CR
Cryospheric Sciences

Regular Author

Image of the Week – Delaying the flood with glacial geoengineering

Figure 1: Three examples of glacial geoengineering techniques to mitigate sea-level rise from ice-sheet melting [Credit: Adapted from Figure 1 of Moore et al. (2018); Design: Claire Welsh/Nature].

As the climate is currently warming, many countries and cities are preparing to cope with one of its major impacts, namely sea-level rise. Up to now, the mitigation of climate change has mainly focused on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Large-scale geoengineering has also been proposed to remove carbon from the atmosphere or inject aerosols into the stratosphere to limit the rise in temperature. But locally-targeted geoengineering techniques could also provide a way to avoid some of the worst impacts, like the sea-level rise. In this Image of the Week, we present examples of such a technique that could be applied to the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (Moore et al., 2018; Wolovick and Moore, 2018).


Sea level is rising…

The sea level of the world oceans has been rising at a mean rate of 3 mm per year since the 1990s, mainly due to ocean thermal expansion, land-ice melting and changes in freshwater storage (see this post). More than 90% of coastal areas could experience a sea-level rise exceeding 20 cm with a 2°C warming (relative to the pre-industrial period), which is likely to happen by the middle of this century (Jevrejeva et al., 2016).

The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets constitute two huge reservoirs of ice and contain the equivalent of 60 and 7 m of sea-level rise, respectively, if completely melted. Although a complete disintegration of these two ice sheets is not on the agenda in the coming years, surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the flow of some major polar glaciers could be enhanced by different positive feedbacks (see this post on climate feedbacks and this post on marine ice sheet instability). These feedbacks would elevate the sea level even more than projected by the models.

… but could potentially be delayed by glacial geoengineering

In order to cope with this threat, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions might not be sufficient to delay the rise of sea level. One alternative has been suggested by Moore et al. (2018) and consists of using glacial geoengineering techniques in the vicinity of fast-flowing glaciers of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. They propose three different ways to delay sea-level rise from these glaciers and these are presented in our Image of the Week (Fig. 1):

A.   A pumping station could be installed at the top of the glacier with the aim of extracting or freezing the water at the glacier base. This would slow down the glacier sliding on the bedrock and reduce its contribution to sea-level rise.

B.   An artificial island (about 300 m high) could be built in the cavity under the floating section of the glacier (or ice shelf). This would enhance the so-called buttressing effect (see this post) and decrease the glacier flow to the ocean.

C.   A wall of up to 100 m high could be built in the ocean bay right in the front of the ice shelf. This would block (partially or completely) any warm water circulating underneath the ice shelf and delay the sub-shelf melting (see this post).

In theory

Wolovick and Moore (2018) studied in detail the possibility of building artificial islands (proposal B above) underneath the ice shelf of Thwaites Glacier (West Antarctica), one of the largest glacier contributors to the ongoing sea-level rise. They used a simple ice-flow model coupled to a simple ocean model and considered different warming scenarios in which they introduced an artificial island underneath the ice shelf.

Figure 2 below illustrates an example coming from their analysis. In the beginning (Fig. 2b), the grounding line (separation between the grounded ice sheet in blue and the floating ice shelf in purple) is located on top of a small mountain range. When running the model under a global warming scenario, the grounding line retreats inland and the glacier enters into a ‘collapsing phase’ (Fig. 2c; marine ice sheet instability). The introduction of an artificial island under the ice shelf with a potential to block half the warm ocean water allows the ice shelf to reground (Fig. 2d; the ice-shelf base touches the top of the small island below). The unprotected seaward part of the ice shelf shrinks over time, while the protected inland part thickens and regrounds (Fig. 2e-f), which overall decreases the glacier mass loss to the ocean.

Figure 2: Example of a model experiment realized on Thwaites Glacier by Wolovick and Moore (2018). Different times are presented and show the (b) initial state, (c) the collapse underway, (d) the initial effect of the construction of the artificial island below the ice shelf, (e) the removal of the seaward ice shelf and thickening of the landward ice shelf, (f) the stabilization of the glacier [Credit: Figure 5 of Wolovick and Moore (2018)].

In practice

The model experiments presented above show that delaying sea-level rise from glacier outflow is possible in theory. In practice, this would mean substantial geoengineering efforts. For building a small artificial island under the ice shelf of Pine Island Glacier (West Antarctica), 0.1 km3 of gravel and sand would be necessary. That same quantity would be sufficient to build a 100 m high wall in front of Jakobshavn Glacier (Greenland) to prevent warm water from melting the ice base. For building such a wall in front of Pine Island Glacier, a quantity of 6 km3 (60 times more than Jakobshavn) of material would be needed.

In comparison, the Three Gorges Dam used 0.03 km3 of cast concrete, the Hong Kong’s airport required around 0.3 km3 of landfill, and the excavation of the Suez Canal necessitated 1 km3 of material. Thus, the quantities needed for building glacial geoengineering structures are comparable in size to the current large engineering projects.

However, many other aspects need to be considered when implementing such a project. In particular, the construction of such structures in cold waters surrounded by icebergs and sea ice is much more difficult than in a typical temperate climate. A detailed study of physical processes in the region of the glacier, such as ocean circulation, iceberg calving, glacier sliding and erosion, and melting rates, is needed before performing such projects. Also, the number of people needed to work on a project of this scale is an important factor to include.

Potential adverse effects

Beside all the factors that need to be considered to implement such a project, there is a list of potential adverse effects. One of the main risks is to the marine ecosystems, which could be affected by the constructions of the islands and walls. Also, if not properly designed, the geoengineering solutions could accelerate the sea-level rise instead of delaying it. For instance, in the case of water extraction (proposal A above), the glacier might speed up rather than slow down if water at the glacier’s base is trapped in pockets.

Wolovick and Moore (2018) do not advocate that glacial geoengineering is done any time soon, due to the different factors mentioned above. Instead, they suggest that we start thinking about technological solutions that could delay sea-level rise. Other studies also look at different glacial geoengineering ideas (see this post).

In summary

Glacial geoengineering techniques constitute a potential way to cope with one of the greatest challenges related to global warming, namely sea-level rise. In theory, these projects are possible, while in practice a series of technical difficulties and potential ecological risks do not allow us to implement them soon.

While important to keep thinking about these solutions, the most important action that humanity can take in order to delay sea-level rise is to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. And scientists like us need to keep carefully studying the cryosphere and the Earth’s climate in general.

Further reading

Edited by Jenny Turton


David Docquier is a post-doctoral researcher at the Earth and Life Institute of Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium. He works on the development of processed-based sea-ice metrics in order to improve the evaluation of global climate models (GCMs). His study is embedded within the EU Horizon 2020 PRIMAVERA project, which aims at developing a new generation of high-resolution GCMs to better represent the climate.

 

Image of the Week – Why is ice so slippery?

Ice can be slippery! [Credit: giphy.com]

Having spent most of my life in places where the temperature hardly ever falls below zero, my first winter in Sweden was painful. Especially for my bum, who met the ice quite unexpectedly. Reading the news this week, from reports of emergency services overwhelmed after so many people had slipped to a scientific study on how no shoes have a good enough grip, via advice on how to walk like a penguin, I understand I am far from alone in having a problem with ice. But why is ice so slippery anyway? This is what we will talk about in this Image of the Week.


Did you know that you lacked friction?

To understand why one might fall sometimes, let us start with why one usually can walk without falling: friction! Friction is a resistive force that can have three causes:

  • Adhesion (think about glue or tape)

  • Surface roughness (think about sandpaper)

  • Deformation (think about dragging a suitcase over a gravel path)

Each of these types of friction is nicely explained on this website, so I will concentrate on our walking question. Note that if you are standing still, it is a different story; then we are talking about static (instead of dynamic) friction. And everything is actually a bit more complicated than the distinction between the three causes, since adhesion and roughness are somehow related. I will not get into that, but if that stirred your interest, you could have a look at this paper. Anyway, back to walking.

The roughness of our roads and pavements, along with that of your shoes and their deformation ability, is, of course, crucial. But in the case of water after the rain or rotten autumn leaves, adhesion can be the deciding factor between casually walking and experiencing a sudden unexpected loss of altitude: not that much adhesion between your foot and what you walk on, but rather between what you walk on and the rest of the world. And that is exactly the problem with ice.

Frozen lake [Credit: Nilay Dogulu (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu)]

Water really is a weird material

Coming from a place where people rarely worry about ice, I had never heard the commonly accepted reasons why ice is slippery. A quick internet search informed me that a common belief is that ice is slippery because, by walking on it, we melt the very surface of the ice through the pressure of our weight and/or the heat of the friction. As a result, we end up with a dangerous layer of liquid water between our foot and the ice, lose adhesion, and … boom! A study published this summer has a different explanation: water in its solid form is made of chains of molecules attached to three other water molecules. But the chain has to stop somewhere, so, at the very surface, molecules are only attached to one or two others, and can, as a result, be easily detached from the rest of the ice. When that happens, they just hang around on top of the ice, “like marbles on a dancefloor“.

However, it cannot be seen as a layer of liquid water, rather as a gas, the authors of that new study say. Not that it makes a big difference when you are on the floor… The good (?) news is, this strange property of ice depends on temperature. They report that ice is the most treacherous at -7°C, but then becomes safer as the temperature decreases.

EGU Cryosphere friendly advice: how to walk around -7°C

Personally, I avoid roads and pavements like the plague and walk on frozen paths and grass, which retain some roughness unless covered by a lot of snow. Since it is not always possible, adopt the technique of our favourite polar animal:

  • put your centre of mass ahead of you by slightly bending your torso forward

  • go slowly

  • move your foot next to each other, instead of in front of one another

  • or give up and slide on your belly!

One of our favourite polar animals [Credit: Giuseppe Aulicino (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu)].

Further reading

Edited by Clara Burgard

Image of the Week – What’s Hot in the Cryosphere? A 2018 review

Image of the Week – What’s Hot in the Cryosphere? A 2018 review

Every year, humanity understands more and more about a remote and unforgiving component of the Earth system – the cryosphere. 2018 has been no exception, and in this blog post we’ll take a look at some of the biggest scientific findings of cryospheric science in 2018. We will then look forward to 2019 and beyond, to see what the future holds for these rapidly changing climate components.


The Cryosphere at 1.5°C warming

In 2018, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released their report that looked at the impact of 1.5 and 2.0°C of global warming by 2100 on the Earth system. In the Arctic, warming is already in excess of 2.0˚C, driving a very strong decreasing trend in the summer sea-ice extent. The IPCC suggest that sea-ice-free summers will occur once per century at 1.5°C, but this increases to once per decade at 2.0°C. Limiting warming to 1.5˚C will also save 1.5-2.5 million km2 of permafrost thaw (preventing the release of ancient carbon into the atmosphere), 10 cm of sea-level rise contribution from ice sheets and glaciers, and reduce the risk of the irreversible collapse of the ice sheets. Read more about the cryosphere under 1.5°C warming in this previous post.

 

Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet

Compiling 24 independent estimates of mass balance, from a number of different remote sensing and modelling techniques, the IMBIE team produced the best estimate of how Antarctica is responding to continued climate warming. The mass balance refers to the net change in ice mass, accounting for all of the inputs and outputs to the ice. They quantify that ice mass loss from West Antarctica has increased three-fold between 1992 and 2017, largely due to melting from a warmer ocean. On the Antarctic Peninsula, the collapse of ice sheets has led to an increase ice mass loss by a factor of 4. East Antarctica is gaining mass slightly, although this is highly uncertain, by 5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year. Overall, Antarctica has lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice in this 25-year time period, and this mass loss is accelerating. Read more about these results in this previous post.

Mass loss from the Antarctic ice sheet is accelerating, largely due to ocean warming impacting West Antarctica. East Antarctica is very slightly gaining mass, but this doesn’t go anywhere near balancing out mass loss across the continent [Credit: NASA Goddard].

A polluted cryosphere

It’s easy to think of the cryosphere as a pristine, beautiful, untouched landscape. However, research from 2018 has shown us that the remoteness of Polar Regions has not protected them from man-made pollution. In one litre of melted Arctic sea-ice, 234 particles of plastic and over 12,000 particles of microplastics were found, which will only go onto adversely impact Arctic wildlife by spreading through the ecosystem. Radioactive material from the Chernobyl accident has also been found to be concentrated in dark sediments found on Swedish glaciers. As these glaciers melt, this concentration of radioactive material may be released in meltwater. In Greenland, lead pollution found in ice cores has provided exciting new insight into wars, plagues and invasions during the Roman Empire.

In 2018, we saw a glimpse of the geological secrets that Greenland hides beneath its ice sheet. However, there is still a hidden world that future field-based campaigns or airborne radar missions will help to unravel [Credit: NASA Goddard].

What secrets is Greenland hiding?

In 2018, we got our best ever look beneath the Greenland ice sheet. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey and NASA found that the hotspot (a thermal plume in the Earth’s mantle) currently under Iceland was once beneath Greenland, between 80 to 50 million years ago. This hotspot was discovered by studying the magnetism of minerals beneath the ice. Using airplanes, radio waves and sediment that’s washed out from underneath the ice sheet has also revealed a massive 31 kilometre wide meteorite crater underneath Hiawatha glacier. Given it’s beneath three kilometres of ice, the age of this crater is unknown, but given the interest and speculation in connecting this event to an abrupt cooling period 12,000 years ago (the Younger Dryas), we may know very soon.

 

Blast Off!

Satellites remain one of the most popular methods of monitoring the vast, hostile cryosphere. In 2018, a new generation of earth observation missions launched. ESA’s Sentinel-3B continues the Copernicus programme, monitoring the reflectivity of the ice, elevation and sea-ice thickness. NASA’s GRACE FO mission continues the successful first GRACE mission, which used gravimetry to ‘weigh’ different regions of ice. NASA also launched ICESat-2, which will provide global elevation data at unprecedented spatial resolution on a 91-day repeat orbit. Each satellite is being finely tuned to make sure it’s working exactly as intended, and we’ll get the first science from them in 2019. Stay tuned!

Remote sensing data has provided us with answers to some of the biggest questions in the cryosphere. We use it to help quantify mass loss, sea-level rise and glacial retreat. In 2019, new missions will take our knowledge of cryospheric sciences to new heights! [Credit: Liam Taylor]

A look ahead to 2019

On the ground, getting inside the ice will continue to provide fascinating insights into the history of the cryosphere – from reconstructing winds in sub-Antarctic islands using ice cores, to further insights deep inside the world’s highest glacier. As permafrost continues to thaw, we are likely to hear of more discoveries of woolly mammoths, ancient diseases and carbon release. The IPCC will also publish their special report devoted to The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which will provide the best overall state of the cryosphere to date. And, of course, the infamously named ‘Boaty McBoatface’ will provide us with incredible data from beneath sea-ice and ice shelves when the RRS Sir David Attenborough is launched. 2018 has been a truly exciting year to be a cryospheric scientist, and 2019 looks set to be another hot one!

 

Edited by Adam Bateson


Liam Taylor is a PhD student at the University of Leeds and Centre for Polar Observation and Monitoring. His research looks at identifying novel remote sensing methods to monitor mountain glaciers for water resource and hazard management. He is passionate about climate change and science communication to a global audience, as an educator on free online climate courses and through his personal blog. You can find Liam on Twitter.

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

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 – 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.

Image of the Week – Climate feedbacks demystified in polar regions

Figure 1: Major climate feedbacks operating in polar regions. Plus / minus signs mean that the feedbacks are positive / negative. Yellow and red arrows show solar shortwave and infrared radiation fluxes, respectively. Orange arrows show the flux exchanges between the different components of the climate system (ocean, atmosphere, ice) for several feedbacks. TOA refers to ‘top of the atmosphere’ [Credit: Fig 1 from Goosse et al. (2018)].

Over the recent decades, the Arctic has warmed twice as fast as the whole globe. This stronger warming, called “Arctic Amplification“, especially occurs in the Arctic because ice, ocean and atmosphere interact strongly, sometimes amplifying the warming, sometimes reducing it. These interactions are called “feedbacks” and are illustrated in our Image of the Week. Let’s see why these feedbacks are important, how we can measure them and what their implications are.


Climate feedbacks in polar regions

When it comes to climate science, feedback loops are very common. A climate feedback is a process that will either reinforce or diminish the effect of an initial perturbation in the climate system.

If the initial perturbation, for instance the warming of a region, is amplified by this process, we talk about a “positive feedback”. A positive feedback can be seen as a “vicious circle” as it will lead to an ever-ongoing amplification of the perturbation. The most prominent positive feedback in the Arctic is the “ice-albedo feedback“: as the surface warms, ice melts away, exposing darker surfaces to sunlight, which absorb more heat, leading to even more melting of the ice around.

On the contrary, if the initial perturbation is dampened by the process, we talk about a “negative feedback”. An example for a negative feedback is the “ice production-entrainment feedback”. In winter, when sea ice forms, it rejects salt into the ocean. As a result, the top ocean layer becomes denser and starts to sink. As the surface water sinks, it leaves room for warmer water below to rise to the surface. This warmer ocean surface then inhibits the formation of new sea ice.

The main climate feedbacks at play in polar regions involve the atmosphere, ocean and sea ice. They are represented in our Image of the Week. Plus and minus signs in this figure mean that the feedbacks are positive and negative, respectively.

 

How can we measure these feedbacks?

All the climate feedbacks depicted in our Image of the Week are far from being totally understood and are usually measured using different methods. That is why a new study (from which our Image of the Week is taken) proposes a common framework to quantify them.

In this framework, the feedback factor is the ratio between the changes due to the feedback only and the response of the full system including all feedbacks. It is positive for a positive feedback and negative for a negative feedback. In order to compute this feedback factor, we need to identify:

  1. the perturbation
  2. the reference variable involved in the feedback loop
  3. the full system, which includes all feedbacks
  4. the reference system in which the feedback under consideration does not operate.

 

If we take the example of the “ice production-entrainment feedback” (explained above):

  1. the perturbation is a given amount of sea-ice production
  2. the reference variable is sea-ice thickness
  3. the full system is sea ice and the ocean column with the entrainment process
  4. the reference system is sea ice and the ocean column without entrainment.

 

The feedback factor related to the “ice production-entrainment feedback” is then the ratio between the changes in ice thickness due to the feedback only and the total changes in ice thickness following a given amount of ice production. As it is a negative feedback, the related feedback factor is negative. As illustrated in Fig. 2, this feedback factor becomes even more negative, i.e. the strength of the feedback increases, with higher ice production. Therefore, this feedback is highly nonlinear, which is typical of feedbacks in polar regions.

Figure 2: Feedback factor related to the ice production-entrainment feedback as a function of ice production. It is computed from mean temperature and salinity profiles in the Weddel Sea for January-February 1990-2005 [Credit: Fig. 5 from Goosse et al. (2018)].

The advantage of this framework is that you can apply it to all feedbacks present in our Image of the Week. Therefore, it is possible to compute their effects in a similar way, making the comparison easier.

 

Reducing uncertainties in model projections

Accounting for all those climate feedbacks is difficult, as they involve several components of the climate system and interactions between them. Therefore, their misrepresentation (or lack of representation) is one of the sources of error in model projections, i.e. climate model runs going up to 2100 and beyond. Climate feedbacks are therefore one explanation why models largely disagree when it comes to projecting global temperature and sea-ice evolution.

This means that, if we want to better predict what is going to happen in the polar regions, we must better measure what the feedbacks do in reality and better represent them in climate models.

On the modelling side, the main problem is that feedbacks are often described qualitatively to understand climate processes, and many models cannot evaluate these feedbacks quantitatively. There is therefore a clear motivation to use the common framework presented in this study to compute climate feedbacks in models.

However, additionally to improving model projections, identifying the critical climate feedbacks at play in polar regions is also a way to better target observational campaigns, such as the Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) and the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC).

 

References

Edited by Sophie Berger and Clara Burgard


David Docquier is a post-doctoral researcher at the Earth and Life Institute of Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium. He works on the development of processed-based sea-ice metrics in order to improve the evaluation of global climate models (GCMs). His study is embedded within the EU Horizon 2020 PRIMAVERA project, which aims at developing a new generation of high-resolution GCMs to better represent the climate.

Image of the Week — Quantifying Antarctica’s ice loss

Fig. 1 Cumulative Antarctic Ice Sheet mass change since 1992. [Credit: Fig 2. from The IMBIE team (2018), reprinted with permission from Nature]

It is this time of the year, where any news outlet is full of tips on how to lose weight rapidly to  become beach-body ready. According to the media avalanche following the publication of the ice sheet mass balance inter-comparison exercise (IMBIE) team’s Nature paper, Antarctica is the biggest loser out there. In this Image of the Week, we explain how the international team managed to weight Antarctica’s ice sheet and what they found.


Estimating the Antarctic ice sheet’s mass change

There are many ways to quantify Antarctica’s mass and mass change and most of them rely on satellites. In fact, the IMBIE team notes that there are more than 150 papers published on the topic. Their paper that we highlight this week is remarkable in that it combines all the methods in order to produce just one, easy to follow, time series of Antarctica’s mass change. But what are these methods? The IMBIE team  used estimates from three types of methods:

  •  altimetry: tracking changes in elevation of the ice sheet, e.g. to detect a thinning;
  •  gravimetry: tracking changes in the gravitational pull caused by a change in mass;
  •  input-output: comparing changes in snow accumulation and solid ice discharge.

To simplify, let’s imagine that you’re trying to keep track of how much weight you’re losing/gaining. Then  altimetry would be like looking at yourself in a mirror, gravimetry would be stepping on a scale, and input-output would be counting all the calories you’re taking in and  burning out. None of these methods will tell you directly whether you have lost belly fat, but combining them will.

The actual details of each methods are rather complex and cover more pages than the core of the paper, so I invite you to read them by yourself (from page 5 onwards). But long story short, all estimates were turned into one unique time series of ice sheet mass balance (purple line on Fig. 1). Furthermore, to understand how each region of Antarctica contributed to the time series, the scientists also produced one time series per main  Antarctic region (Fig. 2): the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (green line), the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (yellow line), and the Antarctic Peninsula (red line) .

Antarctica overview map. [Credit: NASA]

Antarctica is losing ice

The results are clear: the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is losing mass, and this mass loss is accelerating. Nearly 3000 Giga tonnes since 1992. That is 400 billion elephants in 25 years, or on average 500 elephants per second.

Most of this signal originates from West Antarctica, with a current trend of 159 Gt (22 billion elephants) per year. And most of this West Antarctic signal comes from the Amundsen Sea sector, host notably to the infamous  Pine Island  and Thwaites Glaciers.

The Antarctic ice sheet has lost “400 billion elephants in 25 years”

But how is the ice disappearing? Rather, is the ice really disappearing, or is there simply less ice added to Antarctica than ice naturally removed, i.e. a change in surface mass balance? The IMBIE team studied this as well. And they found that there is no Antarctic ice sheet wide trend in surface mass balance; in other words Antarctica is shrinking because more and more ice is discharged into the ocean, not because it receives less snow from the atmosphere.

Floating ice shelf in the Halley embayment, East Antarctica [Credit: Céline Heuzé]

What is happening in East Antarctica?

Yet another issue with determining Antarctica’s weight loss is Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. In a nutshell, ice is heavy, and its weight pushes the ground down. When the ice disappears, the ground goes back up, but much more slowly than the rate of ice melting . This process has been ongoing in Scandinavia notably since the end of the last ice age 21 000 years ago, but it is also happening in East Antarctica by about 5 to 7 mm per year (more information here). Except that there are very few on site GPS measurements in Antarctica to determine how much land is rising, and the many estimations of this uplifting disagree.

So as summarised by the IMBIE team, we do not know yet what the change in ice thickness is where glacial isostatic adjustment is strong, because we are unsure how strong this adjustment is there. As a result in East Antarctica, we do not know whether there is ice loss or not, because it is unclear what the ground is doing.

What do we do now?

The IMBIE team concludes their paper with a list of required actions to improve the ice loss time series: more in-situ observations using airborne radars and GPS, and uninterrupted satellite observations (which we already insisted on earlier).

What about sea level rise, you may think. Or worse, looking at our image of the week, you see the tiny +6mm trend in 10 years and think that it is not much. No, it is not. But note that the trend is far from linear and has been actually accelerating in the last decades…

 

Reference/Further reading

The IMBIE Team, 2018. Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992-2017. Nature 558, 219–222.

Edited by Sophie Berger

Image of the Week – Antarctica: A decade of dynamic change

Fig. 1 – Annual rate of change in ice sheet height attributable to ice dynamics. Zoomed regions show (a) the Amundsen Sea Embayment and West Marie Byrd Land sectors of West Antarctica, (b) the Bellingshausen Sea Sector including the Fox and Ferrigno Ice Streams and glaciers draining into the George VI ice shelf and (c) the Totten Ice Shelf. The results are overlaid on a hill shade map of ice sheet elevation from Bedmap2 (Fretwell et al. 2013) and the grounding line and ice shelves are shown in grey (Depoorter et al. 2013). [Credit: Stephen Chuter]

  

Whilst we tend to think of the ice flow in Antarctica as a very slow and steady process, the wonders of satellites have shown over the last two decades it is one of the most dynamic places on Earth! This image of the week maps this dynamical change using all the satellite tools at a scientist’s disposal with novel statistical methods to work out why the change has recently been so rapid.


Why do we care about dynamic changes in Antarctica ?!

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has the potential to contribute an approximate 3.3 m to global sea level rise (Bamber et al. 2009). Therefore, being able to accurately quantify observed ice sheet mass losses and gains is imperative for assessing not only their current contribution to the sea level budget, but also to inform ice sheet models to help better predict future ice sheet behaviour.

An ice sheet can gain or lose mass primarily through two different processes:

  • changes in surface mass balance (variations in snowfall and surface melt driven by atmospheric processes) or
  • ice dynamics, which is where variations in the flow of the ice sheet (such as an increase in its velocity) leads to changes in the amount of solid ice discharged from the continent into the ocean. In Antarctica ice flow dynamics are typically regulated by the ice shelves that surround the ice sheet; which provide a buttressing stress to help hold back the rate of flow.

Understanding the magnitude of each of these two components is key to understanding the external forcing driving the observed ice sheet changes.

This Image of the Week shows the annual rates of ice sheet elevation change which are attributed to changes in ice dynamics between 2003 and 2013 (Fig. 1) (Martín-Español et al. 2016). This is calculated by combining observations from multiple satellites (GRACE, ENVISAT, ICESat and CryoSat-2) with in-situ GPS measurements in  a Bayesian Hierarchical Model. The challenge we face is that the observations we have of ice sheet change (whether that being total height change from altimetry or mass changes from GRACE) vary on their spatial and temporal scales and can only tell us the total mass change signal, not the magnitudes or proportions of the underlying processes driving it. The Bayesian statistical approach used here takes these observations and separates them proportionally into their most likely processes, aided by prior knowledge of the spatial and temporal characteristics for each process we want to resolve. This allows us reducing the reliance on using forward model outputs to resolve for processes we cannot observe. As a result, it is unique from other methods of determining ice sheet mass change, which rely on model outputs which in some cases have hard to quantify uncertainties.  This methodology has been applied to Antarctica and is currently being used to resolve the sea level budget and its constituent components through the ERC GlobalMass project.

What can we learn from Bayesian statistical approach?

This approach firstly allows us to quantitively assess the annual contribution that the Antarctic ice sheet is making to the global sea level budget, which is vital to better understanding the magnitude each Earth system process is playing in sea level change. Additionally, by being able to break down the total change into its component processes, we can better understand what external factors are driving this change. Ice dynamics has been the dominant component of mass loss in recent years over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and is therefore the process being focussed on in this image.

Amundsen Sea Embayment : a rapidly thinning area

Since 2003 there have been major changes in the dynamic behaviour over the Amundsen Sea Embayment and West Marie Byrd Land region (Fig 1, inset a). This region is undergoing some of the most rapid dynamical changes across Antarctica, with a 5 m/yr ice dynamical thinning near the outlet of the Pope and Smith Glacier. Additionally the Bayesian hierarchical model results show that dynamic thinning has spread inland from the margins of Pine Island Glacier, agreeing with elevation trends measured by satellite altimetry over the last two decades (Konrad et al. 2016).

These changes are driven primarily by the rapid thinning of the floating ice shelves at the ice sheet margin in this region

The importance of ice dynamics  is also illustrated in Fig 2, which shows  surface processes and ice dynamics components of mass changes over the Amundsen Sea Embayment from the bayesian hierarchical model. Fig 2 demonstrates that ice dynamics is the primary driver of mass losses in the region. Ice dynamic mass loss increased dramatically from 2003-2011, potentially stabilising to a new steady state since 2011.

Fig. 2 – Annual mass changes due to ice dynamics (pink line) and SMB (blue line) for the period 2003-2013 from the Bayesian hierarchical model approach. Red dots represent mass change anomaly (changes from the long term mean) due to surface mass balance calculated by the RACMO2.3 model and allow for comparison with our Bayesian framework results. (calculated from observations of ice velocity and ice thickness at the grounding line and allow for comparison with our Bayesian framework results (Mouginot et al, 2014). [Credit: Fig. 9b from Martín-Español et al., 2016].

 

The onset of  dynamic thinning can also be seen in glaciers draining into the Getz Ice Shelf, which is experiencing high localised rates of ice shelf thinning up to 66.5 m per decade (Paolo et al. 2015) . This corroborates with ice speed-up recently seen in the region (Chuter et al. 2017; Gardner et al. 2018). We have limited field observations of ice characteristics in this region and therefore more extensive surveys are required to fully understand causes of this dynamic response.

Bellingshausen Sea Sector :  Not as stable as previously thought…

 The Bellingshausen Sea Sector (Fig 1, inset b) was previously considered relatively a dynamically stable section of the Antarctic coastline, however recent analysis from a forty year record of satellite imagery has shown that the majority of the grounding line in this region has retreated  (Christie et al. 2016). This is reflected in the presence of a dynamic thinning signal in the bayesian hierarchical model results near the Fox and Ferrigno Ice streams and over some glaciers draining into the George VI ice shelf, which have been observed from CryoSat-2 radar altimetry (Wouters et al. 2015). The dynamic changes in this region over the last decade highlight the importance of continually monitoring all regions of the ice sheet with satellite remote sensing in order to understand the what the long term response over multiple decades is to changes in the Earth’s climate and ocean forcing.

Outlook

Multiple  satellite missions have allowed us to measure changes occurring across the ice sheet in unprecedented detail over the last decade. The launch of the GRACE-Follow On mission earlier this week and the expected launch of ICESat-2 in September will ensure this capability continues well into the future. This will provide much needed further observations to allow us to understand ice sheet dynamics over time scales of multiple decades. The bayesian hierarchical approach being demonstrated will be developed further to encompass these new data sets and extend the results into the next decade. In addition to satellite measurements, the launch of the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration  between NERC and NSF will provide much needed field observations for the Thwaites Glacier region of the Amundsen Sea Embayment, to better understand whether it has entered a state of irreversible instability .

Data
The  Bayesian hierarchical model mass trends shown here (Martín-Español et al. 2016) are available from the UK Polar Data Centre. In addition, the time series has been extended until 2015 and is available on request from Stephen Chuter (s.chuter@bristol.ac.uk). This work is part of the ongoing ERC GlobalMass project, which aims to attribute global sea level rise into its constituent components using a Bayesian Hierarchical Model approach. The GlobalMass project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 69418.

References

Christie, Frazer D. W. et al. 2016. “Four-Decade Record of Pervasive Grounding Line Retreat along the Bellingshausen Margin of West Antarctica.” Geophysical Research Letters 43(11): 5741–49. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2016GL068972.

Chuter, S.J., A. Martín-Español, B. Wouters, and J.L. Bamber. 2017. “Mass Balance Reassessment of Glaciers Draining into the Abbot and Getz Ice Shelves of West Antarctica.” Geophysical Research Letters 44(14).

Gardner, Alex S. et al. 2018. “Increased West Antarctic and Unchanged East Antarctic Ice Discharge over the Last 7 Years.” Cryosphere 12(2): 521–47.

Martín-Español, Alba et al. 2016. “Spatial and Temporal Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Trends, Glacio-Isostatic Adjustment, and Surface Processes from a Joint Inversion of Satellite Altimeter, Gravity, and GPS Data.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 121(2): 182–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003550.

Mouginot, J, E Rignot, and B Scheuchl. 2014. “Sustained Increase in Ice Discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013.” Geophysical Research Letters 41(5): 1576–84.

Paolo, Fernando S, Helen A Fricker, and Laurie Padman. 2015. “Volume Loss from Antarctic Ice Shelves Is Accelerating.” Science 348(6232): 327–31. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/31/science.aaa0940.abstract.

Edited by Violaine Coulon and Sophie Berger


Stephen Chuter is a post-doctoral research associate in Polar Remote Sensing and Sea Level at the University of Bristol. He combines multiple satellite and ground observations of ice sheet and glacier change with novel statistical modelling techniques to better determine their contribution to the global sea level budget. He tweets as @StephenChuter and can be found at www.stephenchuter.wordpress.com. Contact email: s.chuter@bristol.ac.uk

Image of the Week — Seasonal and regional considerations for Arctic sea ice changes

Monthly trends in sea ice extent for the Northern Hemisphere’s regional seas, 1979–2016. [Credit: adapted from Onarheim et al (2018), Fig. 7]

The Arctic sea ice is disappearing. There is no debate anymore. The problem is, we have so far been unable to model this disappearance correctly. And without correct simulations, we cannot project when the Arctic will become ice free. In this blog post, we explain why we want to know this in the first place, and present a fresh early-online release paper by Ingrid Onarheim and colleagues in Bergen, Norway, which highlights (one of) the reason(s) why our modelling attempts have failed so far… 


Why do we want to know when the Arctic will become ice free anyway? 

As we already mentioned on this blog, whether you see the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice as an opportunity or a catastrophe honestly depends on your scientific and economic interests.  

It is an opportunity because the Arctic Ocean will finally be accessible to, for example: 

  • tourism; 
  • fisheries; 
  • fast and safe transport of goods between Europe and Asia; 
  • scientific exploration. 

All those activities would no longer need to rely on heavy ice breakers, hence becoming more economically viable. In fact, the Arctic industry has already started: in summer 2016, the 1700-passenger Crystal Serenity became the first large cruise ship to safely navigate the North-West passage, from Alaska to New York. Then in summer 2017, the Christophe de Margerie became the first tanker to sail through the North-East passage, carrying liquefied gas from Norway to South Korea without an ice breaker escort, while the Eduard Toll became the first tanker to do so in winter just two months ago. 

On the other hand, the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice could be catastrophic as having more ships in the area increases the risk of an accident. But not only. The loss of Arctic sea ice has societal and ecological impacts, causing coastal erosion, disappearance of a traditional way of life, and threatening the whole Arctic food chain that we do not fully understand yet. Not to mention all of the risks on the other components of the climate system. (See our list of further readings at the end of this post for excellent reviews on this topic). 

Either way, we need to plan for the disappearance of the sea ice, and hence need to know when it will disappear. 

Arctic sea ice decrease varies with region and season 

In a nutshell, the new paper published by Onarheim and colleagues says that talking about “the Arctic sea ice extent” is an over simplification. They instead separated the Arctic into its 13 distinct basins, and calculated the trends in sea ice extent for each basin and each month of the year. They found a totally different behaviour between the peripheral seas (in blue on this image of the week) and the Arctic proper, i.e. north of Fram and Bering Straits (in red). As is shown by all the little boxes on the image, the peripheral seas have experienced their largest long term sea ice loss in winter, whereas those in the Arctic proper have been losing their ice in summer only. In practice, what is happening to the Arctic proper is that the melt season starts earlier (note how the distribution is not symmetric, with largest values on the top half of the image).  

Talking about Arctic sea ice extent is an over simplification

Moreover, Onarheim and colleagues performed a simple linear extrapolation of the observed trends shown on this image, and found that the Arctic proper may become ice-free in summer from the 2020s. As they point out, some seas of the Arctic proper have in fact already been ice free in recent summers. The trends are less strong in the peripheral seas, and the authors write that they will probably have sea ice in winter until at least the 2050s. 

So, although Arctic navigation should become possible fairly soon, in summer, you may need to choose a different holiday destination for the next 30 winters. 

Melting summer ice. [Credit: Mikhail Varentsov (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu)]

But why should WE consider the regions separately? 

The same way that you would not plan for the risk of winter flood in New York based on yearly average of the whole US, you should not base your plan for winter navigation from Arkhangelsk to South Korea on the yearly Arctic-wide average of sea-ice behaviour. 

Scientifically, this paper is exciting because different trends at different locations and seasons will also have different consequences on the rest of the climate system. If you have less sea ice in autumn or winter, you will lose more heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, and hence impact both components’ heat and humidity budget. If you have less sea ice in spring, you may trigger an earlier algae bloom. 

As often, this paper highlights that the Earth system behaves in a more complex fashion that it first appears. Just like global warming does not prevent the occurrence of unpleasantly cold days, the disappearance of Arctic sea ice is not as simple as ice cubes melting in your beverage on a sunny day.  

Reference/Further reading

Bhatt, U. S., et al. (2014), Implications of Arctic sea ice decline for the Earth system. Ann. Rev. Environ. Res., 39, 57-89 

Meier, W. N., et al. (2014), Arctic sea ice in transformation: A review of recent observed changes and impacts on biology and human activity. Reviews of Geophysics, 52(3), 185-217. 

Onarheim, I., et al. (2018), Seasonal and regional manifestation of Arctic sea ice loss. Journal of Climate, EOR.  

Post, E., et al. (2013), Ecological consequences of sea-ice decline. Science, 341, 519-524 

Edited by Sophie Berger