the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impacts of Atmospheric Dynamics on Sea-Ice and Snow Thickness at a Coastal Site in East Antarctica
Abstract. Antarctic sea ice and its snow cover play a pivotal role in regulating the global climate system. Understanding the intricate interplay between atmospheric dynamics, ocean circulation and mixed-layer properties, and sea ice is essential for predicting future climate change scenarios. This study investigates the relationship between atmospheric conditions and sea-ice and snow characteristics at a coastal East Antarctic site using in situ measurements from the winter-spring of 2022. Congruent with previous studies, the observed sea-ice thickness (SIT) follows the seasonal solar cycle with only minor deviations, while the snow thickness variability corresponds closely to cyclonic atmospheric forcing, with significant contributions from katabatic flows and atmospheric rivers (ARs). The in-situ measurements highlight the substantial effects of warm and moist air intrusions on the sea-ice, snow and atmospheric state. A high-resolution simulation with the Polar Weather Research and Forecasting model for the 14 November AR highlights the effects of the katabatic winds in slowing down the low-latitude air masses as they approach the Antarctica coastline, with the resulting low-level convergence leading to precipitation rates above 3 mm hr-1. Including the observed sea-ice extent and a realistic SIT in the model does not yield more skillful predictions of surface/near-surface variables and atmospheric profiles. This suggests other factors such as boundary-layer dynamics and/or land/ice processes may play a more important role than sea-ice concentration and thickness during AR events. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the complex interactions within the Antarctic system, providing valuable insights for climate modeling and future predictions.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of The Cryosphere.
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.- Preprint
(3078 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1386 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3535', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3535/egusphere-2024-3535-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3535', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Mar 2025
Antarctic sea ice and snow play an important role in regulating the global climate system. However, scare observations limit our understanding of atmosphere-sea ice-ocean interaction processes in Antarctic. The aim of this study is to improve our understanding of the temporal evolution of sea ice and snow around East Antarctica based on in-situ observations, reanalysis, and simulations. This study starts from presenting the evolution of sea ice thickness and snow depth by using the SIMBA measurements collected at Khalifa site. Then this study provides a wealth of analysis on atmospheric rivers. Overall, I recommend the publication of this study but suggest that the major revisions are needed before publication.
My biggest concern is that the transition from observation analysis (Sec. 3) to AR analysis (Sec 4) is vague or invalid. This makes the paper appear as two separate parts, lacking overall coherence. In the part of observation analysis, the result shows that ST increases during ARs due to precipitation, and SIT increases by 0.04 m during the 14 November AR due to snow-ice interactions. But in my opinion, the authors does not fully explain the direct impacts of ARs on changes in ST and SIT. I think the following questions should be answered at least, otherwise, it would be far fetched to directly connect the extensive analysis of AR in the remaining part of the article.
- What are meteorological conditions near the sea ice surface during ARs? How do meteorological conditions affect the SIT and ST variations?
- It seems that precipitation plays an important role in affecting ST variations. What are the special features of the increase in ST during ARs compared to the ST increase during other snowfall events?
- Why does the SIT only increase during the 14 November AR period, while it does not increase during other ARs?
On the other hand, I suggest the authors to add the analysis of observed near-surface meteorological elements (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, air temperature and humidity. ) near the observation site and its impacts on ST and SIT variations.
Specific comments
Lines 508~509:How do you infer that SIT changes are mainly caused by oceanic forcing? From Figure 2, it can be seen that changes in SIT are mainly controlled by the growth and melting at the bottom, but it cannot be directly attributed to oceanic forcing, as the growth and melting of ice at the bottom is the result of competition between oceanic heat flux and conductive heat flux, and the conductive heat flux also depends on how much energy the ice absorbs from the atmosphere.
Lines 514~520:How does equation 10 consider the process of snow-ice transition? This may affect the explanation of changes in ST with SMB.
Line 522:Add a space between “sea-ice” and “SMB”, and delete “.” before Foehn.
Figure 3: The line for SMB is always covered by P line, and the line for M is also invisible. It is easy to cause misunderstandings. I suggest redesigning the display of results, perhaps using dual y-axis can solve this problem.
Line 540~542: How should I understand the ST is decreasing during blocking high events, but the occurrence of blocking coincides with the the passage of ARs and ARs always lead to an increase of ST as the observations present?
Figure 4: How to identify the blocking from Figure 4a and 4d?
Lines 852~853: The evidence is weak to make this conclusion.
Lines 854~856: Only the increase of 0.06 m in ST during the 14 November AR period is given in the result part.
Lines 865~866: This is contradictory to your statement given in Lines 568~569.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3535-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
227 | 75 | 10 | 312 | 27 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 227
- PDF: 75
- XML: 10
- Total: 312
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 87 | 29 |
China | 2 | 36 | 12 |
United Arab Emirates | 3 | 33 | 11 |
Germany | 4 | 17 | 5 |
Netherlands | 5 | 15 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 87