Arctic sea ice area in CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate model ensembles – variability and change
- 1GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel, Germany
- 2A. M. Obukhov Institut of Atmospheric Physics Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
- 3Institute of Geography Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
- 4Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
- *now at: University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Abstract. The shrinking Arctic sea ice cover observed during the last decades is probably the clearest manifestation of ongoing climate change. While climate models in general reproduce the sea ice retreat in the Arctic during the 20th century and simulate further sea ice area loss during the 21st century in response to anthropogenic forcing, the models suffer from large biases and the model results exhibit considerable spread. The last generation of climate models from World Climate Research Programme Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), when compared to the previous CMIP3 model ensemble and considering the whole Arctic, were found to be more consistent with the observed changes in sea ice extent during the recent decades. Some CMIP5 models project strongly accelerated (non-linear) sea ice loss during the first half of the 21st century.
Here, complementary to previous studies, we compare results from CMIP3 and CMIP5 with respect to regional Arctic sea ice change. We focus on September and March sea ice. Sea ice area (SIA) variability, sea ice concentration (SIC) variability, and characteristics of the SIA seasonal cycle and interannual variability have been analysed for the whole Arctic, termed Entire Arctic, Central Arctic and Barents Sea. Further, the sensitivity of SIA changes to changes in Northern Hemisphere (NH) averaged temperature is investigated and several important dynamical links between SIA and natural climate variability involving the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and sea level pressure gradient (SLPG) in the western Barents Sea opening serving as an index of oceanic inflow to the Barents Sea are studied.
The CMIP3 and CMIP5 models not only simulate a coherent decline of the Arctic SIA but also depict consistent changes in the SIA seasonal cycle and in the aforementioned dynamical links. The spatial patterns of SIC variability improve in the CMIP5 ensemble, particularly in summer. Both CMIP ensembles depict a significant link between the SIA and NH temperature changes. Our analysis suggests that, on average, the sensitivity of SIA to external forcing is enhanced in the CMIP5 models. The Arctic SIA variability response to anthropogenic forcing is different in CMIP3 and CMIP5. While the CMIP3 models simulate increased variability in March and September, the CMIP5 ensemble shows the opposite tendency. A noticeable improvement in the simulation of summer SIA by the CMIP5 models is often accompanied by worse results for winter SIA characteristics. The relation between SIA and mean AMOC changes is opposite in September and March, with March SIA changes being positively correlated with AMOC slowing. Finally, both CMIP ensembles demonstrate an ability to capture, at least qualitatively, important dynamical links of SIA to decadal variability of the AMOC, NAO and SLPG. SIA in the Barents Sea is strongly overestimated by the majority of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models, and projected SIA changes are characterized by a large spread giving rise to high uncertainty.
V. A. Semenov et al.
V. A. Semenov et al.
V. A. Semenov et al.
14 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Assessment of Arctic sea ice simulations in CMIP5 models using a synthetical skill scoring method L. Wu et al. 10.1007/s13131-019-1474-0
- Moving beyond the Total Sea Ice Extent in Gauging Model Biases D. Ivanova et al. 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0026.1
- Sensitivity of an apparently hurricane-like polar low to sea-surface temperature E. Kolstad & T. Bracegirdle 10.1002/qj.2980
- Is There a Role for Human-Induced Climate Change in the Precipitation Decline that Drove the California Drought? R. Seager et al. 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0192.1
- How well must climate models agree with observations? D. Notz 10.1098/rsta.2014.0164
- Effect of wave-induced mixing on Antarctic sea ice in a high-resolution ocean model S. Thomas et al. 10.1007/s10236-019-01268-0
- Seasonal forecast of sea ice extent in the Barents sea N. Glok et al. 10.30758/0555-2648-2019-65-1-5-14
- Climatic Responses to Future Trans‐Arctic Shipping S. Stephenson et al. 10.1029/2018GL078969
- Influence of climate model variability on projected Arctic shipping futures S. Stephenson & L. Smith 10.1002/2015EF000317
- Sea Ice Climate Normals for Seasonal Ice Monitoring of Arctic and Sub-Regions G. Peng et al. 10.3390/data4030122
- Transit navigation through Northern Sea Route from satellite data and CMIP5 simulations V. Khon et al. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa5841
- Temporal and regional variability of Arctic sea-ice coverage from satellite data G. Peng & W. Meier 10.1017/aog.2017.32
- Challenges of Sea-Ice Prediction for Arctic Marine Policy and Planning S. Stephenson & R. Pincus 10.1080/08865655.2017.1294494
- An empirical method for the prediction of extreme low winter sea ice extent in the Barents Sea E. Cherenkova et al. 10.1088/1755-1315/611/1/012042