cryosphere, 18, 2739–2763, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2739-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2739-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models show differences in sea ice representation in comparison to observations. Increasing the model resolution is a recognized way to improve model realism and obtain more reliable future projections. We find no strong impact of resolution on sea ice representation; it rather depends on the analysed variable and the model used. By 2050, the marginal ice zone (MIZ) becomes a dominant feature of the Arctic ice cover, suggesting a shift to a new regime similar to that in Antarctica.
Elena Bianco, Doroteaciro Iovino, Simona Masina, Stefano Materia, and Paolo Ruggieri
The Cryosphere, 18, 2357–2379, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2357-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2357-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Changes in ocean heat transport and surface heat fluxes in recent decades have altered the Arctic Ocean heat budget and caused warming of the upper ocean. Using two eddy-permitting ocean reanalyses, we show that this has important implications for sea ice variability. In the Arctic regional seas, upper-ocean heat content acts as an important precursor for sea ice anomalies on sub-seasonal timescales, and this link has strengthened since the 2000s.
Qiang Wang, Qi Shu, Alexandra Bozec, Eric P. Chassignet, Pier Giuseppe Fogli, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Andy McC. Hogg, Doroteaciro Iovino, Andrew E. Kiss, Nikolay Koldunov, Julien Le Sommer, Yiwen Li, Pengfei Lin, Hailong Liu, Igor Polyakov, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Shizhu Wang, and Xiaobiao Xu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 347–379, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-347-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-347-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Increasing resolution improves model skills in simulating the Arctic Ocean, but other factors such as parameterizations and numerics are at least of the same importance for obtaining reliable simulations.
Doroteaciro Iovino, Pier Giuseppe Fogli, and Simona Masina
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6127–6159, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6127-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6127-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the model performance of three global ocean–sea ice configurations, from non-eddying (1°) to eddy-rich (1/16°) resolutions. Model simulations are obtained following the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (OMIP2) protocol. We compare key global climate variables across the three models and against observations, emphasizing the relative advantages and disadvantages of running forced ocean–sea ice models at higher resolution.
Michael Mayer, Takamasa Tsubouchi, Susanna Winkelbauer, Karin Margretha H. Larsen, Barbara Berx, Andreas Macrander, Doroteaciro Iovino, Steingrímur Jónsson, and Richard Renshaw
State Planet, 1-osr7, 14, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-1-osr7-14-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-1-osr7-14-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper compares oceanic fluxes across the Greenland–Scotland Ridge (GSR) from ocean reanalyses to largely independent observational data. Reanalyses tend to underestimate the inflow of warm waters of subtropical Atlantic origin and hence oceanic heat transport across the GSR. Investigation of a strong negative heat transport anomaly around 2018 highlights the interplay of variability on different timescales and the need for long-term monitoring of the GSR to detect forced climate signals.
Jonathan Andrew Baker, Richard Renshaw, Laura Claire Jackson, Clotilde Dubois, Doroteaciro Iovino, Hao Zuo, Renellys C. Perez, Shenfu Dong, Marion Kersalé, Michael Mayer, Johannes Mayer, Sabrina Speich, and Tarron Lamont
State Planet, 1-osr7, 4, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-1-osr7-4-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-1-osr7-4-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We use ocean reanalyses, in which ocean models are combined with observations, to infer past changes in ocean circulation and heat transport in the South Atlantic. Comparing these estimates with other observation-based estimates, we find differences in their trends, variability, and mean heat transport but closer agreement in their mean overturning strength. Ocean reanalyses can help us understand the cause of these differences, which could improve estimates of ocean transports in this region.
Andrea Cipollone, Deep Sankar Banerjee, Doroteaciro Iovino, Ali Aydogdu, and Simona Masina
Ocean Sci., 19, 1375–1392, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Sea-ice volume is characterized by low predictability compared to the sea ice area or the extent. A joint initialization of the thickness and concentration using satellite data could improve the predictive power, although it is still absent in the present global analysis–reanalysis systems. This study shows a scheme to correct the two features together that can be easily extended to include ocean variables. The impact of such a joint initialization is shown and compared among different set-ups.
Anne Marie Treguier, Clement de Boyer Montégut, Alexandra Bozec, Eric P. Chassignet, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Andy McC. Hogg, Doroteaciro Iovino, Andrew E. Kiss, Julien Le Sommer, Yiwen Li, Pengfei Lin, Camille Lique, Hailong Liu, Guillaume Serazin, Dmitry Sidorenko, Qiang Wang, Xiaobio Xu, and Steve Yeager
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3849–3872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3849-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3849-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean mixed layer is the interface between the ocean interior and the atmosphere and plays a key role in climate variability. We evaluate the performance of the new generation of ocean models for climate studies, designed to resolve
ocean eddies, which are the largest source of ocean variability and modulate the mixed-layer properties. We find that the mixed-layer depth is better represented in eddy-rich models but, unfortunately, not uniformly across the globe and not in all models.
Giulia Bonino, Doroteaciro Iovino, Laurent Brodeau, and Simona Masina
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6873–6889, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6873-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6873-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The sea surface temperature (SST) is highly influenced by the transfer of energy driven by turbulent air–sea fluxes (TASFs). In the NEMO ocean general circulation model, TASFs are computed by means of bulk formulas. Bulk formulas require the choice of a given bulk parameterization, which influences the magnitudes of the TASFs. Our results show that parameterization-related SST differences are primarily sensitive to the wind stress differences across parameterizations.
Jan Streffing, Dmitry Sidorenko, Tido Semmler, Lorenzo Zampieri, Patrick Scholz, Miguel Andrés-Martínez, Nikolay Koldunov, Thomas Rackow, Joakim Kjellsson, Helge Goessling, Marylou Athanase, Qiang Wang, Jan Hegewald, Dmitry V. Sein, Longjiang Mu, Uwe Fladrich, Dirk Barbi, Paul Gierz, Sergey Danilov, Stephan Juricke, Gerrit Lohmann, and Thomas Jung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6399–6427, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model, AWI-CM3. Our model is significantly more computationally efficient than its predecessors AWI-CM1 and AWI-CM2. We show that the model, although cheaper to run, provides results of similar quality when modeling the historic period from 1850 to 2014. We identify the remaining weaknesses to outline future work. Finally we preview an improved simulation where the reduction in computational cost has to be invested in higher model resolution.
Amy Solomon, Céline Heuzé, Benjamin Rabe, Sheldon Bacon, Laurent Bertino, Patrick Heimbach, Jun Inoue, Doroteaciro Iovino, Ruth Mottram, Xiangdong Zhang, Yevgeny Aksenov, Ronan McAdam, An Nguyen, Roshin P. Raj, and Han Tang
Ocean Sci., 17, 1081–1102, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-1081-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-1081-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Freshwater in the Arctic Ocean plays a critical role in the global climate system by impacting ocean circulations, stratification, mixing, and emergent regimes. In this review paper we assess how Arctic Ocean freshwater changed in the 2010s relative to the 2000s. Estimates from observations and reanalyses show a qualitative stabilization in the 2010s due to a compensation between a freshening of the Beaufort Gyre and a reduction in freshwater in the Amerasian and Eurasian basins.
Giulia Bonino, Elisa Lovecchio, Nicolas Gruber, Matthias Münnich, Simona Masina, and Doroteaciro Iovino
Biogeosciences, 18, 2429–2448, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2429-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2429-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Seasonal variations of processes such as upwelling and biological production that happen along the northwestern African coast can modulate the temporal variability of the biological activity of the adjacent open North Atlantic hundreds of kilometers away from the coast thanks to the lateral transport of coastal organic carbon. This happens with a temporal delay, which is smaller than a season up to roughly 500 km from the coast due to the intense transport by small-scale filaments.
Cited articles
Alberello, A., Onorato, M., Bennetts, L., Vichi, M., Eayrs, C., MacHutchon, K., and Toffoli, A.: Brief communication: Pancake ice floe size distribution during the winter expansion of the Antarctic marginal ice zone, The Cryosphere, 13, 41–48, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-41-2019, 2019. a
Babb, D. G., Galley, R. J., Kirillov, S., Landy, J. C., Howell, S. E. L., Stroeve, J. C., Meier, W., Ehn, J. K., and Barber, D. G.: The Stepwise Reduction of Multiyear Sea Ice Area in the Arctic Ocean Since 1980, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 128, e2023JC020157, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JC020157, 2023. a
Blanchard‐Wrigglesworth, E., Webster, M., Boisvert, L., Parker, C., and Horvat, C.: Record Arctic Cyclone of January 2022: Characteristics, Impacts, and Predictability, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 127, e2022JD037161, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022jd037161, 2022. a
Cavalieri, D. J., Gloersen, P., and Campbell, W. J.: Determination of sea ice parameters with the NIMBUS 7 SMMR, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 89, 5355–5369, https://doi.org/10.1029/jd089id04p05355, 1984. a
Cheng, S., Chen, Y., Aydoğdu, A., Bertino, L., Carrassi, A., Rampal, P., and Jones, C. K. R. T.: Arctic sea ice data assimilation combining an ensemble Kalman filter with a novel Lagrangian sea ice model for the winter 2019–2020, The Cryosphere, 17, 1735–1754, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1735-2023, 2023. a, b
Chevallier, M., Smith, G. C., Dupont, F., Lemieux, J.-F., Forget, G., Fujii, Y., Hernandez, F., Msadek, R., Peterson, K. A., Storto, A., Toyoda, T., Valdivieso, M., Vernieres, G., Zuo, H., Balmaseda, M., Chang, Y.-S., Ferry, N., Garric, G., Haines, K., Keeley, S., Kovach, R. M., Kuragano, T., Masina, S., Tang, Y., Tsujino, H., and Wang, X.: Intercomparison of the Arctic sea ice cover in global ocean–sea ice reanalyses from the ORA-IP project, Clim. Dynam., 49, 1107–1136, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-2985-y, 2017. a, b
Cipollone, A., Banerjee, D. S., Iovino, D., Aydogdu, A., and Masina, S.: Bivariate sea-ice assimilation for global-ocean analysis–reanalysis, Ocean Sci., 19, 1375–1392, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1375-2023, 2023. a
Cocetta, F.: Scripts for “GREP reanalysis captures the evolution of the Arctic Marginal Ice Zone across timescales”, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10651276, 2024. a
Comiso, J. C.: Characteristics of Arctic winter sea ice from satellite multispectral microwave observations, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 975, https://doi.org/10.1029/jc091ic01p00975, 1986. a
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011. a
Desportes, C., Drévillon, M., Clavier, M., and Gounou, A.: Product User Manual For the Global Ocean Reanalysis Product GLOBAL-REANALYSIS-PHY-001-026 Issue: 1.6, https://catalogue.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/PUM/CMEMS-GLO-PUM-001-026.pdf (last access: January 2024), 2022. a
Dumont, D., Kohout, A., and Bertino, L.: A wave-based model for the marginal ice zone including a floe breaking parameterization, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, C04001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006682, 2011. a
Eayrs, C., Lee, W. S., Jin, E., Lemieux, J.-F., Massonnet, F., Vancoppenolle, M., Zampieri, L., Bennetts, L. G., Blockley, E., Chung, E.-S., Fraser, A. D., Ham, Y.-G., Im, J., Kim, B.-M., Kim, B.-H., Kim, J., Kim, J.-H., Kim, S.-J., Kim, S. H., Korosov, A., Lee, C.-K., Lee, D., Lee, H.-J., Lee, J.-G., Lee, J., Na, J., Park, I.-W., Park, J., Wang, X., Xu, S., and Yun, S.: Advances in machine learning techniques can assist across a variety of stages in sea ice applications, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 105, E527–E531, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-23-0332.1, 2024. a
E.U. Copernicus Marine Service Information (CMEMS): Arctic Ocean Physics Reanalysis, Marine Data Store (MDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.48670/moi-00007, 2024a. a
E.U. Copernicus Marine Service Information (CMEMS): Global Ocean Ensemble Physics Reanalysis:, Marine Data Store (MDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.48670/moi-00024, 2024b. a
E.U. Copernicus Marine Service Information (CMEMS): Global Ocean OSTIA Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis, Marine Data Store (MDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.48670/moi-00165, 2024c. a
Ezraty, R., Girard-Ardhuin, F., Piollé, J. F., Kaleschke, L., and Heygster, G.: Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Concentration and Arctic Sea Ice Drift Estimated from Special Sensor Microwave Data, Département d’Océanographie Physique et Spatiale, IFREMER, Brest, France and University of Bremen Germany [data set], 2, ftp://ftp.ifremer.fr/ifremer/cersat/products/gridded/psi-drift/documentation/ssmi.pdf (last access: 2 October 2024), 2007. a
Fichefet, T. and Maqueda, M. A. M.: Sensitivity of a global sea ice model to the treatment of ice thermodynamics and dynamics, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102, 12609–12646, https://doi.org/10.1029/97jc00480, 1997. a
Frew, R. C., Feltham, D., Schroeder, D., and Bateson, A. W.: Toward a marginal Arctic sea ice cover: changes to freezing, melting and dynamics, The Cryosphere Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-91, in review, 2023. a, b, c
Galí, M., Lizotte, M., Kieber, D. J., Randelhoff, A., Hussherr, R., Xue, L., Dinasquet, J., Babin, M., Rehm, E., and Levasseur, M.: DMS emissions from the Arctic marginal ice zone, Elementa: Sci. Anthrop., 9, 00113, https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00113, 2021. a
Good, S., Fiedler, E., Mao, C., Martin, M. J., Maycock, A., Reid, R., Roberts-Jones, J., Searle, T., Waters, J., While, J., and Worsfold, M.: The Current Configuration of the OSTIA System for Operational Production of Foundation Sea Surface Temperature and Ice Concentration Analyses, Remote Sens., 12, 720, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12040720, 2020. a
Goosse, H. and Fichefet, T.: Importance of ice‐ocean interactions for the global ocean circulation: A model study, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 104, 23337–23355, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999jc900215, 1999. a
Henke, M., Cassalho, F., Miesse, T., Ferreira, C. M., Zhang, J., and Ravens, T. M.: Assessment of Arctic sea ice and surface climate conditions in nine CMIP6 climate models, Arct. Antarct. Alpine Res., 55, 2271592, https://doi.org/10.1080/15230430.2023.2271592, 2023. a
Horvat, C.: Marginal ice zone fraction benchmarks sea ice and climate model skill, Nat. Commun., 12, 2221, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22004-7, 2021. a
Horvat, C., Blanchard‐Wrigglesworth, E., and Petty, A.: Observing Waves in Sea Ice With ICESat‐2, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087629, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl087629, 2020. a
Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An Elastic–Viscous–Plastic Model for Sea Ice Dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027<1849:aevpmf>2.0.co;2, 1997. a
Hunke, E. C. and Lipscomb, W. H.: CICE: The sea ice model documentation and software user's manual, version 4.1, Technical report, LA-CC-06-012, Los Alamos National Laboratory: Los Alamos, NM, https://csdms.colorado.edu/w/images/CICE_documentation_and_software_user's_manual.pdf (last access: 2 October 2024), 2010. a
Huntemann, M., Heygster, G., Kaleschke, L., Krumpen, T., Mäkynen, M., and Drusch, M.: Empirical sea ice thickness retrieval during the freeze-up period from SMOS high incident angle observations, The Cryosphere, 8, 439–451, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-439-2014, 2014. a
Hutter, N., Zampieri, L., and Losch, M.: Leads and ridges in Arctic sea ice from RGPS data and a new tracking algorithm, The Cryosphere, 13, 627–645, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-627-2019, 2019. a
Iovino, D., Selivanova, J., Masina, S., and Cipollone, A.: The Antarctic Marginal Ice Zone and Pack Ice Area in CMEMS GREP Ensemble Reanalysis Product, Front. Earth Sci., 10, 745274, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.745274, 2022. a, b
Kaleschke, L., Maaß, N., Haas, C., Hendricks, S., Heygster, G., and Tonboe, R. T.: A sea-ice thickness retrieval model for 1.4 GHz radiometry and application to airborne measurements over low salinity sea-ice, The Cryosphere, 4, 583–592, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-4-583-2010, 2010. a
Kern, S., Lavergne, T., Pedersen, L. T., Tonboe, R. T., Bell, L., Meyer, M., and Zeigermann, L.: Satellite passive microwave sea-ice concentration data set intercomparison using Landsat data, The Cryosphere, 16, 349–378, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-349-2022, 2022. a
Kohout, A. L., Williams, M. J. M., Dean, S. M., and Meylan, M. H.: Storm-induced sea-ice breakup and the implications for ice extent, Nature, 509, 604–607, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13262, 2014. a
Lavergne, T., Sørensen, A. M., Kern, S., Tonboe, R., Notz, D., Aaboe, S., Bell, L., Dybkjær, G., Eastwood, S., Gabarro, C., Heygster, G., Killie, M. A., Brandt Kreiner, M., Lavelle, J., Saldo, R., Sandven, S., and Pedersen, L. T.: Version 2 of the EUMETSAT OSI SAF and ESA CCI sea-ice concentration climate data records, The Cryosphere, 13, 49–78, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-49-2019, 2019. a
Laxon, S. W., Giles, K. A., Ridout, A. L., Wingham, D. J., Willatt, R., Cullen, R., Kwok, R., Schweiger, A., Zhang, J., Haas, C., Hendricks, S., Krishfield, R., Kurtz, N., Farrell, S., and Davidson, M.: CryoSat‐2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 732–737, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50193, 2013. a
Lee, Y. J., Watts, M., Maslowski, W., Kinney, J. C., and Osinski, R.: Assessment of the Pan-Arctic Accelerated Rate of Sea Ice Decline in CMIP6 Historical Simulations, J. Climate, 36, 6069–6089, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-21-0539.1, 2023. a
Lellouche, J.-M., Galloudec, O. L., Drévillon, M., Régnier, C., Greiner, E., Garric, G., Ferry, N., Desportes, C., Testut, C.-E., Bricaud, C., Bourdallé-Badie, R., Tranchant, B., Benkiran, M., Drillet, Y., Daudin, A., and Nicola, C. D.: Evaluation of global monitoring and forecasting systems at Mercator Océan, Ocean Sci., 9, 57–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-9-57-2013, 2013. a, b
MacLachlan, C., Arribas, A., Peterson, K. A., Maidens, A., Fereday, D., Scaife, A. A., Gordon, M., Vellinga, M., Williams, A., Comer, R. E., Camp, J., Xavier, P., and Madec, G.: Global Seasonal forecast system version 5 (GloSea5): a high-resolution seasonal forecast system, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 141, 1072–1084, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2396, 2014. a, b
Manucharyan, G. E. and Thompson, A. F.: Submesoscale Sea Ice-Ocean Interactions in Marginal Ice Zones, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 9455–9475, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jc012895, 2017. a
Masina, S., Storto, A., Ferry, N., Valdivieso, M., Haines, K., Balmaseda, M., Zuo, H., Drevillon, M., and Parent, L.: An ensemble of eddy-permitting global ocean reanalyses from the MyOcean project, Clim. Dynam., 49, 813–841, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2728-5, 2015. a
Matveeva, T. A. and Semenov, V. A.: Regional Features of the Arctic Sea Ice Area Changes in 2000–2019 versus 1979–1999 Periods, Atmosphere, 13, 1434, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13091434, 2022. a
Meier, W., Fetterer, F., Windnagel, A., and Stewart, S.: NOAA/NSIDC Climate Data Record of Passive Microwave Sea Ice Concentration, Version 4, National Snow and Ice Data Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.7265/EFMZ-2T65, 2021. a, b
Meredith, M., Sommerkorn, M., Cassotta, S., Derksen, C., Ekaykin, A., Hollowed, A., Kofinas, G., Mackintosh, A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Muelbert, M. M. C., Ottersen, G., Pritchard, H., and Schuur, E.: Polar Regions, in: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, edited by: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K.,Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B., and Weyer, N. M., Chap. 3, 203–320 p., Cambridge University Press, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.005, 2019. a
OSI SAF: Global Sea Ice Concentration Climate Data Record v3.0 – Multimission, OSI SAF [data set], https://doi.org/10.15770/EUM_SAF_OSI_0013, 2022. a, b
Peng, G., Matthews, J. L., Wang, M., Vose, R., and Sun, L.: What Do Global Climate Models Tell Us about Future Arctic Sea Ice Coverage Changes?, Climate, 8, 15, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010015, 2020. a
Ricker, R., Hendricks, S., Helm, V., Skourup, H., and Davidson, M.: Sensitivity of CryoSat-2 Arctic sea-ice freeboard and thickness on radar-waveform interpretation, The Cryosphere, 8, 1607–1622, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1607-2014, 2014. a
Ricker, R., Hendricks, S., Kaleschke, L., Tian-Kunze, X., King, J., and Haas, C.: A weekly Arctic sea-ice thickness data record from merged CryoSat-2 and SMOS satellite data, The Cryosphere, 11, 1607–1623, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1607-2017, 2017. a
Rolph, R. J., Feltham, D. L., and Schröder, D.: Changes of the Arctic marginal ice zone during the satellite era, The Cryosphere, 14, 1971–1984, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-1971-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d
Rückert, J. E., Rostosky, P., Huntemann, M., Clemens-Sewall, D., Ebell, K., Kaleschke, L.and Lemmetyinen, J., Macfarlane, A. R., Naderpour, R., Stroeve, J., Walbröl, A., and Spreen, G.: Sea ice concentration satellite retrievals influenced by surface changes due to warm air intrusions: A case study from the MOSAiC expedition, Elementa: Sci. Anthropo., 11, 00039, https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00039, 2023. a
Sakov, P., Counillon, F., Bertino, L., Lisæter, K. A., Oke, P. R., and Korablev, A.: TOPAZ4: an ocean-sea ice data assimilation system for the North Atlantic and Arctic, Ocean Sci., 8, 633–656, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-8-633-2012, 2012. a, b
Schweiger, A., Lindsay, R., Zhang, J., Steele, M., Stern, H., and Kwok, R.: Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume, J. Geophys. Res., 116, C00D06, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jc007084, 2011. a
Selivanova, J., Iovino, D., and Cocetta, F.: Past and future of the Arctic sea ice in High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP) climate models, The Cryosphere, 18, 2739–2763, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-2739-2024, 2024. a
Serreze, M.: Northern Hemisphere Cyclone Locations and Characteristics from NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Data, Version 1, https://doi.org/10.5067/XEPCLZKPAJBK, 2009. a
Shokr, M. and Ye, Y.: Why Does Arctic Sea Ice Respond More Evidently than Antarctic Sea Ice to Climate Change?, Ocean-Land-Atmos. Res., 2, 0006, https://doi.org/10.34133/olar.0006, 2023. a
Storto, A., Masina, S., and Navarra, A.: Evaluation of the CMCC eddy-permitting global ocean physical reanalysis system (C-GLORS, 1982–2012) and its assimilation components, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 142, 738–758, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2673, 2016. a, b
Storto, A., Masina, S., Simoncelli, S., Iovino, D., Cipollone, A., Drevillon, M., Drillet, Y., von Schuckman, K., Parent, L., Garric, G., Greiner, E., Desportes, C., Zuo, H., Balmaseda, M. A., and Peterson, K. A.: The added value of the multi-system spread information for ocean heat content and steric sea level investigations in the CMEMS GREP ensemble reanalysis product, Clim. Dynam., 53, 287–312, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4585-5, 2019. a, b
Sumata, H., de Steur, L., Divine, D. V., Granskog, M. A., and Gerland, S.: Regime shift in Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness, Nature, 615, 443–449, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05686-x, 2023. a
Sutherland, P. and Dumont, D.: Marginal Ice Zone Thickness and Extent due to Wave Radiation Stress, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 48, 1885–1901, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-17-0167.1, 2018. a
Tilling, R. L., Ridout, A., and Shepherd, A.: Near-real-time Arctic sea ice thickness and volume from CryoSat-2, The Cryosphere, 10, 2003–2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2003-2016, 2016. a
Tsamados, M., Feltham, D., Petty, A., Schroeder, D., and Flocco, D.: Processes controlling surface, bottom and lateral melt of Arctic sea ice in a state of the art sea ice model, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys. Eng. Sci., 373, 20140167, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0167, 2015. a
Tsujino, H., Urakawa, L. S., Griffies, S. M., Danabasoglu, G., Adcroft, A. J., Amaral, A. E., Arsouze, T., Bentsen, M., Bernardello, R., Böning, C. W., Bozec, A., Chassignet, E. P., Danilov, S., Dussin, R., Exarchou, E., Fogli, P. G., Fox-Kemper, B., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Iovino, D., Kim, W. M., Koldunov, N., Lapin, V., Li, Y., Lin, P., Lindsay, K., Liu, H., Long, M. C., Komuro, Y., Marsland, S. J., Masina, S., Nummelin, A., Rieck, J. K., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Scheinert, M., Sicardi, V., Sidorenko, D., Suzuki, T., Tatebe, H., Wang, Q., Yeager, S. G., and Yu, Z.: Evaluation of global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on the experimental protocols of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (OMIP-2), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3643–3708, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3643-2020, 2020. a
Uotila, P., Goosse, H., Haines, K., Chevallier, M., Barthélemy, A., Bricaud, C., Carton, J., Fučkar, N., Garric, G., Iovino, D., Kauker, F., Korhonen, M., Lien, V. S., Marnela, M., Massonnet, F., Mignac, D., Peterson, K. A., Sadikni, R., Shi, L., Tietsche, S., Toyoda, T., Xie, J., and Zhang, Z.: An assessment of ten ocean reanalyses in the polar regions, Clim. Dynam., 52, 1613–1650, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4242-z, 2019. a, b
Wang, Z., Li, Z., Zeng, J., Liang, S., Zhang, P., Tang, F., Chen, S., and Ma, X.: Spatial and Temporal Variations of Arctic Sea Ice From 2002 to 2017, Earth Space Sci., 7, e2020EA001278, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ea001278, 2020. a
Warren, S. G., Rigor, I. G., Untersteiner, N., Radionov, V. F., Bryazgin, N. N., Aleksandrov, Y. I., and Colony, R.: Snow Depth on Arctic Sea Ice, J. Climate, 12, 1814–1829, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<1814:sdoasi>2.0.co;2, 1999. a
Zampieri, L., Arduini, G., Holland, M., Keeley, S. P. E., Mogensen, K., Shupe, M. D., and Tietsche, S.: A Machine Learning Correction Model of the Winter Clear-Sky Temperature Bias over the Arctic Sea Ice in Atmospheric Reanalyses, Mon. Weather Rev., 151, 1443–1458, https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-22-0130.1, 2023. a
Zhang, J. and Rothrock, D. A.: Modeling Global Sea Ice with a Thickness and Enthalpy Distribution Model in Generalized Curvilinear Coordinates, Mon. Weather Rev., 131, 845–861, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2003)131<0845:mgsiwa>2.0.co;2, 2003. a, b
Zuo, H., Balmaseda, M. A., Tietsche, S., Mogensen, K., and Mayer, M.: The ECMWF operational ensemble reanalysis–analysis system for ocean and sea ice: a description of the system and assessment, Ocean Sci., 15, 779–808, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-779-2019, 2019. a, b
Zygmuntowska, M., Rampal, P., Ivanova, N., and Smedsrud, L. H.: Uncertainties in Arctic sea ice thickness and volume: new estimates and implications for trends, The Cryosphere, 8, 705–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-705-2014, 2014. a
Short summary
Arctic sea ice is thinning and retreating because of global warming. Thus, the region is transitioning to a new state featuring an expansion of the marginal ice zone, a region where mobile ice interacts with waves from the open ocean. By analyzing 30 years of sea ice reconstructions that combine numerical models and observations, this paper proves that an ensemble of global ocean and sea ice reanalyses is an adequate tool for investigating the changing Arctic sea ice cover.
Arctic sea ice is thinning and retreating because of global warming. Thus, the region is...
