Simultaneous Bering Sea and Labrador Sea ice melt extremes in March 2023: A confluence of meteorological events aligned with stratosphere-troposphere interactions

Ballinger, Thomas J.; Moore, Kent; Ding, Qinghua; Butler, Amy H.; Overland, James E.; Thoman, Richard L.; Baxter, Ian; Li, Zhe; Hanna, Edward

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925

Preprints

11 Apr 2024

| 11 Apr 2024

Simultaneous Bering Sea and Labrador Sea ice melt extremes in March 2023: A confluence of meteorological events aligned with stratosphere-troposphere interactions

Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna

Abstract. Today’s Arctic is characterized by a lengthening of the sea ice melt season, but also by fast and at times unseasonal melt events. Such anomalous melt cases have been identified in Pacific and Atlantic Arctic sector sea ice studies. Through observational analyses, we document an unprecedented, simultaneous marginal ice zone melt event in the Bering Sea and Labrador Sea in March of 2023. Taken independently, variability in the cold season ice edge at synoptic time scales is common. However, such anomalous, short-term ice loss over either region during the climatological sea ice maxima is uncommon, and the tandem ice loss that occurred qualifies this as a rare event. The atmospheric setting that supported the unseasonal melt events was preceded by a sudden stratospheric warming event that, along with ongoing La Niña teleconnections, led to positive tropospheric height anomalies across much of the Arctic and the development of anomalous mid-troposphere ridges over the ice loss regions. These large-scale anticyclonic centers funneled extremely warm and moist airstreams onto the ice causing melt. Further analysis identified the presence of atmospheric rivers within these warm airstreams whose characteristics likely contributed to this bi-regional ice melt event. Whether such a confluence of anomalous wintertime events associated with troposphere-stratosphere coupling may occur more often in a warming Arctic remains a research area ripe for further exploration.

Received: 28 Mar 2024 – Discussion started: 11 Apr 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1369 KB)

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 (1369 KB)

Supplement (804 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

04 Dec 2024

Concurrent Bering Sea and Labrador Sea ice melt extremes in March 2023: a confluence of meteorological events aligned with stratosphere–troposphere interactions

Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna

Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 1473–1488, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, 2024

Short summary

Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-925', Ruonan Zhang, 18 Jun 2024

The authors investigated the effects of the SSW and La Nina teleconnections on the unseasonal melt events of the tandem ice loss over the Bring and Labrador Seas in March 2023. Associated large-scale anticyclonic anomalies funneled warm and atmospheric rivers to the bi-regional ice melt events. These results are generally interesting, focusing on the combination of stratospheric and La Nina-related tropospheric effects on Arctic surface thermal conditions. However, the atmospheric circulation features and characteristics associated with La Nina are rather unclear. I would like to propose further research into the effects of La Nina on the Arctic.
1. It is quite clear that the SSW occurred around 15 Feb and then propagated downward to the surface around 6 Mar, and the Greenland and Alaska blocking intensified. The first question is, how can we link the SSW to the increased mid-tropospheric blocking? Could the authors provide more evidence of the evolution and pattern of the polar vortex?
2. The La Nina teleconnections are highlighted in the abstract and the main paper, but the associated atmospheric circulation and physical mechanisms are missing. I do not think the present evidence is sufficient to guarantee such a causal link between La Nina and Arctic sea ice melt.
3. Surface air temperature anomalies reach up to 15K over the Labrador and Bering Seas, but the extent and area of sea ice melt is quite small. Could the authors quantify the relative changes in area, extent and concentration?
4. The atmospheric river plays an important role in Arctic warming in March. I am curious about the atmospheric water vapour transports associated with the blockings and the role of water vapour on surface temperature. Is the water vapour converted into snow or rain to lower the temperature, or is the surface warmed by increased longwave radiation?
5. Figure 5: I would suggest that the authors show the climatological daily evolution to facilitate contrasts between the extreme event and the climatology, so that the magnitude of the anomalies is more apparent. I am also curious about the magnitude of the geopotential height and 2m temperature, which reach 500m and 16k respectively. Is this correct?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Thomas Ballinger, 09 Aug 2024
  
  Please see responses to RC1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-925', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jun 2024

The authors investigated the effects of the SSW and La Nina teleconnections on the unseasonal melt events of the tandem ice loss over the Bring and Labrador Seas in March 2023. Associated large-scale anticyclonic anomalies funneled warm and atmospheric rivers to the bi-regional ice melt events. These results are generally interesting, focusing on the combination of stratospheric and La Nina-related tropospheric effects on Arctic surface thermal conditions. However, the atmospheric circulation features and characteristics associated with La Nina are rather unclear. I would like to propose further research into the effects of La Nina on the Arctic.

1. It is quite clear that the SSW occurred around 15 Feb and then propagated downward to the surface around 6 Mar, and the Greenland and Alaska blocking intensified. The first question is, how can we link the SSW to the increased mid-tropospheric blocking? Could the authors provide more evidence of the evolution and pattern of the polar vortex?

2. The La Nina teleconnections are highlighted in the abstract and the main paper, but the associated atmospheric circulation and physical mechanisms are missing. I do not think the present evidence is sufficient to guarantee such a causal link between La Nina and Arctic sea ice melt.

3. Surface air temperature anomalies reach up to 15K over the Labrador and Bering Seas, but the extent and area of sea ice melt is quite small. Could the authors quantify the relative changes in area, extent and concentration?

4. The atmospheric river plays an important role in Arctic warming in March. I am curious about the atmospheric water vapour transports associated with the blockings and the role of water vapour on surface temperature. Is the water vapour converted into snow or rain to lower the temperature, or is the surface warmed by increased longwave radiation?

5. Figure 5: I would suggest that the authors show the climatological daily evolution to facilitate contrasts between the extreme event and the climatology, so that the magnitude of the anomalies is more apparent. I am also curious about the magnitude of the geopotential height and 2m temperature, which reach 500m and 16k respectively. Is this correct?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Ballinger, 09 Aug 2024
  
  Please find our replies in Response_RC1_Ballinger_et_al.pdf.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-925', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2024

This study examines the rare melting events in the Labrador Sea and Bering Sea in March 2023, a time when the sea ice area typically reaches its maximum during the boreal winter. These melting events are explained by intense moisture transport from lower latitudes, driven by anomalous blocking over high latitudes. The authors also attribute the circulation anomalies to a preceding sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event and its downward influence. As a case study, the authors effectively link the surface ice melting to stratospheric extremes. However, I have some suggestions and comments regarding the manuscript, as detailed below:
1. I agree with another reviewer's comments on the role of La Niña. The authors did not provide evidence to support this argument. They should either add more evidence regarding La Niña or remove the related conclusion. Considering the manuscript's length, it would be better to remove the arguments about La Niña from the abstract and conclusion. It is still acceptable to mention La Niña among other factors that may have played a role.
2. All figures need improvement. The words/characters are too small.
3. To what extent these two events are extreme? It would be helpful to show a line to denote the 5(1)% percentile or -1.5(-2) sigma.
4. Figure 5 caption: The authors mentioned the black line denoting the mean T2m. Is this an error? It seems to represent the mean values of these variables.
5. It would be great to reorganize the size of the subplots in Figures 6 and 7. The current subplots are too small and not reader-friendly.
6. Lines 35-36: Add Zhang et al. 2018 (10.1126/sciadv.aat6025).
7. Lines 148-149: Related to comments #3. The authors argued that the melting event is ‘unprecedented.’ However, the SIC anomalies ‘did not breach the 5th or 95th percentiles’ and thus do not seem that extreme. Could the authors re-examine the calculation or further clarify?
8. Lines 314-315: The authors did not show any evidence about the downward longwave radiation or surface energy balance in the current study. Given this is in the discussion part, it would be better to cite previous studies here. Some polar AR studies have already presented these results, such as Hegyi and Taylor 2018 (10.1029/2017GL076717), Mattingly et al. 2018 (10.1029/2018JD028714), Wille et al. 2019 (10.1038/s41561-019-0460-1), Frances et al. 2020 (10.1126/sciadv.abc2695), Zhang et al. 2023 (10.1038/s41558-023-01599-3), etc.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Ballinger, 09 Aug 2024
  
  Please find our replies in Response_RC2_Ballinger_et_al.pdf.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-925', Ruonan Zhang, 18 Jun 2024

The authors investigated the effects of the SSW and La Nina teleconnections on the unseasonal melt events of the tandem ice loss over the Bring and Labrador Seas in March 2023. Associated large-scale anticyclonic anomalies funneled warm and atmospheric rivers to the bi-regional ice melt events. These results are generally interesting, focusing on the combination of stratospheric and La Nina-related tropospheric effects on Arctic surface thermal conditions. However, the atmospheric circulation features and characteristics associated with La Nina are rather unclear. I would like to propose further research into the effects of La Nina on the Arctic.
1. It is quite clear that the SSW occurred around 15 Feb and then propagated downward to the surface around 6 Mar, and the Greenland and Alaska blocking intensified. The first question is, how can we link the SSW to the increased mid-tropospheric blocking? Could the authors provide more evidence of the evolution and pattern of the polar vortex?
2. The La Nina teleconnections are highlighted in the abstract and the main paper, but the associated atmospheric circulation and physical mechanisms are missing. I do not think the present evidence is sufficient to guarantee such a causal link between La Nina and Arctic sea ice melt.
3. Surface air temperature anomalies reach up to 15K over the Labrador and Bering Seas, but the extent and area of sea ice melt is quite small. Could the authors quantify the relative changes in area, extent and concentration?
4. The atmospheric river plays an important role in Arctic warming in March. I am curious about the atmospheric water vapour transports associated with the blockings and the role of water vapour on surface temperature. Is the water vapour converted into snow or rain to lower the temperature, or is the surface warmed by increased longwave radiation?
5. Figure 5: I would suggest that the authors show the climatological daily evolution to facilitate contrasts between the extreme event and the climatology, so that the magnitude of the anomalies is more apparent. I am also curious about the magnitude of the geopotential height and 2m temperature, which reach 500m and 16k respectively. Is this correct?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Thomas Ballinger, 09 Aug 2024
  
  Please see responses to RC1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-925', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jun 2024

The authors investigated the effects of the SSW and La Nina teleconnections on the unseasonal melt events of the tandem ice loss over the Bring and Labrador Seas in March 2023. Associated large-scale anticyclonic anomalies funneled warm and atmospheric rivers to the bi-regional ice melt events. These results are generally interesting, focusing on the combination of stratospheric and La Nina-related tropospheric effects on Arctic surface thermal conditions. However, the atmospheric circulation features and characteristics associated with La Nina are rather unclear. I would like to propose further research into the effects of La Nina on the Arctic.

1. It is quite clear that the SSW occurred around 15 Feb and then propagated downward to the surface around 6 Mar, and the Greenland and Alaska blocking intensified. The first question is, how can we link the SSW to the increased mid-tropospheric blocking? Could the authors provide more evidence of the evolution and pattern of the polar vortex?

2. The La Nina teleconnections are highlighted in the abstract and the main paper, but the associated atmospheric circulation and physical mechanisms are missing. I do not think the present evidence is sufficient to guarantee such a causal link between La Nina and Arctic sea ice melt.

3. Surface air temperature anomalies reach up to 15K over the Labrador and Bering Seas, but the extent and area of sea ice melt is quite small. Could the authors quantify the relative changes in area, extent and concentration?

4. The atmospheric river plays an important role in Arctic warming in March. I am curious about the atmospheric water vapour transports associated with the blockings and the role of water vapour on surface temperature. Is the water vapour converted into snow or rain to lower the temperature, or is the surface warmed by increased longwave radiation?

5. Figure 5: I would suggest that the authors show the climatological daily evolution to facilitate contrasts between the extreme event and the climatology, so that the magnitude of the anomalies is more apparent. I am also curious about the magnitude of the geopotential height and 2m temperature, which reach 500m and 16k respectively. Is this correct?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Ballinger, 09 Aug 2024
  
  Please find our replies in Response_RC1_Ballinger_et_al.pdf.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-925', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2024

This study examines the rare melting events in the Labrador Sea and Bering Sea in March 2023, a time when the sea ice area typically reaches its maximum during the boreal winter. These melting events are explained by intense moisture transport from lower latitudes, driven by anomalous blocking over high latitudes. The authors also attribute the circulation anomalies to a preceding sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event and its downward influence. As a case study, the authors effectively link the surface ice melting to stratospheric extremes. However, I have some suggestions and comments regarding the manuscript, as detailed below:
1. I agree with another reviewer's comments on the role of La Niña. The authors did not provide evidence to support this argument. They should either add more evidence regarding La Niña or remove the related conclusion. Considering the manuscript's length, it would be better to remove the arguments about La Niña from the abstract and conclusion. It is still acceptable to mention La Niña among other factors that may have played a role.
2. All figures need improvement. The words/characters are too small.
3. To what extent these two events are extreme? It would be helpful to show a line to denote the 5(1)% percentile or -1.5(-2) sigma.
4. Figure 5 caption: The authors mentioned the black line denoting the mean T2m. Is this an error? It seems to represent the mean values of these variables.
5. It would be great to reorganize the size of the subplots in Figures 6 and 7. The current subplots are too small and not reader-friendly.
6. Lines 35-36: Add Zhang et al. 2018 (10.1126/sciadv.aat6025).
7. Lines 148-149: Related to comments #3. The authors argued that the melting event is ‘unprecedented.’ However, the SIC anomalies ‘did not breach the 5th or 95th percentiles’ and thus do not seem that extreme. Could the authors re-examine the calculation or further clarify?
8. Lines 314-315: The authors did not show any evidence about the downward longwave radiation or surface energy balance in the current study. Given this is in the discussion part, it would be better to cite previous studies here. Some polar AR studies have already presented these results, such as Hegyi and Taylor 2018 (10.1029/2017GL076717), Mattingly et al. 2018 (10.1029/2018JD028714), Wille et al. 2019 (10.1038/s41561-019-0460-1), Frances et al. 2020 (10.1126/sciadv.abc2695), Zhang et al. 2023 (10.1038/s41558-023-01599-3), etc.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Ballinger, 09 Aug 2024
  
  Please find our replies in Response_RC2_Ballinger_et_al.pdf.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Thomas Ballinger on behalf of the Authors (12 Aug 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (23 Aug 2024) by Irina Rudeva

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Sep 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (14 Sep 2024)

For final publication, the manuscript should be

accepted as is

accepted subject to technical corrections

accepted subject to minor revisions

reconsidered after major revisions

rejected

Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:

I would be willing to review the revised manuscript.

I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

review of "Concurrent Bering Sea and Labrador Sea ice melt extremes in March 2023: A confluence of meteorological events aligned with stratosphere-troposphere interactions"

I did not review this paper in its first round, however the editor asked me to offer my thoughts on the revised submission. I will focus my comments on the stratosphere-troposphere coupling parts of the paper. (I do not consider myself qualified to review the other aspects of the paper, and will not include them in my review.)

The language used to associate the melt events with SSWs is too strong. There is strong evidence that blocking near Greenland is indeed a byproduct of SSWs, however there is no evidence that SSWs are typically followed by blocks (or any robust climate anomalies for that matter) near the Bering Sea. There is actually a reasonably large literature on whether (if at all) SSWs are followed by a Pacific sector impact (e.g. Dai et al 2024 and references therein). There is no robust response in reanalysis data. However many models simulate a response (though clearly not a block as was observed in March 2023) for reasons that are still not fully understood.

To some degree the authors note this in the paragraph starting near line 320, however there are some additional papers that they might consider citing in this paragraph listed below.

Given this, the strongest claim that can be made is that the block over Greenland is likely associated with the SSW, however the block over Alaska had nothing to do with it, and may have instead been associated with the La Nina event. To be specific, I think the language used near line 63, 237-238, and 299 is too strong, even as the paragraph starting near line 320 is reasonable.

Dai, Y., P. Hitchcock, and I. R. Simpson, 2024: What Drives the Spread and Bias in the Surface Impact of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings in CMIP6 Models?. J. Climate, 37, 3917–3942, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0622.1.

Zhang, J., Tian, W., Pyle, J.A., Keeble, J., Abraham, N.L., Chipperfield, M.P., Xie, F., Yang, Q., Mu, L., Ren, H.L. and Wang, L., 2022. Responses of Arctic sea ice to stratospheric ozone depletion. Science Bulletin, 67(11), pp.1182-1190.

Liang, Yu-Chiao, Young-Oh Kwon, Claude Frankignoul, Guillaume Gastineau, Karen L. Smith, Lorenzo M. Polvani, Lantao Sun et al. "The Weakening of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex and the Subsequent Surface Impacts as Consequences to Arctic Sea Ice Loss." Journal of Climate 37, no. 1 (2024): 309-333.

Kelleher, Michael E., Blanca Ayarzagüena, and James A. Screen. "Interseasonal connections between the timing of the stratospheric final warming and Arctic sea ice." Journal of Climate 33, no. 8 (2020): 3079-3092.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (17 Sep 2024) by Irina Rudeva

AR by Thomas Ballinger on behalf of the Authors (25 Sep 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (30 Sep 2024) by Irina Rudeva

AR by Thomas Ballinger on behalf of the Authors (07 Oct 2024)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

04 Dec 2024

Concurrent Bering Sea and Labrador Sea ice melt extremes in March 2023: a confluence of meteorological events aligned with stratosphere–troposphere interactions

Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna

Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 1473–1488, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, 2024

Short summary

Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-925-supplement

Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna

Viewed

Total article views: 532 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
404	91	37	532	44	20	21

HTML: 404
PDF: 91
XML: 37
Total: 532
Supplement: 44
BibTeX: 20
EndNote: 21

Views and downloads (calculated since 11 Apr 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2024	145	27	8	180
May 2024	26	12	4	42
Jun 2024	88	9	6	103
Jul 2024	46	22	6	74
Aug 2024	39	6	12	57
Sep 2024	26	6	0	32
Oct 2024	18	5	0	23
Nov 2024	15	4	1	20
Dec 2024	1	0	1

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 11 Apr 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2024	145	27	8	180
May 2024	26	12	4	42
Jun 2024	88	9	6	103
Jul 2024	46	22	6	74
Aug 2024	39	6	12	57
Sep 2024	26	6	0	32
Oct 2024	18	5	0	23
Nov 2024	15	4	1	20
Dec 2024	1	0	1

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 513 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 513 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 04 Dec 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1369 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

The month of March marks the Arctic sea ice maximum when the ice cover extent reaches its peak within the annual cycle. This study chronicles the meteorological conditions that led to the anomalous, tandem March 2023 ice melt event in the Labrador and Bering seas. A sudden stratospheric warming event initiated the development of anticyclonic circulation patterns over these areas which aided northward transport of anomalously warm, moist air and drove their unusual sea ice melt.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0