Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T09:23:22.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Arctic sea-ice area and volume production:1996/97 versus 1997/98

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Ron Kwok*
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The RADARSAT geophysical processor system (RGPS) produces measurements of ice motion and estimates of ice thickness using repeat synthetic aperture radar maps of the Arctic Ocean. From the RGPS products, we compute the net deformation and advection of the winter ice cover using the motion observations, and the seasonal ice area and volume production using the estimates of ice thickness. The results from the winters of 1996/97 and 1997/98 are compared. The second winter is of particular interest because it coincides with the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) field program. The character of the deformation of the ice cover from the two years is very different. Over a domain covering a large part of the western Arctic Ocean (~2.5 × 106 km2), the net divergence of that area during the 6 months of the first winter was 2.7% and for the second winter was 49.3%. In a subregion where the SHEBA camp was located, the net divergence was almost 38% compared to a net divergence of the same subregion of ~9% in 1996/97. The resulting deformation created a much larger volume of seasonal ice than in the earlier year. The net seasonal ice-volume production is 1.6 times (0.38 m vs 0.62 m) that of the first year. In addition to the larger divergence, this part of the ice cover advected a longer distance toward the Chukchi Sea over the same time-span. The total coverage of multi-year ice remained almost identical at ~2.08 × 106 km2, or 83% of the initial area of the domain. In this paper, we compare the behavior of the ice cover over the two winters and discuss these observations in the context of large-scale ice motion and atmospheric-pressure pattern.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2002 
Figure 0

Fig. 1.The spatial coverage of the five subregions (S1–S5). (a) 7November 1996; (b) 21April1997; (c) 5November 1997; (d) 30 April 1998. The areas of the subregions and the number of cells in each subregion are also shown. Also shown are the mean December–March ice motion for (e) winter 1996/97 and (f) winter 1997/98. Contour intervals are 2 hPa.

Figure 1

Fig. 2.Seasonal ice-volume and area production in the entire domain and the five subregions. The coverage and volume of the FYr ice are not shown here.

Figure 2

Fig. 3.The seasonal ice-thickness distribution, gs(h), at the end of April. The coverage of ridged/rafted ice is shown in light gray.

Figure 3

Table 1.Comparion of seasonal sea-ice volume production (km3), 1996/97 and 1997/98 (November–April)

Figure 4

Fig. 4.The record of the multi-year (AMY) coverage for the winters of 1996/97 (solid line) and 1997/98 (dashed line).