|
Climate Change Research ›› 2022, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (1): 1-11.doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2021.247
Special Issue: IPCC第六次评估报告WGI解读专栏
• Special Section on the Sixth Assessment Report of IPCC: WGI • Previous Articles Next Articles
XIAO Cun-De1(), YANG Jiao2, ZHANG Tong1, SU Bo1, WANG Lei1, XU Qian2, YAN Zhan1, HAO Hai-Rui1, HUANG Yi1
Received:
2021-10-18
Revised:
2021-11-06
Online:
2022-01-30
Published:
2021-11-10
XIAO Cun-De, YANG Jiao, ZHANG Tong, SU Bo, WANG Lei, XU Qian, YAN Zhan, HAO Hai-Rui, HUANG Yi. The predictability, irreversibility and deep uncertainty of cryospheric change[J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(1): 1-11.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.climatechange.cn/EN/10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2021.247
Fig. 1 Arctic sea-ice historical records and CMIP6 projections (a) absolute anomaly of monthly-mean Arctic sea-ice area during 1979-2019 relative to the average monthly-mean Arctic sea-ice area during 1979-2008, (b) sea-ice concentration in the Arctic for March and September, respectively. First column: absolute change in sea-ice concentration between these two decades, with grid lines indicating non-significant differences. Second column: number of available CMIP6 models that simulate a mean sea-ice concentration above 15% for the decade 2045-2054
Fig. 2 (a) changes in mean elevation of the Greenland ice sheet from 2010 to 2017 as measured by CryoSat 2 radar altimeter, (b) model averages of elevation changes of the Greenland ice sheet in 2093-2100 based on MIROC5 climate model output simulations under the RCP8.5 scenario, (c) elevation changes of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1978 to 2017 as measured by satellite altimeters, (d) model averages for 2061-2100 Antarctic ice sheet elevation changes based on NorESM1-M climate model output simulations under the RCP8.5 scenario
Fig. 4 Simulated versus observed permafrost extent and permafrost volume change by warming level. (a) Diagnosed Northern Hemisphere permafrost extent (area with perennially frozen ground at 15 m depth, or at the deepest model soil level if this is above 15 m) for 1979-1998, estimates of current permafrost extents based on physical evidence and reanalyses are indicated as black symbols (data from references [24,25,26]); (b) Simulated global permafrost volume change between the surface and 3 m depth as a function of the simulated GSAT change, from the first ensemble members of a selection of scenarios, for available CMIP6 models
Fig. 5 (a) Simulated CMIP6 and observed[29] snow cover extent (in millions of km2) for 1981-2014. Boxes and whiskers with outliers represent monthly mean values for the individual CMIP6 models averaged over 1981-2014, with the blue bar indicating the median of the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble for that period. The observed inter-annual distribution over the period is represented in green, with the yellow bar indicating the median. (b) Spring (March to May) Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent against GSAT (relative to the 1995-2014 average) for the CMIP6 Tier 1 scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5), with linear regressions. Each data point is the mean for one CMIP6 simulation (first ensemble member for each available model) in the corresponding temperature bin
[1] | IPCC. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013: 1217-1308 |
[2] | IPCC. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis[M/OL]. 2021 [2021-08-01].https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf |
[3] |
Walsh J E, Fetterer F, Scott Stewart J, et al. A database for depicting Arctic sea ice variations back to 1850[J]. Geographical Review, 2017, 107(1): 89-107
doi: 10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016.12195.x URL |
[4] | Brennan M K, Hakim G J, Blanchard-Wrigglesworth E. Arctic sea-ice variability during the instrumental era [J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2020, 47(7): e2019GL086843 |
[5] |
Olonscheck D, Mauritsen T, Notz D. Arctic sea-ice variability is primarily driven by atmospheric temperature fluctuations[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2019, 12(6): 430-434. DOI: 10.1038/s41561-019-0363-1
doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0363-1 |
[6] | IPCC. Special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate [M/OL]. 2018 [2019-09-20]. https://archive.ipcc.ch/srocc/ |
[7] |
Doddridge E W, Marshall J. Modulation of the seasonal cycle of Antarctic sea ice extent related to the southern annular mode[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2017, 44(19): 9761-9768
doi: 10.1002/grl.v44.19 URL |
[8] |
Holland M M, Landrum L, Kostov Y, et al. Sensitivity of Antarctic sea ice to the southern annular mode in coupled climate models[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2017, 49(5): 1813-1831
doi: 10.1007/s00382-016-3424-9 URL |
[9] |
Schemm S. Regional trends in weather systems help explain Antarctic sea ice trends[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2018, 45(14): 7165-7175
doi: 10.1029/2018GL079109 URL |
[10] | Haumann F A, Gruber N, Münnich M. Sea-ice induced southern ocean subsurface warming and surface cooling in a warming climate [J]. AGU Advances, 2020, 1(2): e2019AV000132 |
[11] |
Gallaher D W, Campbell G G, Meier W N. Anomalous variability in Antarctic sea ice extents during the 1960s with the use of Nimbus data[J]. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2013, 7(3): 881-887
doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.4609443 URL |
[12] |
Gagné M È, Gillett N P, Fyfe J C. Observed and simulated changes in Antarctic sea ice extent over the past 50 years[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2015, 42(1): 90-95
doi: 10.1002/grl.v42.1 URL |
[13] |
Shu Q, Song Z, Qiao F. Assessment of sea ice simulations in the CMIP5 models[J]. The Cryosphere, 2015, 9(1): 399-409
doi: 10.5194/tc-9-399-2015 URL |
[14] |
Roach L A, Dean S M, Renwick J A. Consistent biases in Antarctic sea ice concentration simulated by climate models[J]. The Cryosphere, 2018, 12(1): 365-383
doi: 10.5194/tc-12-365-2018 URL |
[15] |
Mouginot J, Rignot E, Bjørk A A, et al. Forty-six years of Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018[J]. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 2019, 116(19): 9239-9244
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1904242116 URL |
[16] |
Khan S A, Bjørk A A, Bamber J L, et al. Centennial response of Greenland’s three largest outlet glaciers[J]. Nature Communications, 2020, 11(1): 1-9
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7 URL |
[17] |
Schroeder D M, Dowdeswell J A, Siegert M J, et al. Multidecadal observations of the Antarctic ice sheet from restored analog radar records[J]. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 2019, 116(38): 18867-18873
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1821646116 URL |
[18] |
Bamber J L, Dawson G J. Complex evolving patterns of mass loss from Antarctica’s largest glacier[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2020, 13(2): 127-131
doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0527-z URL |
[19] |
Lawrence D M, Slater A G, Romanovsky V E, et al. Sensitivity of a model projection of near-surface permafrost degradation to soil column depth and representation of soil organic matter[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2008, 113(F2). DOI: 10.1029/2007JF000883
doi: 10.1029/2007JF000883 |
[20] |
Ekici A, Chadburn S, Chaudhary N, et al. Site-level model intercomparison of high latitude and high altitude soil thermal dynamics in tundra and barren landscapes[J]. The Cryosphere, 2015, 9(4): 1343-1361
doi: 10.5194/tc-9-1343-2015 URL |
[21] |
Burke E J, Zhang Y, Krinner G. Evaluating permafrost physics in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) models and their sensitivity to climate change[J]. The Cryosphere, 2020, 14(9): 3155-3174
doi: 10.5194/tc-14-3155-2020 URL |
[22] |
Koven C D, Riley W J, Stern A. Analysis of permafrost thermal dynamics and response to climate change in the CMIP5 Earth system models[J]. Journal of Climate, 2013, 26(6): 1877-1900
doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00228.1 URL |
[23] |
Zhu D, Ciais P, Krinner G, et al. Controls of soil organic matter on soil thermal dynamics in the northern high latitudes[J]. Nature communications, 2019, 10(1): 1-9
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07882-8 URL |
[24] |
Zhang T, Barry R G, Knowles K, et al. Statistics and characteristics of permafrost and ground-ice distribution in the Northern Hemisphere[J]. Polar Geography, 1999, 23(2): 132-154
doi: 10.1080/10889379909377670 URL |
[25] |
Gruber S. Derivation and analysis of a high-resolution estimate of global permafrost zonation[J]. The Cryosphere, 2012, 6(1): 221-233
doi: 10.5194/tc-6-221-2012 URL |
[26] |
Obu J, Westermann S, Kääb A, et al. Ground temperature map, 2000-2016, Northern Hemisphere permafrost [R]. Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany, PANGAEA, 2018. DOI: 10.1594/pangaea.888600
doi: 10.1594/pangaea.888600 |
[27] |
Qu X, Hall A. On the persistent spread in snow-albedo feedback[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2014, 42(1-2): 69-81
doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1774-0 URL |
[28] |
Mudryk L, Santolaria-Otín M, Krinner G, et al. Historical Northern Hemisphere snow cover trends and projected changes in the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble[J]. The Cryosphere, 2020, 14(7): 2495-2514
doi: 10.5194/tc-14-2495-2020 URL |
[29] |
Dinniman M S, Asay-Davis X S, Galton-Fenzi B K, et al. Modeling ice shelf/ocean interaction in Antarctica: a review[J]. Oceanography, 2016, 29(4): 144-153
doi: 10.5670/oceanog URL |
[1] | WANG Shi-Jin, QIANG Wen-Li, LU Zhi-Bo, LI Chun-Lan, QIN Yue. Cryosphere human geography environment: literature analysis and key field characteristics [J]. Climate Change Research, 2025, 21(1): 32-43. |
[2] | WU Qing-Bai, XU Xiao-Ming, HE Jian-Qiao, YAO Xiao-Jun, ZHANG Zhong-Qiong. Impact of cryosphere changes on engineering in Qinghai-Xizang Plateau [J]. Climate Change Research, 2025, 21(1): 22-31. |
[3] | YANG Jian-Ping. Origin and development of the “Beautiful Cryosphere” in China [J]. Climate Change Research, 2024, 20(6): 711-720. |
[4] | MA Li-Juan, XIAO Cun-De, KANG Shi-Chang. Characteristics, and similarities and differences of climate change in major high mountains in the world—comprehensive interpretation of IPCC AR6 WGI report and SROCC [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(5): 605-621. |
[5] | GUO Si-Yue, GENG Yong. Interpretation of IPCC AR6 on mitigation in industry [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(5): 574-579. |
[6] | BAI Quan, HU Shan, GU Li-Jing. Interpretation of IPCC AR6 on buildings [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(5): 557-566. |
[7] | GAO Yuan, OU Xun-Min. Interpretation of IPCC AR6 report: transportation carbon emissions reduction pathways strengthening technology and management innovation [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(5): 567-573. |
[8] | DUAN Ju-Qi, YUAN Jia-Shuang, XU Xin-Wu, JU Hui. Interpretation of the IPCC AR6 report on agricultural systems [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(4): 422-432. |
[9] | LIU Junguo, CHEN He, TIAN Zhan. Interpretation of IPCC AR6: climate change and water security [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(4): 405-413. |
[10] | LIU Junguo, MENG Ying, ZHANG Xue-Jing. Interpretation of IPCC AR6 report: groundwater [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(4): 414-421. |
[11] | WANG Lei, ZHANG Bai-Chao, SHI Ying, HAN Zhen-Yu, LU Bo. Interpretation of the IPCC AR6 on the impacts and risks of climate change [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(4): 389-394. |
[12] | WANG Jun-Neng, QIN Nian-Xiu, JIANG Tong, SU Bu-Da. Interpretation of IPCC AR6: impacts and adaptations of climate change on cities, settlements and key infrastructure [J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(4): 433-441. |
[13] | ZHOU Tian-Jun, CHEN Zi-Ming, CHEN Xiao-Long, ZUO Meng, JIANG Jie, HU Shuai. Interpreting IPCC AR6: future global climate based on projection under scenarios and on near-term information [J]. Climate Change Research, 2021, 17(6): 652-663. |
[14] | CHEN Deliang, LAI Hui-Wen. Interpretation of the IPCC AR6 WGI report in terms of its context, structure, and methods [J]. Climate Change Research, 2021, 17(6): 636-643. |
[15] | ZHOU Bo-Tao, QIAN Jin. Changes of weather and climate extremes in the IPCC AR6 [J]. Climate Change Research, 2021, 17(6): 713-718. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
|