Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Does CMIP6 better constrain projections of 21st century Antarctic sea ice loss?

View through CrossRef
<p>Results from CMIP5 have previously suggested that ensemble regression techniques or model selection may provide solutions to the challenge of making projections of future Antarctic sea ice area (SIA) in the presence of large historical biases. Here, we revisit and extend such analysis incorporating the CMIP6 ensemble, which shows modest improvements in some aspects of sea ice simulation and in particular a reduction of inter-model spread in historical SIA. We focus on the strongest forcing scenarios analysed, CMIP5 RCP85 and CMIP6 SSP5.85.</p><p>In summer (February) the historical climatology of SIA is a strong linear constraint on projections of SIA in both generations. This is because the strong forcing leads to the loss of the majority of summer SIA in each model, so that the models that start with greater SIA exhibit greater reductions. Differences between CMIP5 and CMIP6 are largely explained by the fact that, compared to CMIP6, CMIP5 contains many more models that have very large positive biases in historical SIA and do not lose the majority of ice.</p><p>In winter (September), a much smaller proportion of SIA is lost, but inter-model spread in SIA climatology still explains just under half the variance in projections of SIA change, in both CMIP5 and CMIP6. The mean historical winter climatology is similar between generations, as is the regression slope of SIA change against SIA climatology.  However, there is a greater reduction of SIA in CMIP6 than CMIP5. We find this to be statistically related to greater global mean warming in CMIP6 than CMIP5, and therefore potentially to the larger climate sensitivity in the CMIP6 ensemble.</p><p>These findings imply that, depending on season, a different balance of local (SIA climatology) and global (GMST change) drivers can be used to explain the inter-model and inter-generation spread in projections of SIA loss. They also firmly tie our ability to project Antarctic SIA loss to our understanding of the fidelity of higher CMIP6 climate sensitivity. Questions remain about whether models are correct in their simulation of Antarctic SIA sensitivity to global surface temperature.</p>
Title: Does CMIP6 better constrain projections of 21st century Antarctic sea ice loss?
Description:
<p>Results from CMIP5 have previously suggested that ensemble regression techniques or model selection may provide solutions to the challenge of making projections of future Antarctic sea ice area (SIA) in the presence of large historical biases.
Here, we revisit and extend such analysis incorporating the CMIP6 ensemble, which shows modest improvements in some aspects of sea ice simulation and in particular a reduction of inter-model spread in historical SIA.
We focus on the strongest forcing scenarios analysed, CMIP5 RCP85 and CMIP6 SSP5.
85.
</p><p>In summer (February) the historical climatology of SIA is a strong linear constraint on projections of SIA in both generations.
This is because the strong forcing leads to the loss of the majority of summer SIA in each model, so that the models that start with greater SIA exhibit greater reductions.
Differences between CMIP5 and CMIP6 are largely explained by the fact that, compared to CMIP6, CMIP5 contains many more models that have very large positive biases in historical SIA and do not lose the majority of ice.
</p><p>In winter (September), a much smaller proportion of SIA is lost, but inter-model spread in SIA climatology still explains just under half the variance in projections of SIA change, in both CMIP5 and CMIP6.
The mean historical winter climatology is similar between generations, as is the regression slope of SIA change against SIA climatology.
  However, there is a greater reduction of SIA in CMIP6 than CMIP5.
We find this to be statistically related to greater global mean warming in CMIP6 than CMIP5, and therefore potentially to the larger climate sensitivity in the CMIP6 ensemble.
</p><p>These findings imply that, depending on season, a different balance of local (SIA climatology) and global (GMST change) drivers can be used to explain the inter-model and inter-generation spread in projections of SIA loss.
They also firmly tie our ability to project Antarctic SIA loss to our understanding of the fidelity of higher CMIP6 climate sensitivity.
Questions remain about whether models are correct in their simulation of Antarctic SIA sensitivity to global surface temperature.
</p>.

Related Results

Ground ice detection and implications for permafrost geomorphology
Ground ice detection and implications for permafrost geomorphology
Most permafrost contains ground ice, often as pore ice or thin veins or lenses of ice. In certain circumstance, larger bodies of ice can form, such as ice wedges, or massive lenses...
A new HPLC-MS method for fatty acid detection in sea ice
A new HPLC-MS method for fatty acid detection in sea ice
The presence of marine-sourced fatty acids1,2,3, in Antarctic ice cores has been linked to changes in sea ice conditions2,3. It has been proposed that the phytoplankton within and ...
Modelling the present-day imbalance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet
Modelling the present-day imbalance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet
Recent human-driven climate change has very likely caused more frequent heatwaves, extreme weather events, and rising global sea levels. When it comes to rising sea levels, two pri...
The sea ice in Young Sound: Implications for carbon cycling
The sea ice in Young Sound: Implications for carbon cycling
Most of the year, Young Sound is covered by c. 160 cm thick sea ice overlain by a 20-100 cm thick snow cover. During the last 50 years the sea-ice-free period has varied between 63...
Antarctic sea ice types from active and passive microwave remote sensing
Antarctic sea ice types from active and passive microwave remote sensing
Abstract. Polar sea ice is one of the Earth’s climate components that has been significantly affected by the recent trend of global warming. While the sea ice area in the Arctic ha...
Modelling the Hydro-fracture driven collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf
Modelling the Hydro-fracture driven collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf
Ice shelves play a key role in buttressing upstream ice - modulating the flow of grounded ice into the ocean and in turn affecting ice sheet contribution to sea level. Iceberg calv...
Constraining Ceres' exposed ice: grain size, abundance, and is it salty?
Constraining Ceres' exposed ice: grain size, abundance, and is it salty?
Ubiquitous phyllosilicates and carbonates in Ceres’ surface regolith reveal extensive water-rock interaction in the past [1]. A key area of continued study is the water i...
Seasonal Arctic sea ice predictability and prediction
Seasonal Arctic sea ice predictability and prediction
Arctic sea ice plays a central role in the Earth’s climate. Changes in the sea ice on seasonal-to-interannual timescales impact ecosystems, populations and a growing number of stak...

Back to Top