Satellite records show a decline in ice extent over more than three decades, with a record minimum in September 2012. Results from the Pan‐Arctic Ice‐Ocean Modelling and Assimilation system (PIOMAS) suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a decline in volume, but this has not been confirmed by data. Using new data from the European Space Agency CryoSat‐2 (CS‐2) mission, validated with in situ data, we generate estimates of ice volume for the winters of 2010/11 and 2011/12. We compare these data with current estimates from PIOMAS and earlier (2003–8) estimates from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ICESat mission. Between the ICESat and CryoSat‐2 periods, the autumn volume declined by 4291 km3 and the winter volume by 1479 km3. This exceeds the decline in ice volume in the central Arctic from the PIOMAS model of 2644 km3 in the autumn, but is less than the 2091 km3 in winter, between the two time periods.

Basin have increased winter ventilation in the ocean interior, making this region 46 structurally similar to that of the western Eurasian Basin. The associated enhanced 47 release of oceanic heat has reduced winter sea-ice formation at a rate now comparable to 48 losses from atmospheric thermodynamic forcing, thus explaining the recent reduction in 49 sea-ice cover in the eastern Eurasian Basin. This encroaching "atlantification" of the 50Eurasian Basin represents an essential step toward a new Arctic climate state, with a 51 substantially greater role for Atlantic inflows. 52 53 3 Over the last decade, the Arctic Ocean has experienced dramatic losses of sea-ice loss in 54 the summers, with record-breaking years in 2007 and 2012 for both the Amerasian Basin 55 and the Eurasian Basin (EB). More remarkably, the eastern EB has been nearly ice-free 56 (<10 % ice coverage) at the end of summer since 2011 (Fig. 1). Most sea ice-mass loss 57 results from summer solar heating of the surface mixed layer (SML) through cracks in the 58 ice and open water, and consequent melting of the lower surface of the ice (1-3). Heat 59 advected into the EB interior by Atlantic water (AW) generally has not been considered 60 an important contributor to sea-ice reduction, due to effective insulation of the overlying 61 cold halocline layer (CHL) (4) that separates the cold and fresh SML and pack ice from 62 heat carried by the warm and saline AW. 63There are, however, reasons to believe the role of AW heat in sea-ice reduction is not 64 negligible, and may be increasingly important (5). Nansen (6) warming has slowed slightly since 2008 (Fig. 2c). 74Strong stratification, which is found in most of the Arctic Ocean, prevents vigorous 75 ventilation of the AW. One notable exception is the western Nansen Basin, north and 76 4 northeast of Svalbard, where proximity to the sources of inflowing AW makes possible 77 significant interactions between the SML and the ocean interior (5). Specifically, weakly 78 stratified AW entering the Nansen Basin through Fram Strait is subject to direct 79 ventilation in winter, caused by cooling and haline convection associated with sea ice 80 formation (15). This ventilation leads to the reduction of sea-ice thickness along the 81 continental slope off Svalbard (16, 17). In the past, these conditions have been limited to 82 the western EB, since winter ventilation of AW in the eastern EB was constrained by 83 stronger stratification there. However, newly acquired data show that conditions 84 previously only identified in the western Nansen Basin now can be observed in the 85 eastern EB as well. We call this eastward progression of the western EB conditions the 86 "atlantification" of the EB of the Arctic Ocean. 87 Overview of sea ice state 88The progressive decline in sea ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean during the satellite era, at 89 13.4 % per decade during September (18), has been accompanied by decreases in average 90 sea ice thickness of at least 1.7 m in the central Arctic (19, 20). In the region of t...

[1] The decline of sea ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean from ICESat (2003ICESat ( -2008 is placed in the context of estimates from 42 years of submarine records (1958 -2000) described by Rothrock et al. (1999Rothrock et al. ( , 2008. While the earlier 1999 work provides a longer historical record of the regional changes, the latter offers a more refined analysis, over a sizable portion of the Arctic Ocean supported by a much stronger and richer data set. Within the data release area (DRA) of declassified submarine sonar measurements (covering $38% of the Arctic Ocean), the overall mean winter thickness of 3.64 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.89 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat recordan astonishing decrease of 1.75 m in thickness. Between 1975 and 2000, the steepest rate of decrease is À0.08 m/yr in 1990 compared to a slightly higher winter/summer rate of À0.10/À0.20 m/yr in the five-year ICESat record (2003 -2008). Prior to 1997, ice extent in the DRA was >90% during the summer minimum. This can be contrasted to the gradual decrease in the early 2000s followed by an abrupt drop to <55% during the record setting minimum in 2007. This combined analysis shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span five decades.

[1] We present our best estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean ice cover from 10 Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) campaigns that span a 5-year period between 2003 and 2008. Derived ice drafts are consistently within 0.5 m of those from a submarine cruise in mid-November of 2005 and 4 years of ice draft profiles from moorings in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Along with a more than 42% decrease in multiyear (MY) ice coverage since 2005, there was a remarkable thinning of $0.6 m in MY ice thickness over 4 years. In contrast, the average thickness of the seasonal ice in midwinter ($2 m), which covered more than two-thirds of the Arctic Ocean in 2007, exhibited a negligible trend. Average winter sea ice volume over the period, weighted by a loss of $3000 km 3 between 2007 and 2008, was $14,000 km 3 . The total MY ice volume in the winter has experienced a net loss of 6300 km 3 (>40%) in the 4 years since 2005, while the first-year ice cover gained volume owing to increased overall area coverage. The overall decline in volume and thickness are explained almost entirely by changes in the MY ice cover. Combined with a large decline in MY ice coverage over this short record, there is a reversal in the volumetric and areal contributions of the two ice types to the total volume and area of the Arctic Ocean ice cover. Seasonal ice, having surpassed that of MY ice in winter area coverage and volume, became the dominant ice type. It seems that the near-zero replenishment of the MY ice cover after the summers of 2005 and 2007, an imbalance in the cycle of replenishment and ice export, has played a significant role in the loss of Arctic sea ice volume over the ICESat record.

Uncertainty in the Pan‐Arctic Ice‐Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) Arctic sea ice volume record is characterized. A range of observations and approaches, including in situ ice thickness measurements, ICESat retrieved ice thickness, and model sensitivity studies, yields a conservative estimate for October Arctic ice volume uncertainty of 1.35 × 103 km3 and an uncertainty of the ice volume trend over the 1979–2010 period of 1.0 × 103 km3 decade–1. A conservative estimate of the trend over this period is −2.8 × 103 km3 decade–1. PIOMAS ice thickness estimates agree well with ICESat ice thickness retrievals (<0.1 m mean difference) for the area for which submarine data are available, while difference outside this area are larger. PIOMAS spatial thickness patterns agree well with ICESat thickness estimates with pattern correlations of above 0.8. PIOMAS appears to overestimate thin ice thickness and underestimate thick ice, yielding a smaller downward trend than apparent in reconstructions from observations. PIOMAS ice volume uncertainties and trends are examined in the context of climate change attribution and the declaration of record minima. The distribution of 32 year trends in a preindustrial coupled model simulation shows no trends comparable to those seen in the PIOMAS retrospective, even when the trend uncertainty is accounted for. Attempts to label September minima as new record lows are sensitive to modeling error. However, the September 2010 ice volume anomaly did in fact exceed the previous 2007 minimum by a large enough margin to establish a statistically significant new record.