CR
Cryospheric Sciences

Image of the Week

Image of the Week – Promoting interdisciplinary science in the Arctic: what is IASC?

Image of the Week –  Promoting interdisciplinary science in the Arctic: what is IASC?

The Arctic is one of the fastest changing regions on the Earth, where climate change impacts are felt both earlier and more strongly than elsewhere in the world. As an integral part of the Earth system, the Arctic is shaped by global processes, and in turn, Arctic processes influence the living conditions of hundreds of millions of people at lower latitudes. No one country or community can understand the Arctic alone. Big Arctic science questions require ambitious Arctic science – but researchers sometimes need a little help bridging both national and disciplinary boundaries. That‘s a lofty mission, but how does the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) achieve it? Read on!


How does IASC support science?

Each IASC member country appoints up to two members to each of IASC’s 5 scientific Working Groups (Atmosphere, Cryosphere, Marine, Social & Human, and Terrestrial). These groups allocate IASC‘s scientific funds for small meetings, workshops, and projects. Follow the to see the science priorities of each group, find out about upcoming Working Group activities, and explore the expertise of their members!

Understanding the future of the Arctic means we need to invest in the Arctic researchers of today. Therefore, At least 40% of IASC’s working group funds must be co-spent with another working group, to encourage interdisciplinary projects. Check out upcoming events in 2019 like the Year Of Polar Prediction Arctic Science Workshop, High Latitude Dust Workshop, Snow Science Workshop, and Network on Arctic Glaciology meeting – just to name a few!

What else does IASC do?

IASC convenes the annual Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW), which provides the opportunity for coordination, cooperation and collaboration between the various scientific organizations involved in Arctic research and to economize on travel and time. In addition to IASC meetings, ASSW is a great opportunity to host Arctic science meetings and workshops. ASSW2019 will be in Arkhangelsk, Russia.

IASC influences international Arctic policymakers by being an observer to the Arctic Council and contributing to its work. IASC projects include contributing experts to an assessment on marine plastic pollution in the Arctic, helping coordinate reviews for the first Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost Assessment (SWIPA) report, and co-leading the Arctic Data Committee & Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks.

Supporting Early Career Researchers

At least one third of IASC‘s scientific funds must be spent on supporting early career researchers (see the image of the week)! In addition, the IASC Fellowship Program is meant to engage early career researchers in the Working Groups and give them experience in helping lead international and interdisciplinary Arctic science activities. Applications are now open and due by 19 November!

IASC convenes the annual Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW), which provides the opportunity for coordination, cooperation and collaboration between the various scientific organizations involved in Arctic research and to economize on travel and time. In addition to IASC meetings, ASSW is a great opportunity to host Arctic science meetings and workshops. ASSW2019 will be in Arkhangelsk, Russia.

Get Involved!

Do you have a great idea that you think IASC might want to support? Or want to learn more about IASC? Connect with IASC on Facebook, and sign up to receive our monthly newsletter! You are also encouraged to reach out to the relevant national/disciplinary IASC Working Group experts, IASC Council member, and the IASC Secretariat.

Further reading

Edited by Adam Bateson


Allen Pope is the IASC Executive Secretary. IASC scientific funds are provided from national member contributions. The IASC Secretariat in Akureyri, Iceland is supported by Rannís, the Icelandic Centre for Research. The IASC Secretariat is responsible for the day-to-day operations and administration of IASC. Allen also maintains an affiliation as a Research Scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder where he continues research based on remote sensing of glacier mass balance and surface hydrology. You can find out more about Allen and his research at https://about.me/allenpope. He also enjoys sharing and discussing polar science with the public and tweets @PopePolar.

Image of the Week – Alien-iced

Image of the Week – Alien-iced

What do Chile and Jupiter’s moon Europa have in common? If you like astronomy, you may reply “space missions!” – Chile’s dry air and clear skies make it an ideal location for telescopes like the VLT or ALMA, while Europa’s inferred subsurface ocean will be studied by the upcoming mission to Jupiter JUICE, due to launch in 2022. But Chile’s high altitude Atacama desert and Europa’s frozen surface also have another feature in common, as you can see in this Image of the Week: ice spikes!   


Penitentes is the word

The official name of these ice spikes is “Penitentes”, Spanish for penitents. Why? As you might see (with quite some imagination) on the Image of the Week, there is some resemblance with a kneeling and praying procession.

Fields of penitentes ranging from a few centimetres to five metres can be found above 4000 m altitude both in the Andes and Himalayas, the only places on Earth where the right conditions exist for their formation. Because although it looks as if the snow is just blown into penitentes by unidirectional winds, in reality everything is due to thermodynamics…

I promise I will not write the equations this time (see this previous post); instead, I invite you to read them in this paper. In summary, penitentes form where snow is in contact with very dry and very cold air. As the sun shines, the snow absorbs the energy and heats up from inside, so much and so fast that the only way to be rid of that heat is by changing phase, directly from solid to water vapour (this is called sublimation). Since snow is anything but a smooth surface, sun rays will in fact be more concentrated at given locations on the snow, so that sublimation occurs only at specific points. But it is a self-amplifying mechanism: sublimation will leave a little crater behind in the snow, whose shape will concentrate even more the sun rays and lead to further sublimation. And this is how the penitentes get their shape.

 

Penitentes and the Atacama Pathfinder EXperiment (APEX) telescope. Photo: Babak Tafreshi/ ESO

Where is the link with Europa?

Hopefully by now, you are happy because you have just learnt about yet another weird-but-wonderful cryospheric phenomenon on Earth. But, remember how the post was about about Europa in the beginning? This is because researchers have recently analysed data from the past mission to Jupiter Galileo that might suggest that the conditions are right on Europa for penitentes to exist. They had to use the careful phrasing because the data resolution was not good enough to see the actual individual penitentes and had instead to rely on their thermic signature.

As reported in the media storm of these last two weeks (see here, here or here for example), this is an important discovery for the planning of future space missions. Which landing site to use? Play it safe and land far from these ice blades, or go and study them but risk destroying your lander? Either way, we shall continue reporting about the cryosphere, from this world and beyond…

Reference/Further reading

 

Edited by Clara Burgard

Do clouds affect melting over Antarctic ice shelves?

Schematic showing the effects of cloud microphysics on the radiative properties of clouds for shortwave solar radiation (a & b) and longwave terrestrial radiation (c & d) [Credit: Ella Gilbert].

The Antarctic Peninsula is the ‘canary in the coalmine’ of Antarctic climate change. In the last half-century it has warmed faster than most other places on Earth, and considerable change has consequently been observed in the cryosphere, with several ice shelves collapsing in part or in full. Representing this change in models is difficult because we understand comparatively little about the effect of atmospheric processes on melting in Antarctica, especially clouds, which are the main protagonists of this Image of the Week…


The Antarctic Peninsula: a part of the southern continent that is surrounded by ice shelves, but also a place that has seen rapid and dramatic changes in the last decades. Until recently, the Antarctic Peninsula was one of the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, with annual mean surface temperatures rising by as much as 2.5°C between the 1950s and early 2000s in some places (Turner et al., 2005; 2016).

That warming has been linked to the demise of the region’s ice shelves: since 1947, more than half of the peninsula’s ice shelves have thinned, lost area, or collapsed entirely (Cook & Vaughan, 2010). Most recently, that includes Larsen C, whose area was reduced by 12% in July 2017 following a calving event where an iceberg four times the size of London broke away from the ice shelf. As a result, the ice shelf has slipped down the rankings from the 4th largest ice shelf on the continent to the 5th largest.

 

What makes ice shelves melt?

Evidence suggests that ice shelves on the peninsula are being warmed mostly from the top down by the atmosphere. This is contrary to what’s happening on other Antarctic ice shelves, like those in West Antarctica that are being eroded from beneath by the warming ocean. Atmospheric processes are much more important over peninsula ice shelves than those elsewhere on the continent.

To understand the effect of the atmosphere on melting at the top of ice shelves, we need to know how much energy is entering the surface of the ice shelf, how much is leaving, and use what’s left over to determine whether there’s residual energy available to melt the ice. That’s the general principle of the surface energy balance, and it’s called a ‘balance’ because it is usually just that – the amount of energy flowing into and out of the ice shelf averages out over the course of say, a year, to produce a net zero sum of energy left for melting. However, there are times when this balance can become either negative, leading to growth of the ice shelf, or positive, leading to ice loss via melting.

 

What affects the surface energy balance?

Many different processes influence the surface energy balance, such as weather patterns and atmospheric motion. For instance, when warm, dry air blows over an ice surface, which happens during ‘foehn‘ wind events (German readers will know this means ‘hairdryer’: a descriptive name for the phenomenon!), this can produce a surplus of energy available for melting (Grosvenor et al., 2014; King et al., 2017; Kuipers Munneke et al., 2018). If the surface temperature reaches 0°C, melting occurs.

 

What do clouds have to do with it?

Clouds also greatly influence the surface energy balance by affecting the amount of radiation that reaches the surface. The amount of incoming solar (shortwave) radiation that reaches the surface, and the amount of terrestrial (longwave) radiation that escapes is affected by what stands in the way – clouds. Of course, this obstacle is important for the surface energy balance because it affects the balance between the energy flowing into and out of the surface. However, the fine-scale characteristics of clouds (aka ‘microphysics’) produce different, often interacting and sometimes competing, effects on the surface energy balance, some of which are shown in the schematic above. Examples of these properties include:

  • Water phase (how much ice and liquid there is)
  • Number concentration (how many particles)
  • Particle size
  • Ice crystal shape

The amount of ice and liquid in a cloud can affect how much energy it absorbs, reflects and emits – for instance, the more liquid a cloud contains, the more energy it emits towards the surface, because it is thicker and tends to be warmer than a cloud with lots of ice. However, clouds made up of lots of tiny liquid droplets also tend to be brighter than ice clouds containing larger crystals, which means they reflect more incoming solar radiation back into space. This example is a typical one where different microphysical properties cause competing effects, which makes them difficult to separate from each other.

 

Radiative forcing (RF, solid bars) and Effective radiative forcing (ERF, hatched bars) of climate change during the Industrial Era (1750-2011) [Credit: adapted from IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Figure 8.15: pp. 697].

What do we know about Antarctic clouds?

The short answer is: not that much. Clouds are the largest source of uncertainty in our estimates of global climate change (check out the huge range of error in the estimates of cloud-driven radiative forcing in the figure above, from the IPCC’s most recent report), and the science of Antarctic clouds is even more unclear because we don’t have a great deal of data to base our understanding on. To measure clouds directly, we need to fly through them – a costly and potentially dangerous exercise, especially in Antarctica.

 

Flying through a gap in cloud near Jenny Island on the approach to Rothera research station, on the Antarctic Peninsula, at the end of a data collection flight in November 2017 [Credit: Ella Gilbert].

Filling the gap

In somewhere like Antarctica where we don’t have much observational data, we have to rely on other tools. That’s where computer models can be really useful – so long as we can be confident in the results they produce. Unfortunately, that’s part of the problem. Cloud properties and their effects on the surface energy balance are complex: we know that much. But modelling those properties is even more complex, because we have to simplify things to be able to turn them into computer code.

There is hope though! Recent studies (e.g. Listowski et al., 2017) have shown that models can more realistically represent Antarctic cloud microphysics if they use more sophisticated ‘double moment’ schemes, which are able to simulate more microphysical properties. With more accurate microphysics comes better representation of the surface energy balance, and improved estimates of melt over Antarctic ice shelves.

 

Further reading

  • On the effect of foehn on wintertime melting over Larsen C:

Kuipers Munneke, P., Luckman, A. J., Bevan, S. L., Gilbert, E., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Van Den Broeke, M. R., Wang, W., Zender, C., Hubbard, B., Ashmore, D., Orr, A. King, J. C. (2018). Intense winter surface melt on an Antarctic ice shelf. Geophysical Research Letters 45, 7615–7623. doi:10.1029/2018GL077899

  • On clouds in Antarctica:

Lachlan-Cope, T. (2010). Antarctic clouds. Polar Research 29 (2), 150–158. doi:10.1111/j.1751-8369.2010.00148.x

  • On modelling cloud microphysics over the Antarctic Peninsula:

Listowski, C., & Lachlan-Cope, T. (2017). The Microphysics of Clouds over the Antarctic Peninsula – Part 2: modelling aspects within Polar WRF. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 17, 10195-10221. doi:10.5194/acp-17-10195-2017

Edited by Clara Burgard


Ella Gilbert is a PhD student at the British Antarctic Survey, where she uses climate modelling and observational data to understand the drivers of melt on the Larsen C ice shelf. She’s a big fan of clouds, polar science, and science communication. You can find her on Twitter @Dr_Gilbz, on her website www.larsenc.com, or the old fashioned way by email.

Image of the Week – On thin [Arctic sea] ice

Thin, ponded sea ice floes in Nares Strait [Credit: Christopher Horvat and Enduring Ice]

Perhaps the most enduring and important signal of a warming climate has been that the minimum Arctic sea ice extent, occurring each year in September, has declined precipitously. Over the last 40 years, most of the Arctic sea ice has thus been transformed to first-year ice that freezes in the winter and melts in the summer.           
Concern about sea ice extent and area is valid: since sea ice is a highly reflective surface, a reduction of its area has a significant effect on the energy budget of Earth’s climate. Yet it is well-documented that, in the summertime, when sunlight is strongest, the biggest changes to sea ice volume are coming from effects not associated with changes to ice area, but with changes to sea ice thickness, like increased melt ponding. The change from thick, reflective multi-year summer sea ice to thin, ponded, less-reflective first-year ice are seen throughout the Arctic. In places like Nares Strait, the region of the Canadian Arctic that separates Canada from Greenland (seen above), commonly referred to as the “last ice area”, this is true as well.


The “Enduring Ice” Expedition

In the summer of 2016 and 2017, 4 filmmakers and a scientist (that’s me!) set out to examine Nares Strait, the area that separates Ellesmere Island in Canada from Northern Greenland (see map below). The Strait has been designated the “last ice area” by the World Wildlife Fund, a region which is expected to remain fully covered in thick sea ice even as the rest of the Arctic sea ice cover melts.

Nares Strait [Credit: Enduring Ice, LLC]

Yet when we arrived, what we found was anything but the promised land of thick, multi-year ice. Instead, all of the ice we encountered was thin, heavily ponded, and fragmented. In decades past, the presence of multi-year floes would dam Nares Strait, allowing ice-free passage for kayakers. Instead, the fractured ice poured through the strait, making passage impossible. Faced with an impassable strait, we resorted to pulling the kayaks over the land, moving a total of 100 km in 45 days.

The “Enduring Ice” Expedition [Credit: Christopher Horvat and Enduring Ice]

Most projections have the Arctic totally ice-free in September by 2050, meaning there will truly be no multi-year ice left at all. Yet as the Arctic still cools dramatically in winter, during the summer months (from May to July) when solar radiation is highest, the total area of the Arctic covered in sea ice is still high, but now covered by thin first-year ice. At the same time, the ongoing warming has thinned the Arctic sea ice by more than half (Kwok, 2008).

The albedo of first year ice can be half or less that of multi-year thicker ice (Light, 2008). Since the Arctic has thinned substantially over the last 40 years, the consequences of this thinning on the Arctic and Earth climate system are dramatic.

More and more solar radiation is absorbed by thinner ice. Excess solar absorption leads to ocean and atmospheric warming, and to more sea ice melting, a process known as the ice-albedo feedback. It was previously thought that regions covered by sea ice where inhospitable to photosynthetic life. However, thinning sea ice is likely responsible for the increase in phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic, as more light is transmitted through the thinner ice.

The Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly transitioning from thick, multi-year ice to thin, ponded, first-year sea ice.  As we can see, this thinning is resulting in a totally new Arctic climate system.

Further Reading

Edited by Violaine Coulon and Sophie Berger


Chris Horvat is a NOAA climate and global change postdoctoral fellow at Brown University in Providence, RI.  He tweets as @chhorvat and you can also reach him on his website.

Image of the Week — Cryo Connect: connecting cryosphere scientists and information seekers

Image of the Week — Cryo Connect: connecting cryosphere scientists and information seekers

Communicating scientific findings toward non-experts is a vital part of cryosphere science. However, when it comes to climate change and its impact, the gap between scientific knowledge and human action has never been so evident (see for instance, the publication of the latest IPCC special report). Today, our image of the week features an interview with Cryo Connect, a new initiative for more efficient flow of information between cryosphere scientists and information seekers.


Why have you decided to come up with an initiative like Cryo Connect?

Currently, information seekers such as journalists, policy makers, teachers and stakeholders often resort to internet search engines to find experts for answering specific questions about the cryosphere. Or they return to the same expert they have interacted with in the past. Either way, it is unlikely that they end up receiving information from the expert that knows most about the topic, or even in the preferred language. Some organizations have their own science outreach portals, but a truly global and inclusive network of cryosphere experts willing to provide insights to those seeking information has been lacking. For this reason, we established Cryo Connect.

Number of Cryo Connect experts for each cryospheric component. [Credit: Cryo connect]

How does it work exactly?

Cryo Connect is run as a non-profit organization. We are an official EGU Cryospheric Sciences partner and provide a free, online gateway through which experts and information seekers can reach out. Here, not only can information seekers find answers, but scientists can also actively promote their latest findings, pushing press releases (screened but unmodified by Cryo Connect) towards information seekers. All cryosphere scientists globally can sign up as experts allowing them to boost their visibility (especially with respect to those ranking high on internet search engines), irrespective of their career stage, ethnicity, gender or the languages that they master.

Number of Cryo Connect experts for each cryosphere region. [Credit: Cryo connect]

How has Cryo Connect been doing so far?
Although still in our first year, by October 2018 Cryo Connect has already grown to a community of 98 experts based in 22 countries across the planet. Together, they can provide information on all components of all cryospheric regions in the world – in 19 different languages! Researchers make up about two-fifths of the expert database, while PhD students, senior researchers and professors each constitute a ⅕ part. Lots of knowledge to go around.

Career stage of Cryo Connect experts. [Credit: Cryo connect]

What’s the take-home message for scientists?

That all cryosphere scientists around the globe are invited to sign up as a Cryo Connect expert to increase their visibility to the media and other information seekers. The platform works best, and attracts more information seekers with an even larger expert population from all corners of the planet. And don’t forget to tweet about your latest peer-reviewed publication using the @CryoConnect Twitter handle for increased media exposure!

Edited by Sophie Berger


Cryo-connect is an initiative run by Dirk van As, Faezeh Nick, William Colgan and Inka Koch

Image of the Week – Greenland’s fjords: critical zones for mixing

Image of the Week – Greenland’s fjords: critical zones for mixing

One of the most challenging research questions to address in the Arctic is how freshwater discharge from Greenland’s largest glaciers affects the biogeochemistry of the ocean. Just getting close to the calving fronts of these large marine-terminating glaciers is difficult. Fjords, hundreds of kilometers long and full of icebergs which shift with the wind and roll as they melt, make the commute a little difficult. Navigating these fjords to within a few kilometers of Greenland’s largest glaciers requires a combination of luck, skillful handling of small boats and a ‘fortune favors the brave’ attitude to sampling which would probably upset even the most relaxed of University Health and Safety Officers. The limited field data we have from Greenland’s fjords must therefore be combined with other data sources in order to understand what happens between glaciers and the ocean.


The Challenge

The amount of freshwater discharged from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean increases in response to climate change. This may affect both the fisheries which support the island’s economy and the carbon sink associated with fjord systems – the largest per unit surface area in the ocean. As a consequence, we need to assess how exactly this cold freshwater will affect the ocean. To do so requires collaboration of scientists with different backgrounds:

  • glaciologists, to understand the different components of freshwater released (ice melt, surface runoff, subglacial discharge),

  • physicists, to understand the fate of freshwater within a dynamic water column,

  • chemists, to understand how the availability of resources shifts in response to increasing freshwater

  • biologists, to understand the net effects of multiple physio-chemical changes to the environment on living organisms.

In the context of climate change it is also always worth remembering that the increase in Greenland ice sheet discharge occurs alongside other changes in the Arctic, such as the disappearance of sea ice and warming of the atmosphere and ocean. Thus, we really must unleash 4-dimensional thinking in order to understand the processes that are currently at work in the whole Arctic.

Recent work around Greenland has shown that one particularly important factor in determining how a glacier affects downstream marine ecosystems is whether it terminates on land or in the ocean. When a glacier sits in the ocean and releases meltwater at depth, this cold freshwater rapidly mixes with deep nutrient-rich seawater. This buoyant mix, known as an upwelling plume, rises upwards in the water column. These buoyant plumes act as a ‘nutrient pump’ bringing macronutrients from deep seawater to the surface and thus driving quite pronounced summertime phytoplankton blooms. Around Greenland, these blooms are quite remarkable. Summertime productivity in the open Atlantic is generally quite limited, while the main time of year when phytoplankton bloom is spring. In several of Greenland’s fjords, however, phytoplankton bloom over the meltwater season (around May-September). Understanding how these upwelling-driven blooms operate, and more importantly how they will change in the future, is a formidable challenge. There is an almost complete lack of either physical or biogeochemical data within a few kilometers of most large marine-terminating glaciers and thus our ability to quantify the relationship between discharge and downstream productivity is limited.

Contrasting effects of meltwater around Greenland depending on where the glacier terminates with respect to sea-level. [Credit: Fig 3 from Hopwood et al., (2018)].

Modelling what we cannot measure

Fortunately however, the field of subglacial discharge modelling is relatively well advanced. Since the 1950s, plume models have been used to describe reasonably well the subglacial discharge downstream of glaciers. Whilst all of Greenland’s glacier fjords are unique, we can at least model the processes that underpin the ‘nutrient pump’ leading to such unusual summertime productivity around Greenland.

One thing is particularly clear from the use of these models. The depth at which a glacier sits in the water column is a major factor for the magnitude of the upwelling effect. If a glacier retreats inland, this is generally bad news for downstream marine productivity. As marine-terminating glaciers retreat, the nutrient pump rapidly collapses if the glacier moves into shallower water – irrespective of what happens to the volume of discharged meltwater. For a majority of Greenland’s glaciers for which the topography under the glacier has been characterised, this will be indeed the case under climate change: as the glaciers retreat inland, their grounding lines will get shallower and shallower. The ‘nutrient pump’ associated with each one will therefore also diminish.

Outlook

There are still many things we don’t know about environmental change around Greenland, as our almost complete lack of data outside the meltwater season and very close to marine-terminating glacier termini still hinders our understanding of some critical processes. Only by adopting more inter-disciplinary methods of working and deploying new technology will these data-deficiencies be addressed.

Further reading

 

Edited by Sophie Berger and Clara Burgard


Mark Hopwood is a postdoc at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany. He investigates how environmental changes, such as increasing freshwater discharge in the Arctic or declining oxygen in the tropics, affect the availability of nutrients to biota in the marine environment. By using a combination of fieldwork and targeted process studies the main goal is to identify and quantify biogeochemical feedbacks that act to amplify or dampen the response of marine biota to perturbations. He tweets as @Markinthelab. Contact Email: m.hopwood@geomar.de

Image of the Week – Oh Sheet!

Image of the Week – Oh Sheet!

The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are major players in future sea level rise. Still, there is a lot about these ice sheets we do not understand. Under the umbrella of the World Climate Research Programme, the international scientific community is coming together to improve ice sheet modelling efforts to better grasp the implications of climate change for ice sheet evolution, and consequently, sea level rise…


What are ice sheets?

An ice sheet is a massive chunk of glacier ice that sits on land – covering an area greater than 50,000 square kilometres (or 1.6 times the size of Belgium) by the official definition. Currently, the only two ice sheets on Earth are in Antarctica and Greenland. Ice in ice sheets flows from inland toward the coast under gravity. Due to the geothermal heat flux, ice sheets are usually warmer at the base than on the surface. When basal melting occurs, the melted water lubricates the ice sheet and accelerates the ice flow, forming fast-flowing ice streams. When ice flows down a coastline into the ocean, it may float due to buoyancy. The floating slab of ice is called an ice shelf (see these previous posts for more on ice shelves). The boundary that separates the grounded ice and floating ice is called the grounding line.

 

Why do we care about ice sheets?

The most uncertain potential source of future sea level rise is the contribution from ice sheets. According to observations, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have contributed approximately 7.5 and 4 mm of sea level rise respectively over the 1992-2011 period, and the contribution is accelerating. Knowing how the ice sheets will behave under future emission scenarios is crucial for risk assessment and policy-making (see this previous post for more on Antarctic ice sheets).

In addition to the direct impact on sea level rise, ice sheets interact with other components of the climate system. For example, ice discharge affects ocean circulation and marine biogeochemistry; changes in orography influence the atmosphere condition and circulation. In turn, the ice sheets gain mass primarily from snow fall, and lose mass through surface melting, surface sublimation, basal melting and ice discharge to the ocean, which are influenced by atmospheric and oceanographic processes. In Antarctica, the mass loss due to basal melting and iceberg calving is larger than snowfall accumulation. The Greenland Ice Sheet is also losing mass through iceberg calving and surface water runoff.

 

What’s CMIP?

Global coupled climate models are developed by different groups of scientists around the world to improve our understanding of the climate system. These models are highly complex, representing interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, land surface and cryosphere on global grids. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a collaborative framework which provides a standard experimental protocol for the different models. The protocol includes a range of greenhouse gas emissions scenarios for future climate projections. Model output is made publicly available and forms the basis for assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The latest phase (CMIP6) is underway now.

 

What’s ISMIP6?

Ice sheets were considered as passive elements of the climate system previously and were not explicitly included in the CMIP process. However, observations of the rapid mass loss associated with dynamic change in ice sheets highlight the need to couple ice sheets to climate models. New developments in ice sheet modelling allow previously-omitted key processes which affect ice sheet dynamics on decadal timescales, such as grounding-line migration and basal lubrication, to be simulated with higher confidence.

ISMIP6 is an international effort designed to ensure that projections from ice sheet models are compatible with the CMIP6 process, bringing together scientists from over twenty institutions (Fig. 2). It aims to improve sea level projections, exploring sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in a changing climate and investigating interactions between ice sheets and the climate system.

 

ISMIP6 Experiments

As shown in Figure 1, the objectives of ISMIP6 rely on three distinct modeling efforts:

  1. CMIP atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCM) without an ice sheet component
  2. standalone dynamic ice sheet models (ISMs) that are driven by forcing provided by CMIP
  3. fully coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet models (AOGCM-ISMs).

 

In the first phase, ISMIP6 will compare output from different ice sheet models run in ‘standalone’ or ‘offline coupled’ mode. This means that they receive forcings from the climate model components like the ocean and atmosphere without feeding back. These experiments will be used to explore the uncertainty associated with ice sheets physics, dynamics and numerical implementation. In particular, ISMIP6 is currently focused on gaining insight into the uncertainty in ice sheet evolution resulting from the choice of initialization methods (the initMIP efforts for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets) and understanding the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to a total loss of the ice shelves (ABUMIP).

The model output of the initMIP simulations for Greenland is now publicly available.

Fig. 2: Participants of ISMIP6 standalone ice sheet modeling.

 

ISMIP6 workshop

Regular meetings are organised to update and facilitate communication between the participants. The most recent workshop was hosted in the Netherlands during 11 – 13 September 2018. The topic of the workshop was “Developing process-based projections of the ice sheets’ contribution to future sea level.” Participants aimed to evaluate the output of the CMIP6 climate models and obtain forcing for standalone ice sheet model experiments. During the workshop, scientists made progress on establishing the experimental protocols for the ice sheet model simulations that will be discussed in the IPCC sixth assessment report.

Fig.3: Participants in the ISMIP6 workshop in Leiden, Netherlands [Credit: Heiko Goelzer]

Further reading

Edited by Lettie Roach and Clara Burgard


Sainan Sun does her postdoctoral research with Frank Pattyn at Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). She achieved her doctoral degree in 2014, majoring in ice sheet modeling at Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. In her PhD study, she applied the BISICLES ice sheet model to Pine island glacier, Aurora drainage basin and Lambert-Amery drainage basin to describe the dynamical response of the Antarctic ice sheet to perturbations in boundary conditions. For the project at ULB, she aims to investigate the ice shelf features based on data acquired in Roi Baudouin ice shelf, Antarctica, and to estimate the potential instability of the Antarctic ice sheet using the f.ETISh ice sheet model. Contact Email: sainsun@ulb.ac.be

Image of the Week – The 2018 Arctic summer sea ice season (a.k.a. how bad was it this year?)

Sea ice concentration anomaly for August 2018: blue means less ice than “normal”, i.e. 1981-2010 average. Credit: NSIDC.

With the equinox this Sunday, it is officially the end of summer in the Northern hemisphere and in particular the end of the melt season in the Arctic. These last years, it has typically been the time to write bad news about record low sea ice and the continuation of the dramatic decreasing trend (see this post on this blog). So, how bad has the 2018 melt season been for the Arctic?  


Yes, the 2018 summer Arctic sea ice was anomalously low

Before we give you the results for this summer, let us start with the definitions of the three most common sea ice statistics:

  • Sea ice concentration: how much of a given surface area (e.g. 1 km2) in the ocean is covered by sea ice. The concentration is 100% if there is nothing but sea ice, 50% if half of this area is covered by ice, and 0% if there is nothing but open water. Read more about how satellites measure sea ice concentration on this blog here.
  • Sea ice extent: typically defined as the ocean area with at least 15% sea ice concentration.
  • Sea ice volume: the whole volume of sea ice, i.e. total area times thickness of sea ice. This is probably the most difficult of the three statistics to measure since satellite measurements of sea ice thickness are only starting to be trustworthy.

So, how did summer 2018 perform regarding these three statistics?
As shown on today’s Image of the Week, the sea ice concentration has been anomalously low in most parts of the Arctic, with many areas in dark blue showing they had more than 50% less sea ice than normal (1981-2010 average).

The resulting extent was anomalously low as well (see figure below), but not record-breaking low. The volume however was the fourth lowest recorded or 50% lower than normal, with 5000 km3 of sea ice missing. In a more meaningful unit, that is one trillion elephants of ice, or 64 000 elephants per km2 of the Arctic Ocean.

But as we discussed in a previous post, talking about the Arctic as a whole is not enough to understand what happened this summer. So let us have a closer look at the area north and east of Greenland.

Summer 2018 Arctic sea ice extent up till 19th September (blue) compared to the “normal” extent (grey) and the all-time record of 2012 (green dashed). Credit: NSIDC.

North of Greenland: open water instead of multiyear ice

Until recently, most of the Arctic Ocean was covered by multiyear / perennial ice. That is, most sea ice would not melt in summer and would stay until the next winter. But with climate change and the warming of the Arctic, the multiyear ice cover has shrunk and became limited to the area north of Greenland.

The situation has been even more dramatic this summer. For the entire month of August 2018, there was open water north of Greenland where there should have been thick multiyear ice (see picture below). As nicely explained here, that area had already unexpectedly melted in February this year when the Arctic was struck with record high air temperatures; when the sea ice closed again, it was thinner and more brittle than it should have been, and did not withstand strong winds in August. Therefore, this unusual winter melting could have contributed to the formation of open water north of Greenland.

It is really bad news, and it does feel like yet another tragic milestone: even the last areas of multiyear ice are melting away. Most worryingly, we do not know what the consequences of this disappearance will be on the ecosystem and the entire climate. Or rather, we know that everything from local sea ice algae to European weather patterns will be affected, but more research is needed over the coming years before we can assess the full impact over our complex fully coupled climate system.

Optical satellite image of the northern half of Greenland, 19 August 2018. Dark colour is open water, and should not have been here. Credit: NASA.

Reference/Further reading

For near real time analysis of the sea ice conditions: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

For checking sea ice data from home: https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/databrowser/

For simple visualisations of sea ice statistics: http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-volumethickness/

 

Edited by David Docquier

Image of the Week – Climbing Everest and highlighting science in the mountains

Image of the Week – Climbing Everest and highlighting science in the mountains

Dr Melanie Windridge, a physicist and mountaineer, successfully summited Mount Everest earlier this year and has been working on an outreach programme to encourage young people’s interest in science and technology. Read about her summit climb, extreme temperatures, and the science supporting high-altitude mountaineering in our Image of the Week.


It’s bigger than it looks! Experiencing the majesty of Everest

In April/May this year I climbed Mount Everest. To the top. It was two months of patient toil but in surroundings so majestic, impressive and inspiring. The Western Cwm (an amphitheatre-like valley shaped by glacial erosion) is vast, the summit ridge is steep and Khumbu Glacier was fascinating in itself. Our base camp was on the glacier and it changed daily in subtle ways – the ice melted, the rocks moved, the paths morphed. And the icefall was slightly different each time I passed through – the route changing through a collapsed area, a crevasse widening, or the rope buried by ice-block debris fallen from above. It’s a wonderful, interesting place and I am grateful to have experienced it. You can read more about the climb on my personal blog.

Fig.2: The view up the Western Cwm from Camp 1. Lhotse can be seen in the distance and the summit of Everest mid-left. [Credit: Melanie Windridge].

Everest, of course, is extreme. It is steep almost everywhere, so you barely get a let-up anywhere beyond the Western Cwm. The temperature differences are extreme too – it is extremely hot or extremely cold. I took a couple of temperature loggers with me to the summit (one in a base-layer pocket under my down suit and one in an outer pocket of my rucksack). You can see from the graph of summit night (the climb from Camp 4 to the summit of Everest) (Fig. 3) how the temperature varied by tens of degrees.  Since climbers dress for the coldest temperatures, this can be quite uncomfortable when the sun comes out.  The temperature on summit night got down to about -25°C, but during the day it rose to 10 degrees or more so that we were sweating into our down suits.

 

Fig.3: Graph showing the readings from two separate temperature loggers on summit night – one in a base-layer pocket under the down suit (Down suit temperature) and one in an outer pocket of the rucksack (Air temperature). The temperature rises quickly after sunrise, which was experienced on the summit [Credit: Melanie Windridge and Scott Watson].

Sharing the Science of the Summit

It was science that really got me interested in Everest, when I realised that the main reason the British had succeeded in 1953 but hadn’t in the 1920s and 30s was because of scientific understanding and the state of technology. But so often we don’t talk about the science that supports us in these great endeavours; instead we put it all down to the strength of the human spirit. I think we need to talk about both.

As part of my climb, I have been working on an outreach project to highlight how science and technology have improved safety and performance on Everest. I have made Science of Everest videos for the Institute of Physics YouTube channel and will be giving public talks. I wanted to show how science supports us and what has improved in recent decades to contribute to the falling death rate on Everest.

In the video series I look at changes in weather forecasting, communications, oxygen, medicine and clothing. We also consider risk and preparation – videos that went out before I left for Everest – because, as a scientist, I looked into past data to see how I could give myself the best chance of reaching the summit and returning safely.

 

 

Communication has improved not only because we have a greater variety than was available to the first ascentionists or the early commercial climbers (we have satellite phones, mobile/cell-phones and WiFi now), but also because everything is a lot smaller. Electronic components have greatly reduced in size so that radios used on the mountain now are small and handheld in comparison to the bulky sets of the 1950s (see video above).

 

 

Of course, the implication of the project is wider than just Everest. I am interested in the importance of science and exploration in general. For me, Everest is an icon of exploration – the way that human curiosity, ingenuity, determination and endurance come together to drive us forward. Reaching into the unknown is good for us, on a societal level and on a personal level. I hope to give an appreciation of the value of science in our lives, give students an insight into interesting careers that use science, and show the value of doing things that scare us!

 

Further reading

Edited by Scott Watson and Clara Burgard


Dr Melanie Windridge is a physicist, speaker, writer… with a taste for adventure. She is Communications Consultant for fusion start-up Tokamak Energy, author of “Aurora: In Search of the Northern Lights” and is currently working on a book about Mount Everest.
Website: www.melaniewindridge.co.uk (see the Science & Exploration blog to read about the Everest climb)
Twitter @m_windridge, Facebook /DrMelanieWindridge, Instagram @m_windridge
Science of Everest videos on the Institute of Physics YouTube channel http://bit.ly/EverestVids

Image of the Week – The shape of (frozen sea) water

 

Figure 1: Annual evolution of the sea ice area with two different floe shape parameters of 0.44 (red) and 0.88 (blue). The model is spun-up between 2000 – 2006 and then evaluated for a further ten years between 2007 – 2016 and the mean values over this period displayed by the thick lines. Thin lines show the results for individual years. [Credit: Adam Bateson]

Polar sea ice exists as isolated units of ice that we describe as floes. These floes do not have a constant shape (see here for instance); they can vary from almost circular to being jagged and rectangular. However, sea ice models currently assume that all floes have the same shape. Much focus has been paid to the size of floes recently, but do we also need to reconsider how floe shape is treated in models?


Why might floe shape matter?

In recent years, sea ice models have started to examine more and more how individual floes influence the overall evolution of sea ice.

A particular focus has been the size of floes (see here and here) and the parameterisation of processes which influence floe size (see here for example). However less attention has been given to the shape of the floe. The shape of the floe is important for several reasons:

  • Lateral melt rate: the lateral melt rate describes how quickly a floe melts from its sides. Two floes with the same area but different shape can have a different perimeter; the lateral melt rate  is proportional to the floe perimeter.
  • Wave propagation: a straight floe edge will impact propagating waves differently to a curved or jagged floe edge. The distance waves travel under the sea ice and hence the extent of sea ice that waves can fragment will be dependent on these wave-floe edge interactions.
  • Floe mechanics: an elongated floe (i.e. much longer in one direction than another) will be more likely to break from incoming waves if its longer edge is aligned with the direction the waves are travelling.

How do models currently treat floe shape?

One approach used within sea ice models to define floe shape is the use is the use of a parameter, α. The smaller the floe shape parameter, the longer the floe perimeter (and hence, the higher the lateral melt rate). A standard value used for the parameter is 0.66 (Steele, 1992). Figure 2 shows how this floe shape parameter varies for some common shapes.

Figure 2: The floe shape parameters for some common shapes are given for comparison to the standard value of 0.66. [Credit: Adam Bateson]

The standard value of the floe shape parameter, 0.66, was obtained from taking the mean floe shape parameter measured over all floes greater than 1 km from a singular study area of 110 km x 95 km at one snapshot in time. Despite the limited data set used to estimate this shape parameter, it is being used for all sea ice throughout the year for all floe sizes. However, this would only be a concern to the accuracy of modelling if it turns out that sea ice evolution in models is sensitive to the floe shape parameter.

 

Model sensitivity to floe shape

To investigate the model sensitivity to the floe shape parameter two simulations have been run: one uses a floe shape parameter of 0.88 and the other uses 0.44, chosen to represent likely extremes. The two simulations are run from 2000 – 2016, with 2000 – 2006 used as a spin-up period. Figure 1 displays the mean total ice area throughout the year and results of individual years for each simulation. Figure 3 is an equivalent plot to show the annual evolution of total ice volume for each simulation.

The results show that the perturbation from reducing the floe shape parameter is smaller than the variation between years within the same simulation.  However, the model does show a permanent reduction in volume throughout the year and a 10 – 20 % reduction in the September sea ice minimum. The impact of the floe shape is hence small but significant, particularly for predicting the annual minimum sea ice extent and volume.

Figure 3: Annual evolution of the sea ice volume with two different floe shape parameters of 0.44 (red) and 0.88 (blue). The model is spun-up between 2000 – 2006 and then evaluated for a further ten years between 2007 – 2016 and the mean values over this period displayed by the thick lines. Thin lines show the results for individual years.

More recent studies on floe shape

In 2015, Gherardi and Lagomarsino analysed the floe shape behaviour from four separate samples of satellite imagery from both the Arctic and Antarctic. The study found different distributions of floe shapes in different locations, however there was no correlation between floe shape and size. This property would allow models to treat floe shape and size as independent properties. More recently, in 2018, Herman et al. analysed the results of laboratory experiments of ice breaking by waves. It was found that wave break-up influenced the shape of the floes, tending to produce straight edges and sharp angles.  These features are associated with a smaller floe parameter i.e. would produce an increased lateral melt rate.

What next?

More observations are needed to identify whether the use of a constant floe shape parameter is justified. The following questions are important:

  • Do further observations support the finding that floe size and shape are uncorrelated?
  • What range of values for the floe shape parameter can be observed in reality?
  • Do we see significant variations in the floe shape parameter between locations?
  • Do these variations occur over a large enough scale that they can be represented within existing model resolutions?

Further reading

Edited by Violaine Coulon and Sophie Berger


Adam Bateson is a PhD student at the University of Reading (United Kingdom), working with Danny Feltham. His project involves investigating the fragmentation and melting of the Arctic seasonal sea-ice cover, specifically improving the representation of relevant processes within sea-ice models. In particular he is looking at lateral melting and wave induced fragmentation of sea-ice as drivers of break up, as well as the role of the ocean mixed layer as either an amplifier or dampener to the impacts of particular processes. Contact: a.w.bateson@pgr.reading.ac.uk or @a_w_bateson on twitter.