Medium-scale experiment in consolidation of an artificial sea ice ridge in Van Mijenfjorden, Svalbard

Salganik, Evgenii; Høyland, Knut V.; Shestov, Aleksey

doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2020.103194

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, simpler surface heat budget parameterizations (Maykut, 1986) appear to perform better in the context of MOSAiC observations (Shupe et al., 2022). Moreover, the heat conduction model underestimation for ridges evidenced by our work calls for additional efforts for describing deformed sea ice processes not only mechanically (Hutter et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2018) but also thermodynamically (Leppäranta et al., 1995; Salganik et al., 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Modeling the Winter Heat Conduction Through the Sea Ice System During MOSAiC

Zampieri,

Clemens‐Sewall,

Sledd

et al. 2024

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models struggle to accurately simulate observed sea ice thickness changes, which could be partially due to inadequate representation of thermodynamic processes. We analyzed co‐located winter observations of the Arctic sea ice from the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of the Arctic Climate for evaluating and improving thermodynamic processes in sea ice models, aiming to enable more accurate predictions of the warming climate system. We model the sea ice and snow heat conduction for observed transects forced by realistic boundary conditions to understand the impact of the non‐resolved meter‐scale snow and sea ice thickness heterogeneity on horizontal heat conduction. Neglecting horizontal processes causes underestimating the conductive heat flux of 10% or more. Furthermore, comparing model results to independent temperature observations reveals a ∼5 K surface temperature overestimation over ice thinner than 1 m, attributed to shortcomings in parameterizing surface turbulent and radiative fluxes rather than the conduction. Assessing the model deficiencies and parameterizing these unresolved processes is required for improved sea ice representation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Modeling the Winter Heat Conduction Through the Sea Ice System During MOSAiC

Zampieri,

Clemens‐Sewall,

Sledd

et al. 2024

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sea-ice salinity measurements provide additional evidence of the high importance of snow for the consolidation of Alli's Ridge. The salinity of a sea-ice ridge is usually similar to the salinity of surrounding level ice (Shafrova and Høyland, 2008;Salganik et al, 2021). For Alli's Ridge we measured a bulk salinity of 2.3 and a salinity at 3.2-5.0 m depth of 1.5 in June (Figure 2a).…”

Section: Apparent Mechanisms Of Ridge Consolidationmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The ridge macroporosity was calculated from the results of ice drilling as the fraction of voids within ridge rubble following Leppa ¨ranta and Hakala (1992). The location of the ice-water interface was estimated using in situ temperatures (Salganik et al, 2021) and heating temperatures (Jackson et al, 2013) from IMBs.…”

Section: Sea-ice Thermodynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using Equation 1, we calculated conductive heat fluxes for both IMBs installed in the ridge, obtaining average values of 6.1 W m À2 for T61 and 5.2 W m À2 for DTC26. Salganik et al (2021) showed that the maximum difference in the conductive heat flux inside nearby ridge blocks and voids is limited by 15% for 50 cm thick blocks. To minimize the potential errors from the presence of horizontal conductive heat fluxes, we used temperature measurements from a depth of 0.8-1.0 m above the areas with inhomogeneous consolidation.…”

Section: Conductive and Latent Heat Fluxesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By describing several mechanisms of ridge consolidation (Figure 8), this study has expanded the number of factors that need to be considered for ridge consolidation. For atmospheric consolidation, ridge macroporosity and snow depth distribution have already been described as the key factors (Salganik et al, 2021). For snow-slush consolidation, the presence of open leads defined by air temperatures during spring season is important, while the amount of drifted snow into leads depends largely on wind speed.…”

Section: Apparent Mechanisms Of Ridge Consolidationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Different mechanisms of Arctic first-year sea-ice ridge consolidation observed during the MOSAiC expedition

Salganik¹,

Lange²,

Itkin³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sea-ice ridges constitute a large fraction of the ice volume in the Arctic Ocean, yet we know little about the evolution of these ice masses. Here we examine the thermal and morphological evolution of an Arctic first-year sea-ice ridge, from its formation to advanced melt. Initially the mean keel depth was 5.6 m and mean sail height was 0.7 m. The initial rubble macroporosity (fraction of seawater filled voids) was estimated at 29% from ice drilling and 43–46% from buoy temperature. From January until mid-April, the ridge consolidated slowly by heat loss to the atmosphere and the total consolidated layer growth during this phase was 0.7 m. From mid-April to mid-June, there was a sudden increase of ridge consolidation rate despite no increase in conductive heat flux. We surmise this change was related to decreased macroporosity due to transport of snow-slush to the ridge keel rubble via adjacent open leads. In this period, the mean thickness of the consolidated layer increased by 2.1 m. At the peak of melt in June–July we suggest that the consolidation was related to the refreezing of surface snow and ice meltwater and of ridge keel meltwater (the latter only about 15% of total consolidation). We used the morphology parameters of the ridge to calculate its hydrostatic equilibrium and obtained a more accurate estimate of the actual consolidation of the keel, correcting from 2.2 m to 2.8 m for average keel consolidation. This approach also allowed us to estimate that the average keel melt of 0.3 m, in June–July, was accompanied by a decrease in ridge draft of 0.9 m. An ice mass balance buoy in the ridge indicated total consolidation of 2.8 m, of which 2.1 m was related to the rapid mode of consolidation from April to June. By mid-June, consolidation resulted in a drastic decrease of the macroporosity of the interior of keel while the flanks had little or no change in macroporosity. These results are important to understanding the role of ridge keels as meltwater sources and sinks and as sanctuary for ice-associated organisms in Arctic pack ice.

show abstract