the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Estimation of duration and its changes in Lagrangian observations relying on ice floes in the Arctic Ocean utilizing sea ice motion product
Abstract. Since the 1890s, buoy- and camp-based Lagrangian observations relying on ice floes, have been pivotal for data acquisition during winter in the central Arctic Ocean due to the inaccessibility of most research vessels. Evaluating the observation duration and its changes associated with changes in Arctic climate system, is crucial for the planning of ice camp/buoy deployment. Using remote sensing sea ice motion product, we reconstructed sea ice drift trajectories for each year in 1979–2020 and identified ideal deployment areas of ice camp/buoy in the central Arctic Ocean. The results show that, based on the setup time of October 1, the areas centered at 82° N and 160° E near the north of East Siberian and Laptev seas, with a size of 7.6×105 km2, could ensure Lagrangian observations for at least 9 months with the drifting maintaining in the ice zone and not entering the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of Arctic coastal countries, with the probability of 76.2 %–92.9 % during 42 years. The potential deployment areas favored ice advection to the Transpolar Drift (TPD) region relative to the Beaufort Gyre (BG) region. Ice trajectory endpoints did not reveal an obvious long-term tendency, but were regulated by large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns, especially the atmospheric patterns in the early drifting stage of autumn (OND). In particular, the autumn east-west surface air pressure gradient across the central Arctic and the Arctic Dipole Anomaly indices significantly influenced endpoints of ice trajectories after 9 months and can expand ideal Lagrangian observation areas under scenarios with their extreme positive phases. The increasing rate of near-surface air temperatures from autumn to spring along the trajectories was more pronounced in the TPD region than that in the BG region. The sea ice response to wind stress significantly intensified in recent Lagrangian observations, suggesting stronger dynamic processes as the sea ice thinning. Geopolitical boundaries of EEZs have a significant impact on the sustainability of the Lagrangian observations, making it rarely exceed 10 months. Without this restriction, the potential Lagrangian observations in the BG and TPD regions would expand southward.
- Preprint
(2844 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2723', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2024
reply
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 11 December 2024 since the comment was posted by mistake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2723-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2723', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Dec 2024
reply
This manuscript is interesting to me, in which the ideal deployment locations in the central Arctic Ocean for ice camp or buoy have been discussed by using SIM product, and the main standard is to ensure that Lagrangian observations can last a period as long as possible. The logic and structure of the manuscript are ok for me, but I still suggest the authors should address the following issues.
(1) L66, “The Arctic sea ice is mainly driven by wind and oceanic current stresses”. Maybe you mean the drift of Arctic sea ice or sea ice dynamics is driven by….
(2) L73-77 tell the motivation of this study. But I am not sure if there is any similar study on this topic? From the statement here, this study is the first one considering the ideal deployment location in Arctic Ocean.
(3) The content in the introduction section is a little confusing. What exactly you want to summary in this part? Sea ice dynamics? Pervious ice stations? Or something else?
(4) L110. The definition of the rectangular area in Fig.1 is still somewhat arbitrary to me. Maybe you can put the EASE-Grid as the background and then select some from all of them. “The reasons for this diagnosis will be given later.” Please specify where you have discussed this problem.
(5) Section 2.3. If the ice floe is broken into pieces during drifting, is there any impact on the calculation of the survival time (ST)?
(6) L197, “FDD(TDD) refers to the integral of near-surface air temperatures below…”. What kind of air temperature? hourly average or daily average?
(7) Section 3.2. Air forcing such as temperature and long-wave radiation have been investigated here. How about the precipitation? Snowfall poses an important impact on sea ice growth and decay.
(8) Section 3.3. The ice-wind speed ratio in Fig.8 is also overall lower than the typical values in free-drift analytical solution. You can also discuss this difference, maybe relating to sea ice concentration.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2723-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Ruibo Lei, 18 Dec 2024
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2723/egusphere-2024-2723-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Ruibo Lei, 18 Dec 2024
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
184 | 73 | 9 | 266 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 184
- PDF: 73
- XML: 9
- Total: 266
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1