Spatial patterns of arctic tundra vegetation properties on different soils along the Eurasia Arctic Transect, and insights for a changing Arctic
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Howard E Epstein↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Arctic change”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Changing Arctic Snow Cover: A Review of Recent Developments and Assessment of Future Needs for Observations, Modelling, and Impacts
Snow is a critically important and rapidly changing feature of the Arctic. However, snow-cover and snowpack conditions change through time pose challenges for measuring and prediction of snow. Plausible scenarios of how Arctic snow cover will respond to changing Arctic climate are important for impact assessments and adaptation strategies. Although much progress has been made in understanding and predicting snow-cover changes and their multiple consequences, many uncertainties remain. In this paper, we review advances in snow monitoring and modelling, and the impact of snow changes on ecosystems and society in Arctic regions. Interdisciplinary activities are required to resolve the current limitations on measuring and modelling snow characteristics through the cold season and at different spatial scales to assure human well-being, economic stability, and improve the ability to predict manage and adapt to natural hazards in the Arctic region.
climate change↗
Observations of Arctic environmental change
This overview paper presents recent observations of anomalous change in Arctic environment using satellite scatterometer data together with in-situ and field measurements over land, snow, sea ice, and Greenland ice sheet.
snow↗
Changes in Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice as a Microcosm of Global Climate Change
Polar sea ice is a key element of the climate system and has now been monitored through satellite observations for over three and a half decades. The satellite observations reveal considerable information about polar ice and its changes since the late 1970s, including a prominent downward trend in Arctic sea ice coverage and a much lesser upward trend in Antarctic sea ice coverage, illustrative of the important fact that climate change entails spatial contrasts. The decreasing ice coverage in the Arctic corresponds well with contemporaneous Arctic warming and exhibits particularly large decreases in the summers of 2007 and 2012, influenced by both preconditioning and atmospheric conditions. The increasing ice coverage in the Antarctic is not as readily explained, but spatial differences in the Antarctic trends suggest a possible connection with atmospheric circulation changes that have perhaps been influenced by the Antarctic ozone hole. The changes in the polar ice covers and the issues surrounding those changes have many commonalities with broader climate changes and their surrounding issues, allowing the sea ice changes to be viewed in some important ways as a microcosm of global climate change.
Arctic↗
Spring Snow Melt Timing and Changes over Arctic Lands
Spring snow cover over Arctic lands has, on average, melted approximately 4-7 days earlier since the late 1980s compared to the previous 20 years. The earlier disappearance of snow has been identified in non-mountainous regions at the 60 deg and 70 deg N parallels over Eurasia and North America using visible satellite observations of continental snow cover extent (SCE) mapped by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The change was greater in the farthest north continental locations. Northern hemisphere SCE declined by almost 10% (May) to 20% (June) between the two intervals. At latitude 70 deg N, eight segments of longitude (each 10 deg in width) show significant (negative) trends. However, only two longitudinal segments at 60 deg N show significant trends, (one positive and one negative). SCE changes coincide with increasing spring warmth and the earlier diminution of sea ice in the last several decades. However, while sea ice has continued to decrease during this recent interval, snowmelt dates in the Arctic changed in a step-like fashion during the mid to late 1980s and have remained much the same since that time.
Foster, J. L.↗
Evidence of Strong Contributions from Mixed-Phase Clouds to Arctic Climate Change
Underestimation of the proportion of supercooled liquid in mixed‐phase clouds in climate models has called into question its impact on Arctic climate change. We show that correcting for this bias in the CESM model can either enhance or reduce Arctic amplification depending on the microphysical characteristics of the clouds as a corollary to the cloud phase feedback. Replacement of ice with liquid in the cloud phase feedback results in more downward longwave radiation, which is effectively trapped as heat at the surface in the Arctic due to its unique stable stratification conditions, and this ultimately leads to a more positive lapse rate feedback. The larger the ice particles are to begin with, the stronger Arctic amplification becomes due to the lower precipitation efficiency of liquid droplets compared to ice crystals. Our results emphasize the importance of realistic representations of microphysical processes in mixed‐phase clouds, particularly in the Arctic.
Arctic↗
Present and future aerosol impacts on Arctic climate change in the GISS-E2.1 Earth system model
The Arctic is warming 2 to 3 times faster than the global average, partly due to changes in short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) including aerosols. In order to study the effects of atmospheric aerosols in this warming, recent past (1990–2014) and future (2015–2050) simulations have been carried out using the GISS-E2.1 Earth system model to study the aerosol burdens and their radiative and climate impacts over the Arctic (>60°N), using anthropogenic emissions from the Eclipse V6b and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) databases, while global annual mean greenhouse gas concentrations were prescribed and kept fixed in all simulations. Results showed that the simulations have underestimated observed surface aerosol levels, in particular black carbon (BC) and sulfate (SO2−4), by more than 50 %, with the smallest biases calculated for the atmosphere-only simulations, where winds are nudged to reanalysis data. CMIP6 simulations performed slightly better in reproducing the observed surface aerosol concentrations and climate parameters, compared to the Eclipse simulations. In addition, simulations where atmosphere and ocean are fully coupled had slightly smaller biases in aerosol levels compared to atmosphere-only simulations without nudging. Arctic BC, organic aerosol (OA), and SO2−4 burdens decrease significantly in all simulations by 10 %–60 % following the reductions of 7 %–78 % in emission projections, with the Eclipse ensemble showing larger reductions in Arctic aerosol burdens compared to the CMIP6 ensemble. For the 2030–2050 period, the Eclipse ensemble simulated a radiative forcing due to aerosol–radiation interactions (RFARI) of −0.39 ± 0.01 W/sq. m, which is −0.08 W/sq. m larger than the 1990–2010 mean forcing (−0.32 W/sq. m), of which −0.24 ± 0.01 W/sq. m was attributed to the anthropogenic aerosols. The CMIP6 ensemble simulated a RFARI of −0.35 to −0.40 W/sq. m for the same period, which is −0.01 to −0.06 W/sq. m larger than the 1990–2010 mean forcing of −0.35 W/sq. m. The scenarios with little to no mitigation (worst-case scenarios) led to very small changes in the RFARI, while scenarios with medium to large emission mitigations led to increases in the negative RFARI, mainly due to the decrease in the positive BC forcing and the decrease in the negative SO2−4 forcing. The anthropogenic aerosols accounted for −0.24 to −0.26 W/sq. m of the net RFARI in 2030–2050 period, in Eclipse and CMIP6 ensembles, respectively. Finally, all simulations showed an increase in the Arctic surface air temperatures throughout the simulation period. By 2050, surface air temperatures are projected to increase by 2.4 to 2.6 °C in the Eclipse ensemble and 1.9 to 2.6 °C in the CMIP6 ensemble, compared to the 1990–2010 mean. Overall, results show that even the scenarios with largest emission reductions leads to similar impact on the future Arctic surface air temperatures and sea-ice extent compared to scenarios with smaller emission reductions, implying reductions of greenhouse emissions are still necessary to mitigate climate change.
Aerosols↗
Recent Changes in Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Motion Associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation
Examination of a new ice motion dataset of the Arctic Ocean over a recent eighteen year period (1978-1996) reveals patterns of variability that can be linked directly to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
North Atlantic Oscillation sea ice Arctic Ocean cl↗
Top‐Down Regulation by a Reindeer Herding System Limits Climate‐Driven Arctic Vegetation Change at a Regional Scale
Warming-driven growth of tall woody vegetation in the Arctic has the potential to accelerate climate change through multiple positive feedbacks. Local-scale evidence suggests that large herbivores limit this vegetation shift, but there is uncertainty at larger, regional scales whether current herbivory pressure is a major top-down control on ecosystem structure and functioning. Across a 67,000 km2 region of the Yamal Peninsula in West Siberia, we integrated satellite remote sensing with a novel data set mapping the migrations of herds comprising 151,000 domesticated reindeer. Where reindeer numbers varied over space, higher reindeer herbivory pressure was consistently linked with lower coverage of tall woody vegetation. Within areas dominated by this vegetation type, productivity and climate were increasingly decoupled where reindeer density was higher. Our spaceborne fingerprint detection suggests that large herbivores, at current population densities, counteract Arctic vegetation responses to climate change over large spatial scales.
Reindeer Herding System↗
Recent Changes in Arctic Sea Ice Melt Onset, Freeze-Up, and Melt Season Length
In order to explore changes and trends in the timing of Arctic sea ice melt onset and freeze-up and therefore melt season length, we developed a method that obtains this information directly from satellite passive microwave data, creating a consistent data set from 1979 through present. We furthermore distinguish between early melt (the first day of the year when melt is detected) and the first day of continuous melt. A similar distinction is made for the freeze-up. Using this method we analyze trends in melt onset and freeze-up for 10 different Arctic regions. In all regions except for the Sea of Okhotsk, which shows a very slight and statistically insignificant positive trend (O.4 days/decade), trends in melt onset are negative, i.e. towards earlier melt. The trends range from -1.0day/decade for the Bering Sea to -7.3 days/decade for the East Greenland Sea. Except for the Sea of Okhotsk all areas also show a trend towards later autumn freeze onset. The Chukchi/Beaufort Seas and Laptev/East Siberian Seas observe the strongest trends with 7 days/decade. For the entire Arctic, the melt season length has increased by about 20 days over the last 30 years. Largest trends of over 1O days/decade are seen for Hudson Bay, the East Greenland Sea the Laptev/East Siberian Seas, and the Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. Those trends are statistically significant a1 the 99% level.
Markus, Thorsten↗
Changes in Arctic and Antarctic Sea-Ice Properties and Processes
Although sea ice covers ~9% of the world’s oceans, its presence, and absence, vastly alter the energetic balance of Earth’s climate. Because of geographic differences, Arctic and Antarctic sea ice have different dominant properties and processes, which produce different responses to natural variability and anthropogenic change. In this Review, we survey changes in sea-ice properties and processes of the Arctic and Antarctic environments. In the Arctic, the melt season has lengthened by ~7.4 days decade −1 (1979-2024). There has been a corresponding decrease in winter sea-ice thickness (1.6 m mean total over 1980-2023), summer surface albedo (0.03 decade −1 over 1979-2020), and spring snow depth (2.5 cm decade −1 over 1954-2024). In comparison, corresponding changes in the Antarctic are small overall due to contrasting regional and temporal trends. From a dynamic perspective, sea-ice motion in both hemispheres has increased, with 0.63 cm s −1 decade −1 in the Arctic (1978-2024) and 0.69 cm s −1 decade −1 in the Antarctic (1982-2024), whereas trends in polynya occurrence differ by region. Future research should prioritize sea-ice observations that can inform how the climate system responds to natural variability and anthropogenic change, be standardized to increase uptake by the broader scientific community, and target process-oriented interactions to support model development.
Melinda A Webster↗
Top‐Down Regulation by a Reindeer Herding System Limits Climate‐Driven Arctic Vegetation Change at a Regional Scale
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Marcus P. Spiegel↗
Changes in Arctic Melt Season and Implications for Sea Ice Loss
The Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days dec-1 from 1979 to 2013, dominated by later autumn freeze-up within the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi and Beaufort seas between 6 and 11 days dec(exp -1). While melt onset trends are generally smaller, the timing of melt onset has a large influence on the total amount of solar energy absorbed during summer. The additional heat stored in the upper ocean of approximately 752MJ m(exp -2) during the last decade, increases sea surface temperatures by 0.5 to 1.5 C and largely explains the observed delays in autumn freeze-up within the Arctic Ocean's adjacent seas. Cumulative anomalies in total absorbed solar radiation from May through September for the most recent pentad locally exceed 300-400 MJ m(exp -2) in the Beaufort, Chukchi and East Siberian seas. This extra solar energy is equivalent to melting 0.97 to 1.3 m of ice during the summer.
Season↗
Isolating the Surface Type Influence on Arctic Cloud Properties
In response to anthropogenic climate change, substantial declines in sea ice have been observed. An urgent question is whether and how clouds respond to the changing Arctic surface. Due to the important radiative influence of clouds, the response of clouds to sea ice cover change constitutes a potentially important climate feedback within the Arctic. The sign of this feedback is strongly influenced by the seasonality of the cloud response to sea ice loss. Given the importance of this phenomenon, previous research focused on using observations of inter-annual variability to quantify the cloud-sea ice relationship. However, the reliance on inter-annual variability to assess the covariance between clouds and sea ice make it challenging to control for the influence of large-scale meteorology on the clouds. We have devised an approach that applies an in situ, airborne observational strategy to quantify the influence of surface type on Arctic clouds to satellite data. Our event-based method composites cloud property differences for ocean, marginal ice zone, and sea ice surface types for >5000 MIZ crossing events. We find that cloud properties in non-summer months below ~1.5 km are influenced by surface type such that greater cloud fraction and water content are found over ocean relative to sea ice regions. Results are statistically significantly at the 95% confidence level. During summer, the surface type does not influence the cloud properties. The primary cause of the surface type dependent cloud property differences is the thermodynamic profiles differences that occur between the two surface types: namely, ocean footprints are warmer, moister, have more positive surface turbulent fluxes and are less stable than their sea ice counterparts. We find that the differences in thermodynamic profiles by surface type that correspond to the cloud property differences also explains a significant portion of the variability across events. Our analysis provides evidence that the influence of surface type on cloud properties fundamentally occurs due to the inherent surface temperature differences between the surface types. Significant surface type influences on cloud properties are only found in the presence of surface temperature differences between the surface types and only non-summer months meet this criterion. A conceptual model of this process is as follows, fundamental properties of the ocean and sea ice surface types (e.g., surface albedo, heat capacity/thermal inertia, surface roughness, and thermal conductance) lead to systematic differences in the surface temperature by surface type. In response to this surface temperature difference, atmosphere boundary layer processes (including turbulent mixing and radiation) communicate the surface temperature differences to the lower atmosphere driving the greater stability over sea ice than ocean. These differences in the background thermodynamic state profiles between the surface types yield atmospheric conditions that are more conducive to cloud development over ocean than sea ice. The details of these boundary layer processes are sensitive to the surface type but may not be fundamental to the resulting thermodynamic structure and cloud differences. Thus, our results indicate that to accurately model that cloud response to sea ice loss in climate models the surface type properties that yield the systematic differences in ocean and sea ice temperature (e.g., surface albedo, surface turbulent fluxes parameters, and thermal conductance) must be accurately represented.
Arctic radiation budget↗
A Satellite-Based Estimate of Combustion Aerosol Cloud Microphysical Effects over the Arctic Ocean
Climate predictions for the rapidly changing Arctic are highly uncertain, largely due to a poor understanding of the processes driving cloud properties. In particular, cloud fraction (CF) and cloud phase (CP) have major impacts on energy budgets, but are poorly represented in most models, often because of uncertainties in aerosol–cloud interactions. Here, we use over 10 million satellite observations coupled with aerosol transport model simulations to quantify large scale microphysical effects of aerosols on CF and CP over the Arctic Ocean during polar night, when direct and semi-direct aerosol effects are minimal. Combustion aerosols over sea ice are associated with very large (~10W/sq.m) differences in longwave cloud radiative effects at the sea ice surface. However, co-varying meteorological changes on factors such as CF likely explain the majority of this signal. For example, combustion aerosols explain at most 40% of the CF differences between the full dataset and the clean-condition subset, compared to between 57% and 91% of the differences that can be predicted by co-varying meteorology. After normalizing for meteorological regime, aerosol microphysical effects have small but significant impacts on CF, CP, and precipitation frequency on an Arctic-wide scale. These effects indicate that dominant aerosol–cloud microphysical mechanisms are related to the relative fraction of liquid-containing clouds, with implications for a warming Arctic.
Zamora, Lauren M.↗
Role of Arctic Low Clouds in the Arctic Climate System: Isolating the Surface Type Influence on Arctic Low-Clouds
Interactions between sea ice and clouds represent a mechanism through which sea ice influences climate. Understanding the cloud response to the rapidly changing Arctic surface properties is necessary for improving climate simulations and projection of future change inside and outside the Arctic. Towards the goal of understanding the cloud response to sea ice, we composite cloud properties for ice-free, marginal ice zone (MIZ), and ice-covered surfaces during MIZ crossing events to analyze the cloud property differences between surface types. Restricting the analysis to MIZ crossing events enables the isolation of the sea ice effect on clouds from meteorological factors. We find larger cloud fraction and total water concentration below ~1.5 km over ice-free relative to ice-covered surfaces during non-summer months. During summer, the results suggest larger cloud fraction and total water concentration over ice-free surfaces, however differences do not exceed observational uncertainty. Cloud property differences are linked to atmospheric thermodynamic profile differences, namely ice-free surfaces are warmer, moister, less stable, and have more positive surface turbulent fluxes than ice-covered surfaces. Ice-free minus ice-covered cloud property differences scale with surface temperature differences and are only found in the presence of a surface temperature difference. Our results suggest a 0.02 cloud fraction and 0.005 g m 3 total water concentration increase (~5%) at the level of maximum cloud fraction between 2000-2021 due to the observed Arctic sea ice decline in fall, corresponding to ~2 Wm 2 increase in the net surface radiative flux supporting a positive sea ice-cloud radiative feedback in fall and winter and a negative sea ice-cloud radiative feedback in spring. We propose an updated conceptual model where the average surface type influence on cloud properties is mediated by surface temperature differences between ice-free and ice-covered surfaces.
Arctic climate↗
Sea Ice Prediction Has Easy and Difficult Years
Arctic sea ice follows an annual cycle, reaching its low point in September each year. The extent of sea ice remaining at this low point has been trending downwards for decades as the Arctic warms. Around the long-term downward trend, however, there is significant variation in the minimum extent from one year to the next. Accurate forecasts of yearly conditions would have great value to Arctic residents, shipping companies, and other stakeholders and are the subject of much current research. Since 2008 the Sea Ice Outlook (SIO) (http://www.arcus.org/search-program/seaiceoutlook) organized by the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) (http://www.arcus.org/search-program) has invited predictions of the September Arctic sea ice minimum extent, which are contributed from the Arctic research community. Individual predictions, based on a variety of approaches, are solicited in three cycles each year in early June, July, and August. (SEARCH 2013).
Years↗
Evaluating CERES TOA Fluxes using ARISE aircraft observations
Uncertainty in observations of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation fluxes are larger in the Arctic than in other regions. The magnitude of these uncertainties limit our understanding of the Arctic surface energy budget and its variability. The significant uncertainties are due to the low sun angles and wide range of highly reflecting, anisotropic, and highly heterogeneous surface conditions. Therefore, quantifying, attributing, and reducing Arctic TOA radiative flux uncertainty enables a better understanding of the rapidly changing Arctic. To advance this goal, we compare the Cloud and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) TOA radiative fluxes with measurements from the Arctic Radiation-IceBridge Sea and Ice Experiment (ARISE) flow in September 2014. A key objective of ARISE was to evaluate and attribute uncertainty in CERES footprint and gridded TOA radiative fluxes. In this study, we first compare the CERES TOA flux with those obtained from the broadband radiometer measurements from the aircraft using instantaneously matched footprint with the flight track and as the hourly gridded fluxes. This comparison indicates an agreement within uncertainty in the longwave (2 Wm-2 ) for all five grid boxes and agreement in the shortwave (10 Wm-2) for four-out-of-five grid boxes. While not a statistically significant results given the small sample size, the hourly, gridded and the instantaneously matched footprint comparison suggest a -10 Wm-2 bias for CERES in the shortwave. To explore whether this is a robust feature or a statistical artifact, we quantify the individual sources of uncertainty in the differences (temporal and spatial sampling differences, scene evolution, accuracy, angular distribution models, and scene id) to see if any of these differences account for the shortwave bias.
CERES↗