MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382679899 · doi:10.5194/tc-2023-99

Why is Summertime Arctic Sea Ice Drift Speed Projected to Decrease?

2023· preprint· en· W4382679899 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie L. Ward, Neil F. Tandon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologySea iceEnvironmental scienceArcticArctic ice packCoupled model intercomparison projectGlobal warmingOcean gyreClimate changeMeteorologyClimate modelOceanographyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Alongside declining Arctic sea ice cover during the satellite era, there have also been positive trends in sea ice Arctic-average drift speed (AADS) during both winter and summer. This increasing sea ice motion is an important consideration for marine transportation as well as a potential feedback on the rate of sea ice area decline. Earlier studies have shown that nearly all modern global climate models (GCMs) produce positive March (winter) AADS trends for both the historical period and future warming scenarios. However, most GCMs do not produce positive September (summer) AADS trends during the historical period, and nearly all GCMs project decreases in September AADS with future warming. This study seeks to understand the mechanisms driving these projected summertime AADS decreases using output from 17 models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) along with 10 runs of the Community Earth System Model version 2 Large Ensemble (CESM2-LE). The CESM2-LE analysis reveals that the projected summertime AADS decreases are due to changes in sea surface height (SSH) which act to reduce sea ice motion in the Beaufort Gyre and Transpolar Drift. During March, changes in internal stress and wind stress counteract these tilt force changes and produce positive drift speed trends. The simulated wintertime mechanisms are supported by earlier observational studies, which gives confidence that the mechanisms driving summertime projections are likely also at work in the real world. However, additional research is needed to assess whether the simulated summertime internal stresses are too weak compared to the tilt forces. The projected summertime SSH changes are primarily due to freshening of the Arctic Ocean (i.e. halosteric expansion), with thermal expansion acting as a secondary contribution. The associated ocean circulation changes lead to additional piling up of water in the Russian shelf regions, which further reinforces the SSH increase. CMIP6 models also show evidence of SSH-driven projected decreases in summertime Arctic sea ice motion, but the models show a wide range of regional SSH trend patterns. Due to small ensemble sizes and the unavailability of required daily output, we were not able to further examine mechanisms in the CMIP6 models. Altogether, our results motivate additional studies to understand the role of SSH in driving changes of Arctic sea ice motion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→