On the variability of the Bering Sea Cold Pool and implications for the biophysical environment.

The Bering Sea experiences a seasonal sea ice cover, which is important to the biophysical environment found there. A pool of cold bottom water (<2°C) is formed on the shelf each winter as a result of cooling and vertical mixing due to brine rejection during the predominately local sea ice growth. The extent and distribution of this Cold Pool (CP) is largely controlled by the winter extent of sea ice in the Bering Sea, which can vary considerably and recently has been much lower than average. The cold bottom water of the CP is important for food security because it delineates the boundary between arctic and subarctic demersal fish species. A northward retreat of the CP will likely be associated with migration of subarctic species toward the Chukchi Sea. We use the fully-coupled Regional Arctic System Model (RASM) to examine variability of the extent and distribution of the CP and its relation to change in the sea ice cover in the Bering Sea during the period 1980-2018. RASM results confirm the direct correlation between the extent of sea ice and the CP and show a smaller CP as a consequence of realistically simulated recent declines of the sea ice cover in the Bering Sea. In fact, the area of the CP was found to be only 31% of the long-term mean in July of 2018. In addition, we also find that a low ice year is followed by a later diatom bloom, while a heavy ice year is followed by an early diatom bloom. Finally, the RASM probabilistic intra-annual forecast capability is reviewed, based on 31-member ensembles for 2019-2021, for its potential use for prediction of the winter sea ice cover and the subsequent summer CP area in the Bering Sea.

Net primary productivity estimates and environmental variables in the Arctic Ocean: An assessment of coupled physical-biogeochemical models.

The relative skill of 21 regional and global biogeochemical models was assessed in terms of how well the models reproduced observed net primary productivity (NPP) and environmental variables such as nitrate concentration (NO3), mixed layer depth (MLD), euphotic layer depth (Zeu), and sea ice concentration, by comparing results against a newly updated, quality-controlled in situ NPP database for the Arctic Ocean (1959-2011). The models broadly captured the spatial features of integrated NPP (iNPP) on a pan-Arctic scale. Most models underestimated iNPP by varying degrees in spite of overestimating surface NO3, MLD, and Zeu throughout the regions. Among the models, iNPP exhibited little difference over sea ice condition (ice-free versus ice-influenced) and bottom depth (shelf versus deep ocean). The models performed relatively well for the most recent decade and toward the end of Arctic summer. In the Barents and Greenland Seas, regional model skill of surface NO3 was best associated with how well MLD was reproduced. Regionally, iNPP was relatively well simulated in the Beaufort Sea and the central Arctic Basin, where in situ NPP is low and nutrients are mostly depleted. Models performed less well at simulating iNPP in the Greenland and Chukchi Seas, despite the higher model skill in MLD and sea ice concentration, respectively. iNPP model skill was constrained by different factors in different Arctic Ocean regions. Our study suggests that better parameterization of biological and ecological microbial rates (phytoplankton growth and zooplankton grazing) are needed for improved Arctic Ocean biogeochemical modeling.

An assessment of phytoplankton primary productivity in the Arctic Ocean from satellite ocean color/in situ chlorophyll-a based models.

We investigated 32 net primary productivity (NPP) models by assessing skills to reproduce integrated NPP in the Arctic Ocean. The models were provided with two sources each of surface chlorophyll-a concentration (chlorophyll), photosynthetically available radiation (PAR), sea surface temperature (SST), and mixed-layer depth (MLD). The models were most sensitive to uncertainties in surface chlorophyll, generally performing better with in situ chlorophyll than with satellite-derived values. They were much less sensitive to uncertainties in PAR, SST, and MLD, possibly due to relatively narrow ranges of input data and/or relatively little difference between input data sources. Regardless of type or complexity, most of the models were not able to fully reproduce the variability of in situ NPP, whereas some of them exhibited almost no bias (i.e., reproduced the mean of in situ NPP). The models performed relatively well in low-productivity seasons as well as in sea ice-covered/deep-water regions. Depth-resolved models correlated more with in situ NPP than other model types, but had a greater tendency to overestimate mean NPP whereas absorption-based models exhibited the lowest bias associated with weaker correlation. The models performed better when a subsurface chlorophyll-a maximum (SCM) was absent. As a group, the models overestimated mean NPP, however this was partly offset by some models underestimating NPP when a SCM was present. Our study suggests that NPP models need to be carefully tuned for the Arctic Ocean because most of the models performing relatively well were those that used Arctic-relevant parameters.