Thick and old sea ice in the Beaufort Sea during summer 2020/21 was associated with enhanced transport

Identification of a regime shift in Beaufort summer sea ice characteristics

Figure 2 shows time series of Beaufort Sea summer sea ice concentration, sea ice age, and sea ice thickness, as well as the ratio of Beaufort ice volume to that of the entire Arctic²⁷. We define the summer to be the months of July, August, and September. A step function has been fit to the time series with a breakpoint determined by a minimization of the root-mean square fit to the data with a significance test of the difference of the means that takes into account the temporal autocorrelation of geophysical time series²⁸; see Methods Section for further information. The first three metrics (Fig. 2a–c) indicate a transition toward less extensive, thinner and younger ice pack occurred around 2007. Furthermore, the Beaufort’s contribution to total Arctic ice volume decreased in 2007 from approximately 10% to 5% (Fig. 2d). We will refer in this study to the period from 2007-present as the “young ice regime,” while the period prior to 2007 will be referred to as the “old ice regime.” All metrics indicate that the summers of 2020 and 2021 (as well as 2013), stand out with ice characteristics above the mean for this new ice regime. This is especially true for the ice volume ratio where values for these past two summers approach those typical of conditions prior to the 2007 transition.

Sea ice conditions during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021

Figure 3 shows time series of Beaufort Sea ice concentration and thickness for the 2-year period October 2019–September 2021, as well as climatological values for the first 13 years of the young ice regime (2007–2019) and anomalies with respect to these 13 years. The results show that starting in May of both years, concentration and thickness were both higher than the climatology by at least 1 standard deviation. The area-mean thickness anomaly was larger in 2020, while the sea ice concentration anomaly was larger in 2021.

Figure 4 provides the Beaufort Sea ice thickness and age distributions in summer for (i) the first 13 years of the old ice regime (1979–1991) when the region was dominated by multi-year ice, (ii) the first 13 years of the young ice regime (2007–2019), (iii) the year 2020, and (iv) the year 2021. A kernel smoothing technique²⁹ was used to fit the distributions to the data. The old ice regime was dominated by thick, old ice, with smaller contributions from thin, young ice. In contrast, the young ice regime is dominated by thin, young ice with a long “tail” of thick, old ice. The years 2020 and 2021 are representative of this young ice regime, although with thick and old ice generally ≥1 standard deviation above the mean (An exception is the amount of ice older than ~2 years in 2020, which is very close to the mean). Further analysis (Supplementary Fig. S1) indicates that many years in the young ice regime show small secondary peaks of thick or old ice (such as seen in the 2021 thickness distribution between 1.5 and 2 m). These “long-tailed” thickness and age distributions are similar to that found in summer 2020 in the Wandel Sea¹. Thus, it seems that the Beaufort Sea is now dominated by thin, young ice, but a substantial component of thick, old ice remains. In the following sections, we examine the advective origins of this thick, old ice.

Impact of sea ice transport on the observed anomalies during the summers of 2020 and 2021

Recent work^23,24,25 has emphasized the role that sea ice mass transport plays in determining the characteristics of pack ice in the Beaufort Sea. This transport can be decomposed into contributions from ice motion and from ice thickness; the seasonal climatology of these constituents as well as conditions during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 are shown in Fig. 5. The climatology (Fig. 5a–d) indicates the presence of a seasonally varying anticyclonic Beaufort Gyre in the western Arctic as well as the presence of the thickest ice along the northern coast of Greenland and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, i.e., the LIA. The spatial extent of the Beaufort Gyre is largest during the cool season, defined as fall (OND), winter (JFM) and spring (AMJ) when there is transport of ice from the LIA into the Beaufort Sea as well as transport of ice out of the Beaufort Sea into the Chukchi Sea. During summer (JAS), the Beaufort Gyre shrinks to only fill the Beaufort Sea.

The situation during 2019/2020 (Fig. 5e–h) differs markedly from the climatology. During fall 2019 (Fig. 5e), the Beaufort Gyre was displaced southwestward with a small region of cyclonic ice motion at the boundary between the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Consistent with the collapse of the Beaufort High during winter 2020²⁶, ice motion during this period (Fig. 5f) is generally eastward in the Beaufort Sea and largely cyclonic over the entire Arctic Ocean. This results in ice transport from the Chukchi Sea into the Beaufort Sea and even beyond, i.e., into the LIA. In spring 2020 (Fig. 5g), transport continued from the Beaufort Sea to the LIA, although the Chukchi-to-Beaufort transport abated. By summer 2020, ice motion had reverted toward climatology (Fig. 5h).

Conditions during 2020/2021 (Fig. 5i–l) were closer to climatology as compared to 2019/2020, although with some differences. Most notably during fall 2020 (Fig. 5i), the transport of thick, old ice from the LIA was restricted to a narrow region along the coast of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, which appears to be linked to the presence of thick ice in the eastern Beaufort Sea. As discussed previously²³, this strong transport continued into winter 2021 (Fig. 5j), although its width increased and thus broadly impacted the northeastern Beaufort Sea. There was also strong westward transport out of the Beaufort into the Chukchi Sea.

Figure 6 shows the anomalies in sea ice motion, mass convergence, and thickness for the winters of 2020 and 2021 as well as the anomalies in sea-level pressure and 10 m wind fields for the same periods. The contrast in ice motion and sea ice thickness between the two winters is striking. During winter 2020 (Fig. 6a), anomalous cyclonic ice motion is evident as well as anomalously thick sea ice against Banks Island caused by convergence forced by eastward motion at this time (Fig. 6c, which actually started in fall 2019, Fig. 5f). Convergence also extends from the eastern Beaufort into the western LIA, where it acts to counter the long-term thinning trend; the result is enhanced negative ice thickness anomalies. This is supported by a comparison with winter 2021 (Fig. 6b, d), when thickness anomalies were much more negative and ice motion in the western LIA was closer to climatology, i.e., weakly divergent. Comparison of ice motion and thickness fields in the winters of 2020 and 2021 (Supplementary Fig. S2) demonstrates that the differences between these 2 years extend all the way from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas into the western LIA.

The atmospheric circulation anomalies for these two winters highlight the role that sea-level pressure plays in forcing ice motion. During winter 2020 (Fig. 6e), the collapse of the Beaufort High²⁶ resulted in lower sea-level pressures across the Arctic Ocean associated with a minimum 16 mb lower than climatology centered over the Barents Sea. Associated with this collapse, a cyclonic surface wind anomaly was present across the Arctic Ocean with a particularly high amplitude across the western boundary of the Beaufort Sea. In contrast, winter 2021 (Fig. 6f) was characterized by higher sea-level pressure over the Arctic Ocean with a maximum anomaly of 8 mb over the Barents Sea. As a result of this pressure perturbation, wind speeds were higher over the Arctic Ocean but did not reach the magnitudes observed during winter 2020.

Quantifying the role of ice transport in anomalous Beaufort Sea ice conditions during the winters of 2019/2020 and 2020/2021

Ice area and volume fluxes provide a way to quantify the transport of sea ice³⁰. Figure 7 shows the cumulative fluxes across the boundaries of the Beaufort Sea (as defined in Fig. 1) from October 1 through the following June 1 for 2019/2020, 2020/2021, as well as a climatology for the first 13 years of the young ice period 2007–2019. Positive values indicate a flux into the region. Daily PIOMAS ice motion and ice thickness data were used to calculate these fluxes. The ice area fluxes were also computed using the NSIDC ice motion data³¹ with similar results obtained (Supplementary Fig. S3).

We first consider the northern boundary. The ice area and volume fluxes across this boundary are relatively small in the climatology (Fig. 7a, b), with interannual variability that includes some years in which the fluxes are negative, i.e., from the Beaufort Sea toward the LIA. During the period from October to January in 2019/2020 as well as in 2020/2021, ice area and volume fluxes are positive and growing, at rates near or above the climatological mean, indicating intensifying ice transport into the Beaufort Sea. After January, the 2 years differ. In winter 2020 the cumulative fluxes plateau, indicating near-zero values in contrast to the climatology which continues to grow. Then in spring 2020 the fluxes turn strongly negative, with values of one or more standard deviation below the mean, implying an export of ice from the Beaufort Sea into the LIA. In fact, the cool season 2019/2020 ends with an unusually large net export of ice volume from the Beaufort into the LIA. The following year, we see that the fluxes in winter 2021 continue to intensify at about 1 standard deviation above the mean. Then in spring the cumulative fluxes decline back toward the climatological mean, with end-of-cool-season values near the climatological young ice regime mean of net transport from the LIA into the Beaufort.

At the western boundary, climatological ice area and ice volume fluxes are both directed out of the Beaufort Sea and into the Chukchi Sea (Fig. 7c, d). Although interannual variability is higher than that at the northern boundary, the fluxes are typically always negative. This is what makes the 2019/2020 area and volume fluxes so remarkable, in that they are nearly zero through winter 2020, and then turn strongly positive in spring, with values at or exceeding the mean by more than one standard deviation throughout the entire period. These positive fluxes reflect strong ice import from the west (Fig. 5f). In contrast, the fluxes in 2020/2021 became large and negative by early winter (greater than 1 standard deviation from the climatological mean), although this moderates later in the winter and spring. In this year, fluxes were strongly westward, from the Beaufort into the Chukchi Sea.

The sum of the fluxes across the two boundaries provides a measure of the net transport into the Beaufort Sea (Fig. 7e, f). The climatology indicates that the net ice area and volume fluxes are negative, indicating a loss of ice from the Beaufort Sea. This reflects the fact that the transport out of the region through the western boundary usually exceeds the transport into the region through the northern boundary. In this context, the net fluxes during 2019/2020 again stand out as remarkable, since they are strongly positive (i.e., net transport into the Beaufort), especially for ice area flux. The net fluxes during 2020/2021 are closer to climatological values, and are well within the range of climatological variability.

Impact of cool season ice fluxes on Beaufort Sea summer ice conditions

In this section, we seek to quantify how the cool-season sea ice transport into the Beaufort Sea impacts ice conditions in the following summer using two metrics. The first metric is Beaufort Sea ice volume (i.e., the product of ice thickness and ice concentration²⁷) on June 1. Even though melt can occur in parts of the study region prior to the beginning of June³², it is nevertheless a useful date for the start of the melt season. Our second metric is Beaufort Sea area-mean ice concentration during September, a measure of ice conditions at the end of the melt season and a closely observed indicator of climate change^33,34.

In Fig. 8, we correlate the net ice volume flux over the cool season, i.e., the period from October 1 to June 1 of the following year, against the Beaufort Sea June 1 ice volume anomaly, calculated by detrending the time series using a step function in 2007 that takes into account the changes between the new and old ice regimes (Fig. 2). The ice volume flux does not exhibit any trend and so no detrending was done for this time series. The correlation was done for both the old and young ice regimes. For both periods, there is a statistically significant linear relationship showing that larger net cool season ice transport into the Beaufort Sea leads to larger ice volume anomalies on June 1. However, the larger spread in the data for the old ice regime leads to a smaller percentage of the variance explained by ice transport, ~14%, as compared to ~45% for the young ice regime. The statistics are similar if May 1 is used as the end of the cool season, although using April 1 degrades the relationship to statistical insignificance, consistent with the springtime “predictability barrier”³⁵ that arises from late-winter variability in ice-dynamics and ice growth.

Regarding conditions at the end of the summer, it seems intuitive that ice retreat might be slowed by the presence of thick ice. Indeed, discussions in the popular press⁵ have speculated that thick ice contributed to the relatively moderate September 2021 sea ice extent (12th lowest on record and the highest since 2014). On the other hand, it has also been suggested that cool atmospheric conditions during the summer of 2021 contributed to this relative maxima in sea ice extent³⁶.

To explore this question, we correlate PIOMAS-derived Beaufort Sea ice volume on June 1 with NSIDC CDR-derived September-mean sea ice concentration³⁷. Given the nature of the underlying time series (Fig. 2), we have used step functions with a breakpoint in 2007 to detrend the data (see Materials and Methods). Although there is considerable spread, Fig. 9 indicates that there is a statistically significant linear relationship, with June 1 ice volume accounting for just under 40% of the variability in ice concentration during September for both the old and new ice regimes. Similar results are obtained if one uses the PIOMAS sea ice concentration during September (Supplementary Fig. S4).

A next logical step might be to link these two correlations together and ask, How does cool season ice transport impact end-of-summer ice concentration? Given the above results, assuming that there are no other factors related to cool season transport that impact summer ice melt and the cascade of probabilities, one would expect that the former would explain ~5% and ~16% of the variability in the latter for the old and new ice regimes. The results shown in Supplementary Fig. S5 confirm these assumptions; however, we also find that this relationship is not statistically significant in either regime.

Source: Ecology - nature.com