Climate Models as Guidance for the Design of Observing Systems: the Case of Polar Climate and Sea Ice Prediction
Purpose of review
The Arctic and Antarctic are among the regions most exposed to climate change, but ironically, they are also the ones for which the least observations are available. Climate models have been instrumental in completing the big picture. It is generally accepted that observations feed the development of climate models: parameterizations are designed based on empirically observed relationships, climate model predictions are initialized using observational products, and numerical simulations are evaluated given matching observational datasets.
Recent research suggests that the opposite also holds: climate models can feed the development of polar observational networks by indicating the type, location, frequency, and timing of measurements that would be most useful for answering a specific scientific question.
Here, we review the foundations of this emerging notion with five cases borrowed from the field of polar prediction with a focus on sea ice (sub-seasonal to centennial time scales). We suggest that climate models, besides their usual purposes, can be used to objectively prioritize future observational needs – if, of course, the limitations of the realism of these models have been recognized. This idea, which has been already extensively exploited in the context of Numerical Weather Prediction, reinforces the notion that observations and models are two sides of the same coin rather than distinct conceptual entities.
Keywordspolar regions observing system design climate modeling environmental prediction emergent constraints data assimilation observing system experiments satellite simulators
The research leading to these results has received funding from the Belgian Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS), and the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 projects APPLICATE (GA 727862) and PRIMAVERA (GA 641727).
We acknowledge two anonymous reviewers, as well as Peter Bauer, Irina Sandu, Dirk Notz and Leandro Ponsoni for useful insights and feedback on the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Stevens B, Schwartz SE. Observing and modeling Earth’s energy flows. Surv Geophys. 2012;33:779–816.Google Scholar
- 2.Anav A, Friedlingstein P, Kidston M, Bopp L, Ciais P, Cox P, et al. Evaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models. J Clim. 2013;26(18):6801–43.Google Scholar
- 3.Gent PR. Coupled Models and Climate Projections. 2nd ed. Vol. 103, Ocean Circulation and Climate: A 21st Century Perspective. Elsevier Ltd.; 2013. 609–623 p.Google Scholar
- 4.Hegerl G, Zwiers F. Use of models in detection and attribution of climate change. Wires Clim Chang. 2011;2:570–91.Google Scholar
- 5.Stott PA, Christidis N, Otto FEL, Sun Y, Vanderlinden J, van Oldenborgh GJ, et al. Attribution of extreme weather and climate-related events. Wires Clim Chang. 2016;7:23–41.Google Scholar
- 6.Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, et al. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. 2018.Google Scholar
- 7.Kravitz B, Caldeira K, Boucher O, Robock A, Rasch PJ, Alterskjær K, et al. Climate model response from the Geoengineering model Intercomparison project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos. 2013;118:8320–32.Google Scholar
- 8.Lazzara MA, Weidner GA, Keller LM, Thom JE, Cassano JJ. Antarctic automatic Weather Station program: 30 years of polar observation. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2012 Mar 23;93(10):1519–37.Google Scholar
- 9.IABP. International Arctic Buoy Programme [Internet]. Available from: http://iabp.apl.washington.edu
- 10.IPAB. International Programme for Antarctic Buoys 2001 [Internet]. 2001. Available from: https://www.ipab.aq/
- 11.Woodgate RA. Increases in the Pacific inflow to the Arctic from 1990 to 2015 , and insights into seasonal trends and driving mechanisms from year-round Bering Strait mooring data. Prog Oceanogr 2018;160(June 2017):124–154.Google Scholar
- 12.Worby AP, Geiger CA, Paget MJ, Van Woert ML, Ackley SF, DeLiberty TL. Thickness distribution of Antarctic Sea ice. J Geophys Res Ocean. 2008;113(5):1–14.Google Scholar
- 13.Tomasi C, Petkov B, Benedetti E, Valenziano L, Vitale V. Analysis of a 4 year radiosonde data set at dome C for characterizing temperature and moisture conditions of the Antarctic atmosphere. J Geophys Res. 2011;116(D15304):1–18.Google Scholar
- 14.Ehrlich A, Wendisch M, Lüpkes C, Buschmann M, Bozem H, Chechin D, et al. A comprehensive in situ and remote sensing data set from the Arctic CLoud observations using airborne measurements during polar Day (ACLOUD) campaign. Earth Syst Sci Data Discuss [Internet]. 2019;2019:1–42 Available from: https://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/essd-2019-96/.
- 15.Kurtz NT, Farrell SL, Studinger M, Galin N, Harbeck JP, Lindsay R, et al. Sea ice thickness, freeboard, and snow depth products from operation IceBridge airborne data. Cryosphere. 2013;7(4):1035–56.Google Scholar
- 16.Kwok R, Rothrock DA. Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958–2008. Geophys Res Lett. 2009;36(15).Google Scholar
- 18.Williams G, Maksym T, Wilkinson J, Kunz C, Murphy C, Kimball P, et al. Thick and deformed Antarctic Sea ice mapped with autonomous underwater vehicles. Nat Geosci. 2015;8:61–7.Google Scholar
- 19.Lavergne T, Sørensen AM, Kern S, Tonboe R, Notz D, Aaboe S, et al. Version 2 of the EUMETSAT OSI SAF and ESA CCI Sea-ice concentration climate data records. Cryosphere. 2019;13:49–78.Google Scholar
- 20.Kaleschke L, Maaß N, Mäkynen M, Drusch M. Sea ice thickness retrieval from SMOS brightness temperatures during the Arctic freeze-up period. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39(L05501):1–5.Google Scholar
- 21.Hori M, Sugiura K, Kobayashi K, Aoki T, Tanikawa T, Kuchiki K, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment A 38-year ( 1978–2015 ) Northern Hemisphere daily snow cover extent product derived using consistent objective criteria from satellite-borne optical sensors. Remote Sens Environ [Internet]. 2017;191:402–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.01.023 Google Scholar
- 22.Zwally HJ, Yi D, Kwok R, Zhao Y. ICESat measurements of sea ice freeboard and estimates of sea ice thickness in the Weddell Sea. J Geophys Res Ocean. 2008;113(2):1–17.Google Scholar
- 23.Csatho BM, Schenk AF, Veen CJ Van Der, Babonis G, Duncan K. Laser altimetry reveals complex pattern of Greenland Ice Sheet dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(52).Google Scholar
- 24.Quartly GD, Rinne E, Passaro M, Andersen OB, Dinardo S, Fleury S, et al. Review of radar altimetry techniques over the Arctic Ocean: recent Progress and future opportunities for sea level and sea ice research. Cryosph Discuss [Internet]. 2018;2018:1–51 Available from: https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2018-148/.
- 25.Meier WN, Hovelsrud GK, Van Oort BEH, Key JR, Kovacs KM, Michel C, et al. Arctic Sea ice in transformation: a review of recent observed changes and impacts on biology and human activity. Rev Geophys. 2014;52(3):185–217.Google Scholar
- 28.Shepherd A, Ivins E, Rignot E, Smith B, van den Broeke M, Velicogna I, et al. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2017. Nature [Internet]. 2018;558(7709):219–22. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0179-y.
- 29.Bauer P, Bradley A, Bromwich D, Casati B, Chen P, Chevallier M, et al. WWRP Polar Prediction Project: Implementation Plan for the Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.polarprediction.net/fileadmin/user_upload/www.polarprediction.net/Home/YOPP/YOPP_Documents/FINAL_WWRP_PPP_YOPP_Plan_28_July_2016_web-1.pdf
- 30.Jung T, Gordon N, Bauer P, Bromwich DH, Chevallier M, Day JJ, et al. Advancing polar prediction capabilities on daily to seasonal time scales. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2016;(September):1631–48.Google Scholar
- 31.Bauer P. Observing system experiments (OSE) to estimate the impact of observations in NWP [Internet]. 2009. Available from: https://doi.org/www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2009/7978-observing-systemexperiments-ose-estimate-impact-observations-nwp.pdf Google Scholar
- 32.Arnold CP, Dey CH. Observing-systems simulation experiments : past, present, and future. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 1986;67(6):687–95.Google Scholar
- 33.Atlas R. Atmospheric observations and experiments to assess their usefulness in data assimilation. J Meteorol Soc Japan. 1997;75(1B):111–30.Google Scholar
- 34.Zapotocny TH, Jung JA, Le Marshall JF, Treadon RE. A two-season impact study of four satellite data types and Rawinsonde data in the NCEP global data assimilation system. Weather Forecast. 2008;23:80–100.Google Scholar
- 35.Randriamampianina R, Schyberg H. Mile M. Observing System Experiments with an Arctic Mesoscale Numerical Weather Prediction Model. 2019;11(981):1–23.Google Scholar
- 36.Yamazaki A, Inoue J, Dethloff K, Maturilli M, König-Langlo G. Impact of radiosonde observations on forecasting summertime Arctic cyclone formation. J Geophys Res. 2015;120:3249–73.Google Scholar
- 37.Lawrence H, Farnan J, Bormann N, Bauer P. An assessment of the use of observations in the Arctic at ECMWF [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2019/18925-assessment-use-observations-arctic-ecmwf.pdf Google Scholar
- 39.Masutani M, Woollen JS, Lord SJ, Emmitt GD, Kleespies TJ, Wood SA, et al. Observing system simulation experiments at the National Centers for environmental prediction. J Geophys Res. 2010;115(D07101):1–15.Google Scholar
- 40.Masutani M, Garand L, Lahoz W, Andersson E, Rochon Y, Riishojgaard L, et al. Observing System Simulation Experiments: Justifying new Arctic Observation Capabilities [Internet]. Available from: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/6965
- 41.Hardt, Matthias, and Frank Scherbaum. “The Design of Optimum Networks for Aftershock Recordings.”Geophysical Journal International 117, no. 3 (June 1994): 716–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1994.tb02464.x.Google Scholar
- 43.Day JJ, Hawkins E, Tietsche S. Will Arctic Sea ice thickness initialization improve seasonal forecast skill? Geophys Res Lett. 2014;41(21):7566–75.Google Scholar
- 44.Blanchard-Wrigglesworth E, Armour KC, Bitz CM, Deweaver E. Persistence and inherent predictability of Arctic Sea ice in a GCM ensemble and observations. J Clim. 2011;24(1):231–50.Google Scholar
- 45.Chevallier M, Salas-Mélia D. The role of sea ice thickness distribution in the arctic sea ice potential predictability: a diagnostic approach with a coupled GCM. J Clim. 2012;25(8):3025–38.Google Scholar
- 46.Zhang YF, Bitz CM, Anderson JL, Collins N, Hendricks J, Hoar T, et al. Insights on sea ice data assimilation from perfect model observing system simulation experiments. J Clim. 2018;31(15):5911–26.Google Scholar
- 48.Kaminski T, Kauker F, Toudal Pedersen L, Voßbeck M, Haak H, Niederdrenk L, et al. Arctic Mission Benefit Analysis: impact of sea ice thickness, freeboard, and snow depth products on sea ice forecast performance. [cited 2019 Oct 8];12(8):2569–94. Available from: https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/2569/2018/
- 49.Newman L, Schofield O, Wahlin A, Constable A, Swart S, Williams M, et al. Understanding the Southern Ocean through sustained observations. Bull Aust Meteorol Oceanogr Soc. 2016;28(January):170.Google Scholar
- 50.Privé NC, Errico RM, Tai K. The influence of observation errors on analysis error and forecast skill investigated with an observing system simulation experiment. J Geophys Res. 2013;118:5332–46.Google Scholar
- 51.Zygmuntowska M, Rampal P, Ivanova N, Smedsrud LH. Uncertainties in Arctic Sea ice thickness and volume: new estimates and implications for trends. Cryosphere. 2014;8(2):705–20.Google Scholar
- 52.Bunzel F, Notz D, Pedersen LT. Retrievals of Arctic Sea-ice volume and its trend significantly affected by interannual snow variability. Geophys Res Lett. 2018;45(11):11751–9.Google Scholar
- 53.Notz D. How well must climate models agree with observations? Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2015;373(2052).Google Scholar
- 54.Massonnet F, Vancoppenolle M, Goosse H, Docquier D, Fichefet T, Blanchard-Wrigglesworth E. Arctic Sea-ice change tied to its mean state through thermodynamic processes. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8(7):599–603.Google Scholar
- 55.Warren SG, Rigor IG, Untersteiner N, Radionov VF, Bryazgin NN, Aleksandrov YI, et al. Snow depth on Arctic Sea ice. J Clim [Internet]. 1999;12(6):1814–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3C1814:SDOASI%3E2.0.CO.
- 56.Laxon SW, Giles KA, Ridout AL, Wingham DJ, Willatt R, Cullen R, et al. CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic Sea ice thickness and volume. Geophys Res Lett. 2013;40(4):732–7.Google Scholar
- 57.Kern S, Lavergne T, Notz D, Pedersen LT, Tonboe RT, Sørensen AM. Satellite passive Microwave Sea-ice concentration data set Intercomparison : closed ice and ship-based observations. Cryosph discuss [Internet]. 2019;1–55. Available from. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2019-120.
- 58.Ivanova N, Pedersen LT, Tonboe RT, Kern S, Heygster G, Lavergne T, et al. Inter-comparison and evaluation of sea ice algorithms: towards further identification of challenges and optimal approach using passive microwave observations. Cryosphere. 2015;9(5):1797–817.Google Scholar
- 59.Andersen S, Tonboe R, Kaleschke L, Heygster G, Pedersen LT. Intercomparison of passive microwave sea ice concentration retrievals over the high-concentration Arctic sea ice. J Geophys Res. 2007;112(C08004).Google Scholar
- 61.Wang X, Key J, Kwok R, Zhang J. Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Satellites , Aircraft , and PIOMAS Data. Remote Sens 2016;8(713):1–17.Google Scholar
- 62.Bodas-Salcedo A, Webb MJ, Bony S, Chepfer H, Dufresne J, Zhang Y, et al. COSP satellite simulation software for model assessment. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2015;92(8):1023–43.Google Scholar
- 63.Klein SA, Jakob C. Validation and Sensitivities of Frontal Clouds Simulated by the ECMWF Model. Mon Weather Rev [Internet]. 1999 Oct 1;127(10):2514–31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1999)127%3C2514:VASOFC%3E2.0.CO.
- 64.Kay JE, Hillman BR, Klein SA, Y. Z, Medeiros B, Pincus R, et al. Exposing Global Cloud Biases in the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) Using Satellite Observations and Their Corresponding Instrument Simulators. J Clim 2012;25:5190–5207.Google Scholar
- 65.Kay JE, Bourdages L, Miller NB, Morrison A, Yettella V, Chepfer H, et al. Evaluating and improving cloud phase in the community atmosphere model version 5 using spaceborne lidar observations. J Geophys Res. 2016;121(8):4162–76.Google Scholar
- 66.Chepfer H, Bony S, Winker D, Chiriaco M, Dufresne J-L, Sèze G. Use of CALIPSO lidar observations to evaluate the cloudiness simulated by a climate model. Geophys res Lett [Internet]. 2008;35(15). Available from. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034207.
- 67.Roberts AF. A Variational method for sea ice ridging in earth system models. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2019;11:771–805.Google Scholar
- 68.Rampal P, Bouillon S, Ólason E, Morlighem M. NeXtSIM: a new Lagrangian Sea ice model. Cryosphere. 2016;10(3):1055–73.Google Scholar
- 69.Kay JE, Ecuyer TL, Chepfer H, Loeb N, Morrison A, Cesana G. Recent advances in Arctic cloud and climate research. Curr Clim Chang Reports. 2016;2:159–69.Google Scholar
- 70.Lavergne T. A step back is a move forward. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5501536.v1. 2017.
- 71.Stroeve JC, Kattsov V, Barrett A, Serreze M, Pavlova T, Holland M, et al. Trends in Arctic Sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39(16):1–7.Google Scholar
- 72.Smith DM, Screen JA, Deser C, Cohen J, Fyfe JC, García-Serrano J, et al. The polar amplification model Intercomparison project (PAMIP) contribution to CMIP6: investigating the causes and consequences of polar amplification. Geosci Model Dev [Internet]. 2019;12(3):1139–64 Available from: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/1139/2019/.Google Scholar
- 73.Vihma T, Screen J, Tjernström M, Newton B, Zhang X, Popova V, et al. The atmospheric role in the Arctic water cycle: a review on processes, past and future changes, and their impacts. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2015:586–620.Google Scholar
- 76.Bracegirdle TJ, Stephenson DB. On the robustness of emergent constraints used in multimodel climate change projections of arctic warming. J Clim. 2013;26(2):669–78.Google Scholar
- 79.Massonnet F, Fichefet T, Goosse H, Bitz CM, Philippon-Berthier G, Holland MM, et al. Constraining projections of summer Arctic Sea ice. Cryosphere. 2012;6(6):1383–94.Google Scholar
- 80.Borodina A, Fischer EM, Knutti R. Emergent constraints in climate projections : a case study of changes in high-latitude temperature variability. J Clim. 2017;30:3655–70.Google Scholar
- 81.Bitz CM, Roe GH. A Mechanism for the High rate of Sea Ice Thinning in the Arctic Ocean. J Clim. 2004;i:1–6.Google Scholar
- 82.van der Linden EC, Bintanja R, Hazeleger W, Katsman CA. The role of the mean state of Arctic Sea ice on near-surface temperature trends. J Clim. 2014;27(8):2819–41.Google Scholar
- 83.Bracegirdle TJ, Stephenson DB, Turner J, Phillips T. The importance of sea ice area biases in 21st century multimodel projections of Antarctic temperature and precipitation. 2015;832–9.Google Scholar
- 84.Klein SA, Hall A. Emergent constraints for cloud feedbacks. Curr Clim Chang Reports. 2015;1:276–87.Google Scholar
- 85.Mahlstein I, Knutti R. Ocean heat transport as a cause for model uncertainty in projected Arctic warming. J Clim. 2011;24(5):1451–60.Google Scholar
- 86.Hall A, Qu X. Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change. Geophys Res Lett. 2006;33(3):1–4.Google Scholar
- 87.Bowler NE. Accounting for the effect of observation errors on verification of MOGREPS. Meteorol Appl. 2008;15:199–205.Google Scholar
- 88.Ferro C. Measuring forecast performance in the presence of observation error. Q J R Meteorol Soc. 2017;2:2665–76.Google Scholar
- 89.Bunzel F, Notz D, Baehr J, Müller WA, Fröhlich K. Seasonal climate forecasts significantly affected by observational uncertainty of Arctic Sea ice concentration. Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43(2):852–9.Google Scholar
- 90.Massonnet F, Bellprat O, Guemas V, Doblas-Reyes FJ. Using climate models to estimate the quality of global observational data sets. Science (80- ). 2016;354(6311).Google Scholar
- 91.Kushner PJ, Mudryk LR, Merryfield W, Ambadan JT, Berg A, Bichet A, et al. Canadian snow and sea ice : assessment of snow , sea ice , and related climate processes in Canada’s Earth system model and climate-prediction system. Cryosphere. 2018;12:1137–1156.Google Scholar
- 92.Sospedra-Alfonso R, Merryfield WJ, Kharin V V. Representation of Snow in the Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System . Part II : Potential Predictability and Hindcast Skill. J Hydrometeorol 2016;17:2511–2535.Google Scholar
- 93.Reichle R. The MERRA-Land Data Product [Internet]. Vol. 3. 2012. Available from: http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/pubs/office_notes
- 94.Hardin JW, North GR, Shen SS. Minimum error estimates of global mean temperature through optimal arrangement of gauges. Environmetrics. 1992;3:15–27.Google Scholar
- 95.North GR, Shen SS, Hardin JW. Estimation of the global mean temperature with point gauges. Environmetrics. 1992:1–14.Google Scholar
- 98.Blanchard-Wrigglesworth E, Bitz CM. Characteristics of Arctic Sea-ice thickness variability in GCMs. J Clim. 2014;27(21):8244–58.Google Scholar
- 99.Chevallier M, Massonnet F, Goessling H, Guemas V, Jung T. The role of sea ice in sub-seasonal predictability. In: Sub-seasonal to seasonal prediction The gap between weather and climate forecasting; 2019. p. 201–21 Google Scholar
- 100.Ponsoni L, Massonnet F, Fichefet T, Chevallier M, Docquier D. On the timescales and length scales of the Arctic Sea ice thickness anomalies : a study based on 14 reanalyses. Cryosphere. 2019;13:521–43.Google Scholar
- 101.Lindsay RW, Zhang J. Arctic Ocean ice thickness: modes of variability and the best locations from which to monitor them. J Phys Oceanogr. 2006;36:496–506.Google Scholar
- 102.Ponsoni, L., Massonnet, F., Docquier, D., Van Achter, G., and Fichefet, T. Statistical predictability of the Arctic sea ice volume anomaly: identifying predictors and optimal sampling locations. Submitted to The Cryosphere (2019).Google Scholar
- 103.Labe Z, Magnusdottir G, Stern H. Variability of Arctic Sea ice thickness using PIOMAS and the CESM large ensemble. J Clim. 2018;31:3233–47.Google Scholar
- 104.Bintanja R, Van Der Linden EC. The changing seasonal climate in the Arctic. Sci Rep. 2013;3:1–8.Google Scholar
- 105.Holland MM, Stroeve J. Changing seasonal sea ice predictor relationships in a changing Arctic climate. Geophys Res Lett. 2011;38(18):1–6.Google Scholar
- 106.Weatherhead EC, Wielicki BA, Ramaswamy V, Abbott M, Ackerman TP, Atlas R, et al. Designing the climate observing Systemof the future Elizabeth. Earth’s Futur. 2017;6:80–102.Google Scholar