Department of Lower Atmospheric Observation and Research, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
2.
State Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Physics and Atmospheric Chemistry, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
3.
Department of Weather Forecast, Aviation Meteorological Centre of Air Traffic Management Bureau, Civil Aviation Administration of China, Beijing 100015, China
4.
A. M. Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Moscow 119017, Russian Federation
Supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC2807203 and 2022YFC3702001-03), Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (STEP) Program (2019QZKK0105), National Natural Science Foundation of China (41830968), and Planning Project of Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (E268091801).
Under Arctic warming, near-surface energy transfers have significantly changed, but few studies have focused on energy exchange over Arctic glacier due to limitations in available observations. In this study, the atmospheric energy exchange processes over the Arctic glacier surface were analyzed by using observational data obtained in summer 2019 in comparison with those over the Arctic tundra surface. The energy budget over the glacier greatly differed from that over the tundra, characterized by less net shortwave radiation and downward sensible heat flux, due to the high albedo and icy surface. Most of the incoming solar radiation was injected into the glacier in summer, leading to snow ice melting. During the observation period, strong daily variations in near-surface heat transfer occurred over the Arctic glacier, with the maximum downward and upward heat fluxes occurring on 2 and 6 July 2019, respectively. Further analyses suggested that the maximum downward heat flux is mainly caused by the strong local thermal contrast above the glacier surface, while the maximum upward heat transfer cannot be explained by the classical turbulent heat transfer theory, possibly caused by countergradient heat transfer. Our results indicated that the near-surface energy exchange processes over Arctic glacier may be strongly related to local forcings, but a more in-depth investigation will be needed in the future when more observational data become available.
Studies have suggested that Arctic warming may result from near-surface energy exchange processes, which have been well studied, especially over the Arctic tundra surface (e.g., Westermann et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010; Bonfils et al., 2012; Grachev et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2018). Westermann et al. (2009) studied the annual surface energy budget over the Arctic permafrost site on Svalbard and presented the different partitionings of energy and its influences on the thermal conditions of the permafrost. Grachev et al. (2018) compared the seasonal variations in surface fluxes at two Arctic terrestrial sites and showed that different surface fluxes may be related to the temporal and spatial structure of the temperature there. El Sharif et al. (2019) analyzed the surface energy budget over the Arctic tundra surface and reported comparable latent and sensible heat fluxes during the growing season. Recent studies have suggested that near-surface heat transfer has significantly changed against the background of Arctic warming (Kong et al., 2022).
Glaciers are the most important surface type in the Arctic and occupy at least one-third of the total Arctic area. The near-surface energy exchange processes over the Arctic glacier surface may be greatly different from those in other regions, which is essentially important for comprehensively understanding the energy budget in the Arctic. However, few studies have focused on energy exchange processes over Arctic glaciers due to limitations in available observational data. In situ measurements over glacier surfaces are quite difficult because of severe weather conditions, logistical problems, and the lack of a power supply (Persson et al., 2002; Uttal et al., 2002).
In the summer of 2019, an observational experiment was conducted on a typical glacier, Austre Lovénbreen, on the Svalbard Islands, north of 74°N in Norway, where more than 60% of the area is covered by glaciers. The amount of glacier surface ice has decreased by 25% in 40 yr (Griselin et al. 2009); in particular, glacier melt is obvious in the Ny Ålesund area in the summer. As a polythermal valley glacier, Austre Lovénbreen responds rapidly to climate change (Oerlemans and Fortuin, 1992; Ren and Yan, 2005; Yan et al., 2006; Li et al., 2012, 2015; Zeng et al., 2013). Figure 1 provides the surface air temperature trends in the Arctic region and shows that the temperature increased from 1980 to 2018, with a trend of more than 0.3°C per decade in most of the Arctic and a larger value above 1.2°C per decade on the Svalbard Islands. As shown in Fig. 1, the Svalbard Islands are located at the warming center, an ideal place for us to study the near-surface energy exchange processes against the background of Arctic warming. In this study, the measurements and data are first described in Section 2, followed by the synoptic situations during the experimental period in Section 3. The observed results are provided in Section 4, and conclusions and discussion are presented in Section 5.
Fig
1.
Trends of surface air temperature in the Arctic from 1980 to 2018 based on the ERA5 reanalysis.
2.
Measurement and data
An experiment was conducted over the Austre Lovénbreen glacier, south of Ny Ålesund, Svalbard Islands, from 13 May to 19 August 2019. The Austre Lovénbreen glacier has an area of 5.69 km2, with a centroid located at 78°52′17.3″N, 12°9′44.4″E, ranging from an altitude of 75–600 m (Li et al., 2015). The surface area of Austre Lovénbren glacier ice, a polythermal valley glacier, has decreased 25% in the past 40 years (Griselin et al., 2009), which is a rapid response to climate change (Zeng et al., 2013). Figure 2 shows the topography of the observational domain, with a contour interval of 500 m, together with a real-time picture just after the equipment installation. The glacier station (denoted by OBS in Fig. 2a) was located at 78°52′39.8″N, 12°7′36.4″E, 276 m a.s.l., with Mt. Slåttofjellet (altitude higher than 600 m) to the west (approximately 250 m in distance), Mt. Haavim Bfjellet (altitude higher than 750 m) to the east (approximately 1000 m in distance), and glaciers in the southern and northern directions within a 2-km distance. The observation site is covered by snow and ice during the whole observational period, despite some snow melting and accumulation. The surrounding mountains are mainly covered by soil and stone in summer but with some snow in other seasons.
Fig
2.
(a) Topography of the observation station, (b) real-time instruments over the glacier surface, and (c) the 50%, 70%, and 90% cumulative flux footprint areas of the observation station. The average footprint of the EC system was approximately 300 m long, was directed toward the east, and was dominated by the ice surface.
During the experiment, an integrated eddy covariance (EC) system (Campbell Scientific’s IRGASON) was established at a 2-m height above the ground surface. The turbulence data, including 3-D wind component, sonic temperature, water vapor, and CO2 density, were observed by an eddy covariance system with a sampling rate of 10 Hz. The near-surface turbulent fluxes, i.e., the momentum flux and sensible and latent heat fluxes, were calculated by using the EasyFlux software based on the turbulent data, with processing programs including despike and data filtering, coordinate rotation, low- and high-frequency correction, and air density fluctuation correction (Tanner and Thurtell, 1969; Webb et al., 1980; Lee et al., 2004; Foken et al., 2012). The radiation fluxes, including the downward and upward shortwave and longwave radiation fluxes, were measured by an NR01 from HUKSEFLX, with a time interval of 1 min. The air temperature, humidity, and wind were obtained at a time interval of 1 min. Data quality control was conducted before the observational data were applied. For example, bad and unreasonable ultrasonic turbulent fluxes, which accounted for 15.1% of the total data, were excluded from the study. All the atmospheric variables were calculated at an average 30-min time interval for consistency. After data quality control, the observation period (21 June–19 August 2019) was selected for analysis in this study.
In addition to the observational data, the ERA-5 reanalysis products from the ECMWF, which include geopotential height, temperature, specific humidity, and zonal and meridional winds, were also used in this study (Hersbach et al., 2020). The reanalysis data have a horizontal resolution of 0.75° × 0.75°, with 37 vertical levels ranging from 1000 to 1 hPa.
3.
Synoptic situations
Figure 3 shows the averaged atmospheric circulations during the observational experiment. A summer low prevails over the Arctic region, showing an ellipse-shaped distribution in the northwest‒southeast direction, with two low centers (centered values smaller than 5400 gpm) located west of Queen Elizabeth Island and Franz Rosef Island. Affected by this Arctic summer low, the observation site is dominated by strong westerlies, which bring a cold-dry air mass from the inner Arctic region and cause a low air temperature (less than −20°C) and specific humidity (less than 0.8 g kg−1) there.
Fig
3.
Horizontal distributions of geopotential height, air temperature, and specific humidity at 500 hPa, averaged for 21 June–19 August 2019. The red triangle denotes Ny Ålesund, Svalbard.
4.
Results
4.1
Near-surface energy budget over the glacier
Figure 4 illustrates the near-surface energy budget over Arctic glaciers during the observational period. During the summer, the strong downward net shortwave radiation ΔS is compensated by the upward net longwave radiation ΔL, the downward sensible heat flux QSH, the upward latent heat flux QLE, and the downward ground heat flux QG. Over the glacier surface, most of the solar energy is transferred into the glacier, leading to snow ice melting. As shown in Fig. 4, the net shortwave solar radiation is quite low, with an average value of 62.6 W m−2 in summer. The sensible heat is transferred from the air to the surface (−9.7 W m−2), which is caused by the strong ice–air temperature contrast over the glacier. The latent heat is transferred upward, possibly related to snow-ice melting in summer. Since our station is located in a polythermal valley glacier, the meltwater flows downward from the valley, which may lead to a small latent heat transfer being observed at the station.
Fig
4.
Near-surface energy budget over the Arctic glacier during the observational period.
To identify the distinguished near-surface energy budget over the glacier, we compared our results with those over the Arctic tundra surface. Table 1 shows the energy components over the Arctic tundra (Westermann et al., 2009), together with our data on the glacier surface. The energy budget over the glacier is clearly quite different from that over the tundra. For example, the net shortwave solar radiation is much lower over glaciers than over tundra surfaces (122.0 W m−2) due to the strong albedo there. The upward sensible, latent, and downward ground heat transfers have the same order over the tundra surface in summer, which is quite different from those over the glacier surface.
Table
1.
The near-surface energy budget (W m−2) over tundra and glacier surfaces on Svalbard, Arctic in summer
*quoted from Westermann et al. (2009). The data over the tundra from 1 July to 31 August 2008, and over the glacier from 21 June to 19 August 2019, both in summer. Considering the great differences between the two land covers, we assume that the year-to-year variation may be ignored.
4.2
Diurnal variations in near-surface heat transfer over glaciers
Figure 5 shows the diurnal variations in radiation fluxes and heat transfers over the Arctic glacier. The downward net shortwave radiation flux (ΔS) exhibits large diurnal variation, with an amplitude of 100.4 W m−2 varying from −125.4 W m−2 (1600 LT) to −25.0 W m−2 (0300 LT). ΔS, however, has a small variation, with an amplitude of 151.0 W m−2), due to the strong albedo over the Arctic glacier. The downward ground heat flux (QG) shows similar diurnal variation as ΔS, which further verifies that most of the solar energy is absorbed by glaciers. In comparison, the other energy components over the Arctic glacier have much smaller diurnal variations, with amplitudes of 5.6, 7.4, and 3.6 W m−2 for the net longwave radiation and sensible and latent heat fluxes, respectively.
Fig
5.
Diurnal variations in near-surface energy components over the glacier surface. ΔS, ΔL, QSH, QLE, and QG denote the net shortwave radiation, net longwave radiation, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux， and downward ground heat flux, respectively.
4.3
Daily variations in near-surface heat transfer over the glacier
Figure 6 shows the daily variations in the near-surface heat transfer over the glacier surface from 13 June to 19 August 2019. Strong daily variations are clearly observed in the sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, and total heat flux (sum of sensible and latent heat fluxes), with the maximum downward and upward heat fluxes occurring on 2 and 6 July 2019, with values of −227.6 and 82.6 W m−2 for sensible heat flux, −38.5 and 34.1 W m−2 for latent heat flux, and −266.1 and 116.7 W m−2 for total heat flux. The maximum downward heat flux on 2 July 2019 may be related to local forcings (see the following discussion). The maximum upward heat flux on 6 July 2019, however, may not be explained by classical turbulent heat transfer theory, possibly because of countergradient heat transfer.
Fig
6.
Daily variations in near-surface heat transfer over the glacier surface during the observation period. QSH, QLE, and QTH denote the sensible, latent, and total heat fluxes, respectively.
4.4
Possible mechanism influencing near-surface heat transfer over glaciers
As shown in Fig. 6, an obvious maximum downward heat flux occurred on 2 July 2019. To investigate the possible reasons, the corresponding synoptic situations are presented in Fig. 7. Compared with those in Fig. 3, the thermal and moisture conditions have similar distributions with the average values. For example, the observation site was controlled by a cold-dry low at 500 hPa from 1 to 3 July 2019. Affected by the low pressure, the observation site was dominated by strong easterlies, which can be seen from the daily variations in wind speed in Fig. 8. As shown in Fig. 8, the wind reached its maximum on 2 July 2019, with a wind speed of 5.4 m s−1 at 2 m above the ground surface. Figure 2 shows that the observation site is located west of Mt. Haavim Bfjellet and is covered by soil and rock in summer, with a much higher air temperature than that over the glacier surface. Figure 9 shows the temperature differences between the surface and air, and a large temperature difference of −9.3°C (with a surface temperature near zero and an air temperature of 9.3°C at a height of 2 m) was found on 2 July 2019. This air temperature is the second largest value during the observational period. Figure 10 further presents the observed vertical motion over the glacier surface. The air mass was transferred downward from the end of June to the beginning of July, with a negative vertical wind speed. The strong easterly winds may bring the warmer air mass westward and result in a high air temperature and strong negative temperature gradient between the surface and air, as shown in Fig. 9. In fact, this warming by easterly flow was also previously observed over Svalbard (Shestakova et al., 2022; personal communication with Prof. Chechin). During the above period, the observed downward air motion prevailed, which may bring warmer air downward and lead to downward heat transfer (negative heat fluxes) over the glacier (see Fig. 6).
Fig
7.
Horizontal distributions of geopotential height, air temperature, and specific humidity at 500 hPa from 1 to 3 July 2019. The red triangle in the figure denotes the observation site.
Fig
8.
Daily variations in the near-surface wind over Arctic glacier during the observational period. WS denotes the wind speed, and U and V represent the zonal and meridional wind speeds, respectively.
Fig
10.
Daily variations in the observed vertical motion over the Arctic glacier surface during the observational period.
As shown in Fig. 6, a maximum upward heat flux occurred on 6 July 2019. According to classical turbulent heat transfer theory, near-surface heat transfer follows the land‒atmosphere temperature gradient, i.e., a positive heat transfer should correspond to a positive temperature gradient. However, as shown in Fig. 9, the temperature gradient was negative on 6 July 2019, which was contrary to classical turbulent heat transfer theory. One possible explanation is countergradient heat transfer, which has been found over the Antarctic region (Zhu et al., 2000) and documented by many previous studies (e.g., Bunker, 1956; Deardorff, 1966; Wong and Brundidge, 1966). However, confirmation of countergradient heat transfer requires multilayer observations (Zhu et al., 2000). Due to data limitations, we cannot analyze the details or confirm the above possibilities.
5.
Conclusions and discussion
In the summer of 2019, an observational experiment was carried out over the Arctic glacier surface, with the near-surface atmospheric energy exchange processes measured. Based on observational data, the energy balance and near-surface heat transfers, as well as the atmospheric thermal and dynamic conditions over the glacier surface, were analyzed and compared with those over the Arctic tundra surface. The results are as follows:
(1) Due to the high albedo and icy surface, the energy budget over the glacier is characterized by less net shortwave radiation and a lower sensible heat flux, greatly differing from that over the tundra.
(2) Most of the incoming solar radiation was injected into the glacier, expressed by both the energy budget and the similar diurnal variations in the net shortwave radiation flux and the downward ground heat flux. Over the Arctic glacier surface, the other energy budget components, such as the net longwave radiation and sensible and latent heat fluxes, have much smaller diurnal variations.
(3) The near-surface heat transfers over the Arctic glacier exhibited strong daily variations during the experiment, with the maximum downward and upward heat fluxes occurring on 2 and 6 July 2019, respectively. Further analyses suggested that the maximum downward flux is mainly caused by the strong local thermal contrast above the glacier surface. However, the maximum upward heat flux on 6 July 2019 may not be explained by the classical turbulent heat transfer theory, possibly because of a countergradient heat transfer. Our results indicated that the near-surface energy change processes over Arctic glacier may be strongly related to local forcings, but more in-depth investigation is needed in the future as more observational data become available.
Based on observational data, we analyzed the energy budget over Arctic glacier, presented the temporal variations in near-surface heat transfers, and investigated the possible reasons for these variations. Studies with long-term observational data and numerical simulations are still needed to further explore this mechanism.
Fig.
6.
Daily variations in near-surface heat transfer over the glacier surface during the observation period. QSH, QLE, and QTH denote the sensible, latent, and total heat fluxes, respectively.
Fig.
2.
(a) Topography of the observation station, (b) real-time instruments over the glacier surface, and (c) the 50%, 70%, and 90% cumulative flux footprint areas of the observation station. The average footprint of the EC system was approximately 300 m long, was directed toward the east, and was dominated by the ice surface.
Fig.
3.
Horizontal distributions of geopotential height, air temperature, and specific humidity at 500 hPa, averaged for 21 June–19 August 2019. The red triangle denotes Ny Ålesund, Svalbard.
Fig.
5.
Diurnal variations in near-surface energy components over the glacier surface. ΔS, ΔL, QSH, QLE, and QG denote the net shortwave radiation, net longwave radiation, sensible heat flux, latent heat flux， and downward ground heat flux, respectively.
Fig.
7.
Horizontal distributions of geopotential height, air temperature, and specific humidity at 500 hPa from 1 to 3 July 2019. The red triangle in the figure denotes the observation site.
Fig.
8.
Daily variations in the near-surface wind over Arctic glacier during the observational period. WS denotes the wind speed, and U and V represent the zonal and meridional wind speeds, respectively.
Table
1
The near-surface energy budget (W m−2) over tundra and glacier surfaces on Svalbard, Arctic in summer
ΔS
ΔL
QSH
QLE
QG
Glacier
−62.6
11.1
−9.7
0.3
60.9
Tundra*
−122.0
43.0
22.5
22.5
34.0
*quoted from Westermann et al. (2009). The data over the tundra from 1 July to 31 August 2008, and over the glacier from 21 June to 19 August 2019, both in summer. Considering the great differences between the two land covers, we assume that the year-to-year variation may be ignored.
AMAP, 2017: Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 269 pp.
Bekryaev, R. V., I. V. Polyakov, and V. A. Alexeev, 2010: Role of polar amplification in long-term surface air temperature variations and modern Arctic warming. J. Climate, 23, 3888–3906, doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3297.1.
Bonfils, C. J. W., T. J. Phillips, D. M. Lawrence, et al., 2012: On the influence of shrub height and expansion on northern high latitude climate. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 015503, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015503.
Box, J. E., W. T. Colgan, T. R. Christensen, et al., 2019: Key indicators of Arctic climate change: 1971–2017. Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 045010, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aafc1b.
Bunker, A. F., 1956: Measurements of counter-gradient heat flows in the atmosphere. Aust. J. Phys., 9, 133–143, doi: 10.1071/PH560133.
Cohen, J., J. A. Screen, J. C. Furtado, et al., 2014: Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather. Nat. Geosci., 7, 627–637, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2234.
Cohen, J., X. Zhang, J. Francis, et al., 2020: Divergent consensuses on Arctic amplification influence on midlatitude severe winter weather. Nat. Climate Change, 10, 20–29, doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0662-y.
Deardorff, J. W., 1966: The counter-gradient heat flux in the lower atmosphere and in the laboratory. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 503–506, doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1966)023<0503:TCGHFI>2.0.CO;2.
El Sharif, H., W. B. Zhou, V. Ivanov, et al., 2019: Surface energy budgets of Arctic tundra during growing season. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 124, 6999–7017, doi: 10.1029/2019JD030650.
Foken, T., R. Leuning, S. R. Oncley, et al., 2012: Corrections and data quality control. Eddy Covariance: A Practical Guide to Measurement and Data Analysis, M. Aubinet, T. Vesala, and D. Papale, Eds., Springer, Dordrecht, 85–131, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2351-1_4.
Gao, Y. Q., J. Q. Sun, F. Li, et al., 2015: Arctic sea ice and Eurasian climate: A review. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 32, 92–114, doi: 10.1007/s00376-014-0009-6.
Grachev, A. A., P. O. G. Persson, T. Uttal, et al., 2018: Seasonal and latitudinal variations of surface fluxes at two Arctic terrestrial sites. Climate Dyn., 51, 1793–1818, doi: 10.1007/s00382-017-3983-4.
Griselin, M., C. Marlin, D. Laffy, et al., 2009: Forty years of weather data to understand recent climate change in the Arctic (Svalbard, 79°N). IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci., 6, 012009, doi: 10.1088/1755-1307/6/1/012009.
Hersbach, H., B. Bell, P. Berrisford, et al., 2020: The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, doi: 10.1002/qj.3803.
Hugonnet, R., R. McNabb, E. Berthier, et al., 2021: Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century. Nature, 592, 726–731, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03436-z.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1535 pp, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
IPCC, 2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in A Changing Climate, H. O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA,. 755 pp, doi: 10.1017/9781009157964.
Kong, L. L., H. Zou, L. B. Zhou, et al., 2022: Surface heat transfer changes over Arctic land and sea connected to Arctic warming. Int. J. Climatol., 42, 9150–9165, doi: 10.1002/joc.7808.
Kwok, R., 2018: Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018). Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 105005, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec.
Lee, X., W. Massman, and B. Law, 2004: Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 250 pp.
Li, P., M. Yan, Y. T. Xu, et al., 2012: Calculation methods of glacier terminus variation based on GIS: A case study on Austre Lovénbreen in Arctic. J. Glacio. Geocryology, 34, 367–374. (in Chinese)
Li, P., M. Yan, S. T. Ai, et al., 2015: Characteristics of surface movement on the Austre Lovénbreen and pedersenbreen glaciers, Svalbard, the Arctic. Chinese J. Polar Res., 27, 402–411, doi: 10.13679/j.jdyj.2015.4.402. (in Chinese)
Moon, T. A., M. L. Druckenmiller, and R. L., Thoman, 2021: Arctic Report Card 2021: Executive Summary. NOAA Technical Report OAR ARC; 21-01, Washington, 4 pp, doi: 10.25923/5s0f-5163.
Oerlemans, J., and J. P. F. Fortuin, 1992: Sensitivity of glaciers and small ice caps to greenhouse warming. Science, 258, 115–117, doi: 10.1126/science.258.5079.115.
Overland, J. E., T. J. Ballinger, J. Cohen, et al., 2021: How do intermittency and simultaneous processes obfuscate the Arctic influence on midlatitude winter extreme weather events? Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 043002, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abd b5d.
Persson, P. O. G., C. W. Fairall, E. L. Andreas, et al., 2002: Measurements near the atmospheric surface flux group tower at SHEBA: Near-surface conditions and surface energy budget. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 107, 8045, doi: 10.1029/2000jc 000705.
Ren, J.-W., and M. Yan, 2005: Glaciological investigation during the first scientific expedition of Chinese Arctic Yellow River Station, 2004. J. Glaciol. Geocryol., 27, 124–127, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0240.2005.01.019. (in Chinese)
Screen, J. A., and I. Simmonds, 2010: Increasing fall–winter energy loss from the Arctic Ocean and its role in Arctic temperature amplification. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L16707, doi: 10.1029/2010gl044136.
Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, J. C. Stroeve, et al., 2009: The emergence of surface-based Arctic amplification. Cryosphere, 3, 11–19, doi: 10.5194/tc-3-11-2009.
Shestakova, A. A., D. G. Chechin, C. Lüpkes, et al., 2022: The foehn effect during easterly flow over Svalbard. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1529–1548, doi: 10.5194/acp-22-1529-2022.
Tanner, C. B., and G. W. Thurtell, 1969: Anemoclinometer Measurements of Reynolds Stress and Heat Transport in the Atmospheric Surface Layer. Research and Development Technical Report, ECOM 66-G22-F, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 82 pp.
Taylor, P. C., B. M. Hegyi, R. C. Boeke, et al., 2018: On the increasing importance of air–sea exchanges in a thawing Arctic: A review. Atmosphere, 9, 41, doi: 10.3390/atmos9020041.
Uttal, T., J. A. Curry, M. G. McPhee, et al., 2002: Surface heat budget of the Arctic Ocean. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 255–275, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083<0255:SHBOTA> 2.3.CO;2.
Webb, E. K., G. I. Pearman, and R. Leuning, 1980: Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 106, 85–100, doi: 10.1002/qj.49710644707.
Westermann, S., J. Lüers, M. Langer, et al., 2009: The annual surface energy budget of a high-Arctic permafrost site on Svalbard, Norway. Cryosphere, 3, 245–263, doi: 10.5194/tc-3-245-2009.
Wong, E. Y. J., and K. C. Brundidge, 1966: Vertical and temporal distributions of the heat conductivity and flux. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 167–178, doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1966)023<0167:VATDOT>2.0.CO;2.
Wu, B. Y., D. Handorf, K. Dethloff, et al., 2013: Winter weather patterns over northern Eurasia and Arctic Sea ice loss. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 3786–3800, doi: 10.1175/MWR-D-13-00046.1.
Yan, M., J. W. Ren, Z. H. Zhang, et al., 2006: The progress of glaciological studies in Svalbard and Chinese construction of glacier monitoring system close to Yellow River Station, Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard. Chinese J. Polar Res., 18, 137–147. (in Chinese)
Zeng, Y.-X., M. Yan, Y. Yu, et al., 2013: Diversity of bacteria in surface ice of Austre Lovénbreen glacier, Svalbard. Arch. Microbiol., 195, 313–322, doi: 10.1007/s00203-013-0880-z.
Zhu, R., D. H. Xu, L. G. Bian, et al., 2000: The countergradient heat flux in the atmospheric surface layer in the South Pole. Acta Meteor. Sinica, 58, 214–222, doi: 10.11676/qxxb2000.022. (in Chinese)
Zwally, H. J., and J. Li, 2002: Seasonal and interannual variations of firn densification and ice-sheet surface elevation at the Greenland summit. J. Glaciol., 48, 199–207, doi: 10.3189/172756502781831403.
Zhou, L. B., J. H. Zhu, L. L. Kong, et al., 2024: The observed near-surface energy exchange processes over Arctic glacier in summer. J. Meteor. Res., 38(3), 600–607, doi: 10.1007/s13351-024-3158-2.
Zhou, L. B., J. H. Zhu, L. L. Kong, et al., 2024: The observed near-surface energy exchange processes over Arctic glacier in summer. J. Meteor. Res., 38(3), 600–607, doi: 10.1007/s13351-024-3158-2.
Zhou, L. B., J. H. Zhu, L. L. Kong, et al., 2024: The observed near-surface energy exchange processes over Arctic glacier in summer. J. Meteor. Res., 38(3), 600–607, doi: 10.1007/s13351-024-3158-2.
Citation:
Zhou, L. B., J. H. Zhu, L. L. Kong, et al., 2024: The observed near-surface energy exchange processes over Arctic glacier in summer. J. Meteor. Res., 38(3), 600–607, doi: 10.1007/s13351-024-3158-2.
Export: BibTexEndNote
Article Metrics
Article views: 127 PDF downloads: 31Cited by:
Manuscript History
Received: 07 September 2023
Revised: 28 January 2024
Accepted: 04 February 2024
Available online: 06 February 2024
Final form: 25 February 2024
Typeset Proofs: 20 March 2024
Issue in Progress: 30 April 2024
Published online: 27 June 2024
Share
Catalog
Abstract
摘要
1.
Introduction
2.
Measurement and data
3.
Synoptic situations
4.
Results
4.1
Near-surface energy budget over the glacier
4.2
Diurnal variations in near-surface heat transfer over glaciers
4.3
Daily variations in near-surface heat transfer over the glacier
4.4
Possible mechanism influencing near-surface heat transfer over glaciers
*quoted from Westermann et al. (2009). The data over the tundra from 1 July to 31 August 2008, and over the glacier from 21 June to 19 August 2019, both in summer. Considering the great differences between the two land covers, we assume that the year-to-year variation may be ignored.
DownLoad:
