the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Summer surface air temperature proxies point to near sea-ice-free conditions in the Arctic at 127 ka
Abstract. The Last Interglacial (LIG) period, which had higher summer solar insolation than today, has been suggested as the last time that Arctic summers were ice-free. However, the latest suite of Coupled Modelling Intercomparison Project 6 Paleoclimate (CMIP6-PMIP4) simulations of the LIG produce a wide range of Arctic summer minimum sea ice area (SIA) results, ranging from a 30 % to 96 % reduction from the pre-industrial (PI). Sea ice proxies are also currently neither abundant nor consistent enough to determine the most realistic state. Here we estimate LIG minimum SIA indirectly through the use of 21 proxy records for LIG Summer Surface Air Temperature (SSAT) and 11 CMIP6-PMIP4 models for the LIG. We use two approaches. First, we use two tests to determine how skilful models are at simulating observed proxies for ΔSSAT (where Δ refers to LIG-PI). This identifies a positive correlation between model skill and the magnitude of ΔSIA: the most reliable models simulate a larger sea ice reduction. Averaging the most skilful two models yields an average SIA of 1.3 mill. km2 for the LIG. This equates to a 4.5 mill. km2, or a 79 %, SIA reduction from the PI to the LIG. Second, across the 11 models, the averaged ΔSSAT at the 21 proxy locations is inversely correlated with ΔSIA (r = -0.86). In other words, the models show that a larger Arctic warming is associated with a greater sea ice reduction. Using the proxy record-averaged ΔSSAT of 4.5 ± 1.7 K and the relationship between ΔSSAT and ΔSIA, suggests an estimated ΔSIA of 4.4 mill. km2 or 77 % less than the PI. The mean proxy-location ΔSSAT is well-correlated with the Arctic-wide ΔSSAT north of 60° N (r=0.97) and this relationship is used to show that the mean proxy record ΔSSAT is equivalent to an Arctic-wide warming of 3.7±0.1 K at the LIG compared to the PI. Applying this Arctic-wide ΔSSAT and its modelled relationship to ΔSIA, results in a similar estimate of LIG sea ice reduction of 4.5 mill. km2. The LIG climatological minimum SIA of 1.3 mill. km2 is close to the definition of a summer ice-free Arctic, which is a maximum sea ice extent less than 1 mill. km2. The results of this study thus suggest that the Arctic likely experienced a mixture of ice-free and near ice-free summers during the LIG.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2328 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2328 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-594', Pepijn Bakker, 23 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-594/egusphere-2022-594-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-594/egusphere-2022-594-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-594', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Oct 2022
This manuscript discusses the Arctic sea ice conditions at 127 ka based on the relationship between sea ice and temperature, it is an interesting topic and well written. However, there are still some questions need to be further discussed.
1.Due to the sea surface temperature (SST) is more related to sea ice than the surface air temperature (SAT), why the SAT is chosen instead of SST?
2.A short summary about why these proxy records are considered to represent the summer surface air temperature should be given in order to better understand the model-data comparison.
3.In lines 210-217, if the simulations show a realistic representation of the geographical extent for the summer minimum, the CO2 increases 100 (280 to 380) ppmv, the summer minimum SIA decreases 0.7 (6.4 to 5.7) mill. km2. How do you think about the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice in response to CO2?
4.In part 3.1, different models show significant difference in the simulated Arctic sea ice for both the PI and LIG simulations. What do you think leads these difference between different models? How about the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice in response to astronomical forcing and how about the polar amplification in different models due to both of them have a great effect on the Arctic sea ice?
5.Although your results show that near sea-ice-free conditions in the Arctic at 127 ka, some records indicate that there still exists substantial sea ice (for example, in lines 233-234 and in Stein et al. (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00552-1). More discussion about these records should be given.
6.In lines 389-391, you state that “ the 8 models with largest SIA reduction are all able to match, within uncertainty, the mean PI to LIG summertime Arctic warming of 4.5 ± 1.7 K at the 21 proxy locations”. But in lines 397-399, “The two most skilful models simulate an average LIG sea ice area of 1.3 mill. km2 which is a 4.5 mill. km2 or 79% reduction from their PI values”, only the average result of the two models is given, why not the average result of these eight models?
7.It is not clear that how many model results are used to establish the relationship between ΔSSAT and ΔSIA, 2 or 8 or 11? If it is 2 or 11, why not 8?
8.The forcing mechanism for the near sea-ice-free conditions in the Arctic at 127 ka should be discussed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-594-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-594/egusphere-2022-594-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-594', Pepijn Bakker, 23 Aug 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-594/egusphere-2022-594-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-594/egusphere-2022-594-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-594', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Oct 2022
This manuscript discusses the Arctic sea ice conditions at 127 ka based on the relationship between sea ice and temperature, it is an interesting topic and well written. However, there are still some questions need to be further discussed.
1.Due to the sea surface temperature (SST) is more related to sea ice than the surface air temperature (SAT), why the SAT is chosen instead of SST?
2.A short summary about why these proxy records are considered to represent the summer surface air temperature should be given in order to better understand the model-data comparison.
3.In lines 210-217, if the simulations show a realistic representation of the geographical extent for the summer minimum, the CO2 increases 100 (280 to 380) ppmv, the summer minimum SIA decreases 0.7 (6.4 to 5.7) mill. km2. How do you think about the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice in response to CO2?
4.In part 3.1, different models show significant difference in the simulated Arctic sea ice for both the PI and LIG simulations. What do you think leads these difference between different models? How about the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice in response to astronomical forcing and how about the polar amplification in different models due to both of them have a great effect on the Arctic sea ice?
5.Although your results show that near sea-ice-free conditions in the Arctic at 127 ka, some records indicate that there still exists substantial sea ice (for example, in lines 233-234 and in Stein et al. (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00552-1). More discussion about these records should be given.
6.In lines 389-391, you state that “ the 8 models with largest SIA reduction are all able to match, within uncertainty, the mean PI to LIG summertime Arctic warming of 4.5 ± 1.7 K at the 21 proxy locations”. But in lines 397-399, “The two most skilful models simulate an average LIG sea ice area of 1.3 mill. km2 which is a 4.5 mill. km2 or 79% reduction from their PI values”, only the average result of the two models is given, why not the average result of these eight models?
7.It is not clear that how many model results are used to establish the relationship between ΔSSAT and ΔSIA, 2 or 8 or 11? If it is 2 or 11, why not 8?
8.The forcing mechanism for the near sea-ice-free conditions in the Arctic at 127 ka should be discussed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-594-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-594/egusphere-2022-594-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Louise Sime, 04 Nov 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
474 | 144 | 18 | 636 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 474
- PDF: 144
- XML: 18
- Total: 636
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Rahul Sivankutty
Irene Vallet-Malmierca
Agatha M. de Boer
Marie Sicard
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2328 KB) - Metadata XML