4.4 Article

Causes for different spatial distributions of minimum Arctic sea-ice extent in 2007 and 2012

期刊

ACTA OCEANOLOGICA SINICA
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 94-101

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13131-015-0676-x

关键词

Arctic sea ice extent; atmospheric circulation; upper-ocean feedback

资金

  1. Project of Comprehensive Evaluation of Polar Areas on Global and Regional Climate Changes [CHINARE2015-04-04]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41406027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Satellite records show the minimum Arctic sea ice extents (SIEs) were observed in the Septembers of 2007 and 2012, but the spatial distributions of sea ice concentration reduction in these two years were quite different. Atmospheric circulation pattern and the upper-ocean state in summer were investigated to explain the difference. By employing the ice-temperature and ice-specific humidity (SH) positive feedbacks in the Arctic Ocean, this paper shows that in 2007 and 2012 the higher surface air temperature (SAT) and sea level pressure (SLP) accompanied by more surface SH and higher sea surface temperature (SST), as a consequence, the strengthened poleward wind was favorable for melting summer Arctic sea ice in different regions in these two years. SAT was the dominant factor influencing the distribution of Arctic sea ice melting. The correlation coefficient is-0.84 between SAT anomalies in summer and the Arctic SIE anomalies in autumn. The increase SAT in different regions in the summers of 2007 and 2012 corresponded to a quicker melting of sea ice in the Arctic. The SLP and related wind were promoting factors connected with SAT. Strengthening poleward winds brought warm moist air to the Arctic and accelerated the melting of sea ice in different regions in the summers of 2007 and 2012. Associated with the rising air temperature, the higher surface SH and SST also played a positive role in reducing summer Arctic sea ice in different regions in these two years, which form two positive feedbacks mechanism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据