Common NoTricksZone creator Kenneth Richards notes on Twitter
Apparently Arctic sea ice quantity was as low within the 1940s because it has been within the 2000s.
And the very best sea ice quantity of the final 100 years was about 1979 – the 12 months the Arctic sea ice file begins.🤔
Right here is the entire examine revealed underneath a CC four.Zero License.
Transient communication: Arctic sea ice thickness inner variability and its modifications underneath historic and anthropogenic forcing
The Cryosphere, 14, 3479–3486, 2020
© Writer(s) 2020. This work is distributed underneath
the Inventive Commons Attribution four.Zero License.
- 1Georges Lemaitre Heart for Earth and Local weather Analysis, Earth and Life Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
- 2Institute of Mechanics, Supplies and Civil Engineering, Utilized Mechanics and Arithmetic, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Correspondence: Guillian Van Achter (firstname.lastname@example.org) Obtained: 04 Dec 2019 – Dialogue began: 10 Dec 2019 – Revised: 17 Jul 2020 – Accepted: 09 Sep 2020 – Printed: 21 Oct 2020
We use mannequin simulations from the CESM1-CAM5-BGC-LE dataset to characterise the Arctic sea ice thickness inner variability each spatially and temporally. These properties, and their stationarity, are investigated in three completely different contexts: (1) fixed pre-industrial, (2) historic and (three) projected situations. Spatial modes of variability present extremely stationary patterns whatever the forcing and imply state. A temporal evaluation reveals two peaks of serious variability, and regardless of a non-stationarity on brief timescales, they continue to be kind of secure till the primary half of the 21st century, the place they begin to change as soon as summer time ice-free occasions happen, after 2050.
Find out how to cite. Van Achter, G., Ponsoni, L., Massonnet, F., Fichefet, T., and Legat, V.: Transient communication: Arctic sea ice thickness inner variability and its modifications underneath historic and anthropogenic forcing, The Cryosphere, 14, 3479–3486, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3479-2020, 2020.1
Within the current a long time, Arctic sea ice has retreated and thinned considerably (Notz and Stroeve, 2016). The annual imply Arctic sea ice extent decreased by ∼2×106 km2 between 1979 and 2016 (Onarheim et al., 2018). An evaluation combining US Navy submarine ice draft measurements and satellite tv for pc altimeter knowledge confirmed that the annual imply sea ice thickness (SIT) over the Arctic Ocean on the finish of the soften interval decreased by 2 m between the pre-1990 submarine interval (1958–1976) and the CryoSat-2 interval (2011–2018) (Kwok, 2018). On lengthy timescales (a couple of a long time or extra), retreating and thinning are projected to proceed as greenhouse fuel emissions are anticipated to rise. Nonetheless, on shorter timescales (1–20 years), inner local weather variability, outlined because the variability of the local weather system that happens within the absence of exterior forcing and brought on by the system’s chaotic nature, limits the predictability of local weather (Deser et al., 2014) and represents a serious supply of uncertainty for local weather predictions (Deser et al., 2012). On this context, higher data of Arctic SIT inner variability and of its drivers is important to doc the true evolution of the Arctic environment–ice–ocean system and to foretell its future modifications.
The imply spatial distribution of the Arctic SIT is comparatively properly documented (Stroeve et al., 2014). However there are some uncertainties round its interannual variability and its spatial modes of variability. Some research (Lindsay and Zhang, 2006; Fuckar et al., 2016; Labe et al., 2018) already analysed the spatial distribution of Arctic sea ice variability by making use of empirical orthogonal features (EOFs) (Okay-means cluster evaluation for Fuckar et al., 2016) to model-based historic SIT time collection. Lindsay and Zhang (2006) reported a primary mode practically basinwide, whereas the second and third ones are orthogonal lateral modes accounting for 30 %, 18 % and 15 % of the variability, respectively. Fuckar et al. (2016) additionally discovered an almost basinwide first mode, with an Atlantic–Pacific dipole because the second mode. Labe et al. (2018) depicted an Atlantic–Pacific dipole however as the primary mode. The spatial construction and quantity of defined variance of these modes are delicate as to if and the way the SIT time collection is detrended. Additionally it is model-dependent and influenced by the season and analysed interval. The temporal sea ice quantity (SIV) variability has been studied by Olonscheck and Notz (2017). These authors enlightened a exceptional similarity between the pre-industrial and historic inner variabilities of the annual Arctic SIV. In addition they observed a decreased inner variability of winter and summer time Arctic SIV for a future local weather compelled by the RCP8.5 situation.
Aside from Olonscheck and Notz (2017), the research cited above used knowledge overlaying a couple of a long time underneath historic forcing. On this work we use an extended local weather mannequin management run underneath pre-industrial situations from the CESM1-CAM5-BGC-LE dataset, which allows us to check solely the inner variability of the Arctic SIT. We examine the inner variability each temporally and spatially by making use of a wavelet evaluation and an EOF decomposition to the pan-Arctic SIV and gridded SIT anomaly time collection, respectively. We additionally decide whether or not or not the SIV and SIT variability is stationary by analysing the mannequin outputs underneath historic and future local weather situations with 30 ensemble members.
This paper is organised as follows. The mannequin and its outputs are briefly described in Sect. 2. In Sect. three, the spatial and temporal inner variability of Arctic sea ice is analysed, in addition to its persistence by historic and future local weather situations. Then we discover the drivers of the principle modes of inner variability. Conclusions are lastly given in Sect. four.
2 Information and strategies
2.1 Sea ice thickness and quantity datasets
We use the CESM1-CAM5-BGC-LE dataset (Kay et al., 2015). The Group Earth System Mannequin Giant Ensemble (CESM-LE) was designed to each disentangle mannequin errors from inner local weather variability and allow the evaluation of current previous and future local weather modifications within the presence of inner local weather variability. The CESM1(CAM5) is a CMIP5 collaborating mannequin. It consists of coupled environment, ocean, land and sea ice part fashions. It additionally features a illustration of the land carbon cycle, diagnostic biogeochemistry calculations for the ocean ecosystem and a mannequin of the atmospheric carbon dioxide cycle (Moore et al., 2013; Lindsay et al., 2014). Whereas it’s not potential to validate the info by way of SIT and SIV variabilities because of the lack of steady observational knowledge, the mannequin was properly validated by way of imply state of the ice thickness and extent, in addition to concerning the current tendencies within the latter. Jahn et al. (2016) confirmed good settlement between observations and CESM1(CAM5) simulations for imply Arctic sea ice thickness and extent within the early 21st century. Barnhart et al. (2016) demonstrated that CESM1(CAM5) captures the pattern of declining Arctic sea ice extent over the interval of satellite tv for pc observations. Primarily based on these validation research, we think about that the CESM1-CAM5-BGC-LE time collection is a good proxy to check the variabilities of the Arctic SIT and SIV underneath completely different forcing situations.
On this paper, we use the month-to-month averaged Arctic SIT and SIV offered over the three intervals (pre-industrial, historic and future). The pre-industrial interval is represented by a single 1700-year management simulation with fixed pre-industrial forcing. The ocean mannequin was initialised from a state of relaxation (Danabasoglu et al., 2012), whereas the environment, land and sea ice fashions had been initialised utilizing earlier CESM1(CAM5) simulations. This experimental design permits the evaluation of inner local weather variability within the absence of local weather change. In sensible phrases, we’ll use the final 200 years of this simulation. The historic interval has one ensemble member overlaying the 1850–2005 interval and 30 ensemble members over 1920–2005. Additionally with 30 ensemble members, the longer term local weather interval (2006–2100) follows the Consultant Focus Pathway (RCP) Eight.5 situation, comparable to a complete radiative forcing of Eight.5 W m−2 in 2100 relative to pre-industrial situations (Meinshausen et al., 2011). The Canadian Archipelago area was faraway from the dataset since SIT reaches unrealistic values on this space.
For the variability evaluation, the pattern and seasonal cycle are faraway from the time collection (pan-Arctic SIV and gridded SIT) in order that we deal with the interannual variability. For the reason that spatial variability evaluation makes use of 30 ensemble members, the SIT anomaly fields are computed by eradicating the ensemble imply to every member. When just one ensemble member is used, as for the temporal evaluation, the anomaly is calculated by excluding the person pattern (offered by a second-order polynomial match) of every month.
2.2 Variability evaluation
To characterise the inner variability of the Arctic sea ice, we purpose at inspecting how the SIV variability evolves in time and the way SIT variability is characterised in area. For addressing the temporal variability, we make use of wavelet evaluation, with Morlet as wavelet mom, following the methodology proposed by Torrence and Compo (1998). The wavelet evaluation has the benefit of bearing in mind potential non-stationarity of the time collection. On this paper, we present the outcomes for one of many historic (1850–2005) members and one of many future (2006–2100) members, though we examined the robustness of the outcomes over the 30 ensemble members as mentioned later (Sect. three.1 and three.2).
The spatial variability is analysed by computing the EOFs on the SIT anomaly time collection. This decomposition reduces the massive variety of variables of the unique knowledge to a couple variables, however with out compromising a lot of the defined variance. Every EOF represents a mode of SIT variability that gives a simplified illustration of the state of the SIT at the moment alongside that EOF. In different phrases, the EOFs themselves are fastened in time however their weighting coefficients are time-varying; the related time collection (one for every mode) point out during which state the SIT is at any time (Hannachi, 2004). The evaluation is made on the gridded SIT anomaly time collection for the three intervals. For the historic and future intervals, the EOFs are computed over 30 ensemble members, all appended collectively over time (as carried out by Labe et al., 2018).
By making use of these analyses individually over the three intervals, we purpose to doc the inner variability within the absence of any exterior forcing in the course of the pre-industrial interval. By evaluating the pre-industrial outcomes with these for the historic and future intervals, we estimate the evolution of the SIT and SIV inner variability underneath anthropogenic forcing.
three.1 Temporal variability
The outcomes from the wavelet evaluation are introduced in Fig. 1a–c, during which the wavelet energy spectrum is proven as a operate of time (backside left of every subfigure). On the wavelet energy spectrum, the crosshatched space denotes the “cone of affect”, during which edge results grow to be necessary, and the crimson strains denote the 95 % significance ranges above a crimson noise background spectrum. The worldwide wavelet spectrum can also be proven (backside proper), which is a time-integrated energy of the wavelet energy spectrum. The importance degree of the time-integrated wavelet spectrum is indicated by the dashed curve. It refers back to the energy of the crimson noise degree on the 95 % confidence degree that will increase with reducing frequency.
The temporal variability of the Arctic SIV anomaly over the pre-industrial interval is depicted in Fig. 1a. The time-integrated energy spectrum (backside proper) reveals two peaks of serious variability. The primary peak corresponds to a interval centred on Eight years however spanning from 5 to 10 years. The second corresponds to a interval of 16 years spanning from 10 to 20 years. Within the wavelet energy spectrum, the crimson strains enclose areas during which the variability is important. The 2 primary peaks are current all through the time span, however not all the time concomitantly. Relying on the time, each the Eight- and 16-year intervals are important, with one in every of them showing stronger within the energy spectrum (Fig. 1a, backside left panel). For example, the Eight-year peak is dominant in the course of the 1780–1810 interval, the 16-year peak in the course of the 1750–1780 interval and each peaks in the course of the 1830–1850 interval.
Over the historic interval, the Arctic SIV temporal variability reveals a primary peak centred on 5 years and two others centred on 10 and 16 years, all with 95 % confidence (Fig. 1b). The wavelet energy spectrum reveals that the 16-year interval is important all through the complete time span, whereas the Eight-year interval loses significance round sure intervals of time (e.g. round 1925). The longer term local weather SIV wavelet evaluation in Fig. 1c presents a transparent lack of variability after the 12 months 2050. This lack of variability is seen within the SIV time collection and is confirmed by each the wavelet energy spectrum and the time-integrated energy spectrum. The 2050 sudden lack of variability coincides with the ice-free summer time occasions occurring at the moment. Aside from that lack of variability, the wavelet energy spectrum displays one band of 5-year variability in the course of the 2015–2025 interval and one other band of 10-year variability in the course of the 2025–2050 interval, each bands with 95 % confidence. In Fig. 1c, the peaks should not important on the time-integrated energy spectrum as a result of the respective variability is important solely over the primary 50 years as is proven within the wavelet energy spectrum (areas in crimson).
The principle traits of the temporal variability of the Arctic SIV underneath pre-industrial situations appear to persist underneath anthropogenic forcing. The 2 main temporal peaks of variability centred on Eight and 16 years, discovered within the pre-industrial run, are additionally current in the course of the historic interval. For the primary half of the 21st century, the longer term projections are additionally dominated by the 2 primary peaks however centred at 5 and 10 years within the built-in spectrum, and with comparatively weaker energy in comparison with the pre-industrial and historic runs. Moreover, the SIV variability appears to be non-stationary because the energy will not be all the time above the 95 % significance degree.
The wavelet analyses utilized to the opposite 30 ensemble members of the historic and future simulations deliver robustness to our outcomes since, general, every member reveals an identical sample of temporal variability. To advertise such a multi-member comparability among the many completely different spectra, we now have first normalised all spectra (and the importance curve) by their respective most worth in order that the facility ranges from Zero to 1. This step is required to make the spectrum from every member have the identical weight within the averaging. As proven in Fig. 1d (blue line), the averaged spectrum is smoothed out throughout the time area as a result of the peaks from completely different spectra should not co-located precisely on the similar intervals. However, it nonetheless reveals that the variability is important over the background crimson noise (see dashed crimson line). To enrich this evaluation, we now have counted the variety of native peaks for every interval and from all 30 spectra. As proven by the black line in Fig. 1d, there’s a focus of peaks across the Eight-year and 22-year intervals. This unfold in comparison with the reference historic run is one way or the other anticipated because the inner variability between the completely different members will not be anticipated to be an identical and even tends to extend with time (Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al., 2011). For members overlaying the 21st century, the outcomes are near the one-member evaluation mentioned above.
three.2 Spatial variability
The spatial variability of the Arctic SIT anomaly is depicted by the main modes of variability in Fig. 2. For the reason that SIV displays a robust lack of variability across the 12 months 2050, the longer term interval for this spatial variability evaluation spans from 2006 to 2050. For every interval, the modes are sorted by proportion of variability defined. The primary mode, which explains many of the variability, represents 22 %, 20 % and 20 % of the variability for pre-industrial, historic and future local weather situations, respectively. All intervals present the identical sample of SIT spatial variability for the primary mode. It corresponds to a dipole between the Fram Strait space and the East Siberian Sea (Fig. 2a, b, c). For each the pre-industrial and historic intervals, the second mode of variability is a pole centred within the East Siberian Sea, but in addition spreading into the Arctic Basin (Fig. second, e). It accounts for 14 % and 11 % of the variability, respectively. The third mode of variability for the pre-industrial interval corresponds to a dipole between the Laptev and Kara seas, on the one hand, and the east coast of Greenland, the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea, however.
The primary mode of SIT is secure over time and stays the dominant mode of spatial variability in all three intervals. There are some disparities in proportion defined and in magnitude, which might be defined by the completely different lengths of the intervals. As the primary mode, the second mode of SIT spatial variability is persistent within the historic interval. For the longer term local weather interval, the second mode of SIT variability is not persistent. It presents a dipole of variability as the primary mode, however the Pacific a part of the dipole is bigger and not positioned within the East Siberian Sea. The third modes of the three intervals (Fig. 2g, h, i) exhibit all completely different patterns of variability and they aren’t thought-about in additional evaluation.
After 2050, the SIT spatial variability is impacted by the sudden lower in SIT. EOFs computed over the 2050–2100 interval (not proven) exhibit the identical sample of the dipole as the primary mode for the 2005–2050 interval, however the space of excessive variability will not be the identical. The Atlantic a part of the dipole is shifted towards the north coast of Greenland, and the Pacific a part of the dipole can also be diminished close to the coast.
three.three Drivers of the main modes of SIT inner variability
By computing the temporal oscillation between phases of a sure mode of variability, we’re in a position to characterise this mode by high and low indices. With a view to discover the bodily drivers of the SIT modes of variability, we examine the variations in dynamic and thermodynamic options (sea ice velocity, atmospheric floor temperature) between each phases of the modes. Determine 3a, b present the imply Arctic sea ice circulation over the pre-industrial interval by compositing the low (a) and excessive (b) indices for the primary mode of SIT variability. The ocean ice drift anomaly related to the optimistic and damaging phases of the primary SIT mode shares related options with the Arctic Oscillation: a cyclonic anomaly within the Beaufort Gyre, impacting the Transpolar Drift Stream, the Laptev Sea Gyre and the East Siberian circulation, as described by Rigor et al. (2002).
Moreover, making use of wavelet evaluation to the related time collection of the primary spatial mode of variability signifies that the principle periodicity of this mode is centred on Eight years and spans from 5 to 10 years (not proven). This result’s suggestive of a hyperlink between the primary mode of temporal variability of the wavelet evaluation and the primary mode of spatial variability, and so to the Arctic Oscillation.
We additionally used the related time collection of the second mode of SIT spatial variability to characterise it by high and low indices. The identical evaluation over the ocean ice velocity is carried out for the second mode. For each indices, the ocean ice velocity fields are related. We concluded that the second mode will not be dynamically pushed. Following Olonscheck et al. (2019) outcomes, which exhibit that the inner variability of Arctic sea ice space and focus are primarily brought on by atmospheric temperature fluctuations, we investigated the variations in imply floor air temperature anomaly over the pre-industrial interval between the high and low indices for each the primary and second modes of SIT variability. Two broadly completely different states of floor air temperature are discovered between indices for each modes (the floor air temperature anomaly for the second mode is depicted in Fig. 3c, d). It seems that the SIT variability and the floor air temperature are related to one another.
On this work, we now have analysed the inner variability of the Arctic SIT each spatially and temporally with the CESM1-CAM5-BGC-LE dataset. We performed wavelet evaluation of the pan-Arctic SIV anomaly and EOF decomposition of the gridded SIT anomaly, each over a 200-year management run performed underneath pre-industrial situations. Then, to evaluate the persistence of the SIT anomaly inner variability underneath anthropogenic forcing, we carried out the identical analyses with 30 ensemble members over the historic and future intervals.
The temporal evaluation of the SIV anomaly inner variability reveals two peaks of serious variability. One centred on Eight years, spanning from 5 to 10 years, and one other one centred on 16 years, spanning from 10 to 20 years. These two peaks of temporal variability are current in each the pre-industrial and historic intervals, in addition to within the first half of the 21st century. After that, a sudden lack of variability as a result of ice-free summer time occasions is discovered. Moreover, regardless of a dominant periodicity over the three intervals, the SIV anomaly has been noticed to be non-stationary. Certainly, the dominant periodicity of the SIV variability will be centred on both Eight or 16 years, relying on the timescale and interval. Wavelet analyses over the 30 ensemble members for the post-industrial interval have proven the identical behaviour of temporal variability inside members, besides that the peaks should not all the time centred in Eight and 16 years however someplace between 5–10 and 15–26 years, relying on the member.
The spatial evaluation of the SIT anomaly inner variability has been utilized to the 30 ensemble members and divulges two necessary modes of variability. The primary one is a mode with reverse indicators centred within the East Siberian Sea and within the Fram Strait space, accounting for 22 % of the variability within the pre-industrial interval. This primary mode is a dynamical one, associated to the Arctic Oscillation, and persists over all pre-industrial, historic and future intervals. Moreover, this primary mode of spatial variability has a temporal variability of Eight years (spanning from 5 to 10 years), comparable to the primary peak of variability discovered within the temporal evaluation. The second mode displays a big pole of variation centred on the East Siberian Sea going by the Arctic Basin. It represents 14 % of the variability within the pre-industrial interval.
The lack of sea ice in summer time beginning in 2050 and the sturdy lower in SIV in winter in the course of the second half of the 21st century (from 15 to 10×10three kmthree) strongly modifies the variability of the ice each spatially and temporally. The principle modes of spatial variability lose their significance or simply disappear after 2050, and the temporal evaluation reveals a complete disappearance of the variability at the moment.
This evaluation of the Arctic SIT and SIV variability bears some limits. Certainly, our outcomes for the temporal and spatial patterns of variability are based mostly on just one mannequin, and regardless of using 30 ensemble members and an inexpensive validation in opposition to observations, the mannequin will not be good. Moreover, the spatial modes of SIT variability are strong for all of the 30 ensemble members, however the temporal evaluation reveals some dissimilarities between members. Different research with different mannequin outputs are due to this fact wanted to substantiate our conclusion.
Lastly, within the context of current local weather modifications, predicting sea ice has by no means been so necessary. Nonetheless, to validate and enhance our predictions, observational knowledge are essential. On this sense, our variability evaluation of inner SIV and SIT variability may assist the event of an optimum sampling technique, bearing in mind the number of well-placed sampling places for monitoring the SIT and, due to this fact, the pan-Arctic SIV that aren’t as properly documented as the ocean ice extent and space (Ponsoni et al., 2020).
The wavelet evaluation is carried out with the Waipy module on Python (https://github.com/mabelcalim/waipy, final entry: 1 March 2020).
Information will be downloaded from the next supply:
(final entry: 1 March 2020). The 30 ensemble members used on this examine are the primary 30 members (001-Zero30).
Writer contributions. GVA, LP, FM, TF and VL designed the science plan. GVA performed the info processing, produced the figures, analysed the outcomes and wrote the manuscript based mostly on the insights from all co-authors.
Competing pursuits. The authors declare that they don’t have any battle of curiosity.
Acknowledgements. François Massonnet and Leandro Ponsoni are a F.R.S.-FNRS analysis affiliate and a post-doctoral researcher, respectively. Guillian Van Achter is funded by the PARAMOUR undertaking which is supported by the Excellence Of Science programme (EOS), additionally based by FNRS. We thank the 2 referees for his or her very useful feedback on an earlier model of this paper.Monetary assist.
The work introduced on this paper has acquired funding from the European Fee, H2020 Analysis Infrastructures (APPLICATE undertaking – Superior prediction in Polar areas and past, grant no. 727862 and PRIMAVERA undertaking – PRocess-based climatesIMulation: AdVances in high-resolution modelling and Europeanclimate Threat Evaluation, grant no. 641727).
Evaluate assertion. This paper was edited by Michel Tsamados and reviewed by two nameless referees.
Barnhart, Okay. R., Miller, C. M., Overeem, I., and Kay, E.: Mapping the longer term enlargement of Arctic open water, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 280–285, https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2848, 2016.
Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., Bitz, C. M., and Holland, M. M.: Affect of Preliminary Circumstances and Local weather Forcing on Predicting Arctic Sea Ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L18503, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048807, 2011.
Danabasoglu, G., Bates, S. C., Briegleb, B. P., Jayne, S. R., Jochum, M., Giant, W. G., Peacock, S., and Yeager, S. G.: The CCSM4 ocean part, J. Local weather, 25, 1361–1389, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00091.1, 2012.
Deser, C., Philips, A. S., Alexander, M. A., and Smoliak, B. V.: Projecting North American Local weather over the Subsequent 50 Years: Uncertainty as a result of Inside Variability, J. Local weather, 27, 2271–2296, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00451.1, 2014.
Deser, C., Philips, A., Bourdette, V., and Teng, H.: Uncertainty in local weather change projections: the position of inner variability, Clim. Dynam., 38, 527–546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-Zero10-0977-x, 2012.
Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., Johnson, N. C., Massonnet, F., and Doblas-Reyes, F.: Clusters of Interannual Sea Ice Variability within the Northern Hemisphere, Clim. Dynam., 47, 1527–1543, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-Zero15-2917-2, 2016.
Hannachi, A.: A Primer for EOF Evaluation of Local weather Information, Division of Meteorology, College of Studying Studying, 2004.
Jahn, A., Kay, J. E., Holland, M. M., and Corridor, D. M.: How predictable is the timing of a summer time ice-free Arctic?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9113–9120, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070067, 2016.
Kay, J. E., Deser, C., Phillips, A., Mai, A., Hannay, C., Strand, G., Arblaster, J. M., Bates, S. C., Danabasasoglu, D., Edwards, J., Holland, M., Kushner, P., Lamarque, J.-F., Lawrence, D. , Lindsay, Okay., Midd Leton, A., Munoz, E., Neale, E., Oleson, Okay., Polvani, L., and Vertenstein, M.: The Group Earth System Mannequin (CESM) Giant Ensemble Challenge, A Group Useful resource for Finding out Local weather Change within the Presence of Inside Local weather Variability, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 1333–1349, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00255.1, 2015.
Kwok, R.: Arctic sea ice thickness, quantity, and multiyear ice protection: losses and matched variability (1958–2018), Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 10, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec, 2018.
Labe, Z., Magnusdottir, G., and Stern, H.: Variability of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Utilizing PIOMAS and the CESM Giant Ensemble, J. Local weather, 31, 3233–3247, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0436.1, 2018.
Lindsay, Okay., Bonan, G. B., Doney, S. C., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Lengthy, M. C., Mahowald, N. M., Moore, J. Okay., Randerson, J. T., and Thornton, P. E.: Preindustrial-control and twentieth-century carbon cycle experiments with the Earth system mannequin CESM1(BGC), J. Local weather, 27, 8981–9005, doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00565.1, 2014.
Lindsay, R. W. and Zhang, J.: Arctic Ocean Ice Thickness: Modes of variability and the Finest Areas from Which to Monitor Them, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 36, 496–506, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO2861.1, 2006.
Meinshausen, M., Calvin, S. J., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, Okay., and Montzka, S. A.: The RCP greenhouse fuel concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300, Climatic Change, 109, 213–241, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-Zero11-0156-z, 2011.
Moore, C. P., Lindsay, Okay., Doney, S. C., Lengthy, S. C., and Misumi, Okay.: Marine ecosystem dynamics and biogeochemical biking within the Group Earth System Mannequin[CESM1(BGC)]: Comparability of the 1990s with the 2090s underneath the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 situations, J. Local weather, 26, 9291–9312, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017187, 2013.
Notz, D. and Stroeve, J.: Noticed Arctic sea-ice loss immediately follows anthropogenic CO2 emission, Science, 354, 747–750, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2345, 2016.
Olonscheck, D. and Notz, D.: Constantly estimating inner local weather variability from climate-model simulations, J. Local weather, 30, 9555–9573, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0428.1, 2017.
Olonscheck, D., Mauritsen, T., and Notz, D.: Arctic Sea-Ice Variability Is Primarily Pushed by Atmospheric Temperature Fluctuations, Nat. Geosci., 12, 430–434, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-Zero19-0363-1, 2019.
Onarheim, I. H., Eldevik, T., Smedsrud, L. H., and Stroeve, J. C.: Seasonal and Regional Manifestation of Arctic Sea Ice Loss, J. Local weather, 31, 4917–4932, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0427.1, 2018.
Ponsoni, L., Massonnet, F., Docquier, D., Van Achter, G., and Fichefet, T.: Statistical predictability of the Arctic sea ice quantity anomaly: figuring out predictors and optimum sampling places, The Cryosphere, 14, 2409–2428, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2409-2020, 2020.
Rigor, I. G., Wallace, J. M., and Colony, R. L.: Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, J. Local weather, 15, 2648, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)Zero15<2648:ROSITT>2.Zero.CO;2, 2002.
Stroeve, J., Barrett, A., Serreze, M., and Schweiger, A.: Utilizing data from submarine, plane and satellites to guage local weather mannequin simulations of Arctic sea ice thickness, The Cryosphere, Eight, 1839–1854, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-Eight-1839-2014, 2014.
Hyperlink to check