Sea Ice-Ocean-Oilspill Modeling System (SIOMS)

for the Nearshore Beaufort and Chukchi Seas:

Parameterization and Improvement (Phase II)

Jia Wang

Principal Investigator

Co-principal Investigators:

Kohei Mizobata

Meibing Jin

Haoguo Hu

Final Report

OCS Study MMS 2008-021

February 2010
This study was funded in part by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) through Cooperative Agreement No. 1435-01-02-CA-85294, Task Order No. 

35407 and No. 1435-01-98-CA-30909, Task Order No. 15178, between MMS, Alaska Outer 

Continental Shelf Region, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be 

interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade 

names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. 
Sea Ice-Ocean-Oilspill Modeling System (SIOMS)

for the Nearshore Beaufort and Chukchi Seas:

Parameterization and Improvement (Phase II)

Jia Wang

Principal Investigator

Co-principal Investigators:

Kohei Mizobata

Meibing Jin

Haoguo Hu

Final Report

OCS Study MMS 2008-021

February 2010
Contact Information 

email: sharice@sfos.uaf.edu 

 phone: 907.474.7208 

 fax: 907.474.7204 

postal: Coastal Marine Institute 

 School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

 University of Alaska Fairbanks 

 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 
3

Table of Contents 

List of Figures.................................................................................................. 4 

List of Tables ................................................................................................... 8 

Project Summary ................................................................................................. 9 

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................11 

2. Model description ............................................................................................14 

3. Description of observations .............................................................................. 23 

4. Model simulations: Climatology with monthly forcing and with no lateral melting 

................................................................................................................... 25 

4.1 General ocean circulation pattern vs. in situ observations 

4.2 Comparison of model simulation with satellite measurements 

4.3 Comparison of model simulation with satellite measurements 

5. Model-data comparison with daily forcing and lateral melting ............................... 40 

5.1 Validation of CIOM using in-situ observations 

5.2 Validation of CIOM using satellite measurements 

6. Multiple year (1990-2006) simulations using daily forcing .................................. 59 

7. Ice-associated oilspill model and simulations ................................................... 64 

8. Sensitivity studies....................................................................................... 68 

9. Process studies: The Bering Sea inflow and its contribution to volume 

transports in the Chukchi Sea..................................................................................73 

10. Conclusions and future efforts..................................................................................76 

Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................79 

References..................................................... ...............................................79 
4

List of Figures 

Figure 1. A schematic diagram for coastal circulation in the Chukchi-Beaufort Seas..................11 

Figure 2. Heat budget between the ocean and sea ice...............................................................15 

Figure 3. JAMSTEC observation stations................................................................................... 24 

Figure 4. Model-simulated upmost surface 50-m averaged ocean velocity on July 10 

 under climatological forcing, compared with the schematic ocean circulation 

 pattern..........................................................................................................................26 

Figure 5. Climatological annual mean velocity reproduced by the model are compared 

 to the JAMSTEC ADCP- measured velocity at the 70m depth in the Beaufort 

 and Chukchi seas................................................................................................27 

Figure 6. The CIOM-simulated monthly salinity in transect 3 which reveals a thick, saline 

 subsurface layer, i.e., Arctic halocline, as observed in the summer survey by 

 Weingartner et al.................................................................................................29 

 Figure 7. The CIOM-simulated monthly temperature in transect 5 which reveals a winter 

upwelling along the Beaufort coast due to the anticyclonic wind forcing.....................30 

Figure 8. (Upper) The CIOM-simulated alongshore current at transect 6 which reveals 

intraseasonal variation of the Beaufort Slope Current (BSC). (Lower) The subsurface 

core current was observed by a high resolution ADCP array at this transect 

 by Pickart (2004)...................................................................................................31 

Figure 9. Same as Figure 6, except for section 1 salinity.....................................................33 

Figure 10. Same as Figure 6, except for section 1 temperature............................................34 

Figure 11. Same as Figure 6, except for section 1 velocity...................................................34 
5

Figure 12. Sea ice concentration and sea ice thickness on July 10, as simulated by the 

high-resolution Coupled Ice-Ocean Model that is nested to the Japan 

CCSR/NIES/FRCGC high-resolution global model....................................................36 

Figure 13. Model-data comparison: Satellite-measured and model-simulated sea ice cover.....37 

Figure 14. The comparison between the CIOM-simulated SIC and SST and satellitemeasured SIC and SST..............................................................................................38 

Figure 15. Time-depth comparison of observed and modeled temperature (a), salinity (b), 

 and velocity, u and v (c) at BFK98 (station 10)...........................................................42 

Figure 16. The point-to-point comparisons of the time series of temperature, salinity, 

 velocity u, and velocity v at BFK98 (station 10)..........................................................44 

Figure 17. Time-averaged vertical profiles of observed velocity, u and v and modeled 

 velocity, u and v at BFK98 (station 10).......................................................................45 

Figure 18. Seasonal cycle of sea ice area in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea derived from the 

 SSM/I measurements and simulated by the CIOM....................................................47 

Figure 19. Sea ice cover and motion in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea on a) January 15th, 

 b) Feb 26th, c) March 28th, and d) April 27th in 2002 simulated by the CIOM..............49 

Figure 20. Sea ice cover and motion in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea on a) June 20th, 

 b) July 20th, c) August 10th, and d) September 18th in 2002 simulated by 

 the CIOM....................................................................................................................50 

Figure 21. Monthly mean sea ice cover and sea surface temperature in the 

Chukchi/Beaufort Sea between June and September in 2002 derived from 

satellite measurements..............................................................................................51 

Figure 22. AVHRR-derived daily sea surface temperature images on a) July 21st, 

 c) August 1st, and e) September 22nd and simulated ice-ocean circulations 

 (b, d and f) same as Figure 20, but only for the Chukchi Sea.....................................53 
6

Figure 23. Sea ice cover and ocean circulation in the Beaufort Sea coastal area in 2002 

 simulated by the CIOM...............................................................................................55 

Figure 24. SSM/I sea ice concentration images in the Beaufort basin area on a) August 10th, 

 b) August 16th, and c) September 6th..........................................................................56 

Figure 25. SSM/I sea ice concentration images in the Beaufort basin area on a) October 6th, 

 b) October 14th, and c) October 16th...........................................................................56 

Figure 26. Minimum, mean, and maximum monthly landfast sea ice extents showing the 

 change in landfast ice distribution in the study area through the annual cycle...........57 

Figure 27. A snapshot of the CIOM simulation in the Beaufort Sea (September 24, 2002).........58 

Figure 28. Sea ice cover and ocean circulation in the Beaufort Sea coastal area on 

 August 1, a melting season, in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, 

 simulated by the CIOM...............................................................................................61 

Figure 29. Same as Figure 28, but for November 14, a freezing season.....................................62 

Figure 30. The EOF analysis of SLP............................................................................................63 

Figure 31. Oilspill trajectories released off Prudhoe Bay landfast ice on March 15, 2002, 

 driven by the ocean and sea ice current, but with no direct wind contribution 

 to the particles............................................................................................................66 

Figure 32. Oilspill trajectories released off Prudhoe Bay landfast ice on March 15, 2002, 

 driven by the ocean and sea ice current, with direct wind contribution to the 

 particles..................................................................................................................... 67 

Figure 33. The CIOM-simulated sea ice concentration on August 1, 2002 for the control 

 run that compares sensitivity experiments 1) no wind during the melting season 

 (May-Sept.), and 2) no sea ice advection...................................................................71 
7

Figure 34. The CIOM-simulated sea ice concentration on November 14, 2002 for the 

 control run that compares sensitivity experiments 1) no wind during the 

 freezing season (Sept.–Dec.), and 2) no sea ice advection.......................................72 

Figure 35. The domain and sections in the Chukchi Sea used for estimating volume 

 transports...................................................................................................................74 

Figure 36. The 2002 seasonal cycle of volume transport for the Bering inflow, outflows 

 from Wrangle, Northwind, and Barrow sections (see Figure 35), respectively..........75 

Figure 37. Seasonal cycle of volume transport of the Bering inflow and the model-estimated 

 volume transport of Barrow section outflow...............................................................75 
8

List of Tables 

Table 1. Parameters and Constants used in CIOM (Note temperature is in Kelvin, 0

K, 

0 0

C = 273.15 0K)...........................................................................................................18 

Table 2. The statistics for the simulated 2002 annual mean transports.......................................74 
9

Project Summary 

This report describes our Coastal Marine Institute Minerals Management Service research 

project and its accomplishments during the last three-year funding period, May 2004-April 2007. 

The following has been accomplished. 1) We developed and implemented a Sea 

Ice-Ocean-Oilspill Modeling System (SIOMS) that consists of a 3.8-km, 3-D Coupled Ice-Ocean 

Model (CIOM) and a 2-D ice-associated oilspill model. 2) We improved the CIOM by 

implementing tides and its mixing, and parameterizations for lateral melting and wind-wave 

mechanical mixing. 3) The CIOM was validated using both in situ observations and satellite 

measurements. 4) Model integrations were conducted using both monthly atmospheric forcing 

for seasonal climatology and daily forcing for year-to-year variability from 1990 to 2006. 5) We 

conducted simulations of oilspill trajectories released on Prudhoe Bay landfast ice region on 

March 15, 2002. 6) Sensitivity experiments were conducted with regard to the impacts of the 

Bering Strait inflow, onshore wind stress, lateral melting parameterization, and tides on the sea 

ice and coastal ocean current, in particular on the landfast ice, in the nearshore Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas. 

The 3.8-km CIOM successfully reproduces many observed phenomena in the region, 

including the Bering-inflow-originated coastal current that splits into three branches: Alaska 

Coastal Water (ACW), Central Channel, and Herald Valley branches. Other phenomena include 

the Beaufort Slope Current (BSC), the Beaufort Gyre, the East Siberian Current (ESC), 

mesoscale eddies, seasonal landfast ice, sea ice ridging, shear, and deformation. Many of these 

downscaling processes can only be captured by using a high-resolution CIOM, nested in a global 

climate model. 

The seasonal cycles for sea ice concentration, thickness, velocity, and other variables are 

well reproduced with solid validation by satellite measurements. The seasonal cycles for upper 

ocean dynamics and thermodynamics are also well reproduced, which include the formation of 

the cold saline layer due to the injection of salt during sea ice formation, the BSC, and the 

subsurface upwelling in winter that brings up warm, even more saline Atlantic Water along the 

shelfbreak and shelf along the Beaufort coast. The CIOM also reproduces reasonable 

interannual variability in sea ice, such as producing anomalous open water (less sea ice) during 

the positive Dipole Anomaly (DA) years, vice versa during the negative DA years. The 

year-to-year variability in ocean circulation and thermodynamics can be also fairly reproduced. 

Sensitivity studies show the CIOM responds reasonably well to the change in important 

parameters (such as lateral melting, albedo, etc.) and processes (nonlinear terms, tides, wind 

forcing, Bering inflow, or boundary conditions). Furthermore, the experiments show that landfast 
10

ice and the coastal current system are determined by wind, lateral melting, the Bering inflow, and 

other parameters as well. 

 It was learned that a 3.8-km mesh might be the limit for the isotropic sea ice model with 

viscous-plastic rheology. An algorithm solution to sea ice dynamics (such as explicit scheme) 

with EVP (elastic-viscous-plastic) and a better model representation of anisotropic property of 

sea ice should be explored to advance high resolution sea ice modeling. 
11

1. Introduction 

The Beaufort and Chukchi seas (Figure 1) are an important region where North Pacific water 

via the Bering Strait encounters the Western Arctic water with seasonal ice in the Chukchi Sea, 

and both seasonal and perennial ice in the Beaufort Sea. The Chukchi Sea is mainly featured by 

the continental shelf, while the Beaufort Sea is characterized by a relatively narrow continental 

shelf and a deep basin with a narrow, steep shelf slope. More importantly, the Beaufort Sea also 

features continuous landfast ice along the Alaska Arctic coast, parallel to the 20-m isobath 

(Eicken et al. 2005). In comparison, the landfast ice along the western Alaska coast in the 

Chukchi Sea is discontinuous. All these features have challenged both observationalists and 

modelers. 

The ocean circulation system in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is very complex and consists 

of the Bering inflow that separates into three branches: ACW, Central Channel and Herald Valley 

branches (see Figure 1). There are the anticyclonic Beaufort Gyre, the Beaufort Slope Current 

(BSC), and the East Siberian Current (ESC). The BSC has a spatial scale of about several dozen 

kilometers (Weingartner et al. 1998; Pickart 2004), and Barrow Canyon Current has a similar 

spatial scale of about 30 km (Shimada, personal comm.). Another important feature in the 

Beaufort Sea is the small-scale mesoscale eddies of several dozen kilometers in diameter 

(Manley and Hunkins 1985; Muench et al. 2002; Chao and Shaw 2002), with anticyclones 

outnumbering the cyclones. Again, these small-scale features challenge both observation and 

modeling capability. Particularly, coarse resolution observation arrays and model meshes cannot 

resolve these processes. 

Figure 1. A schematic diagram for coastal circulation in the Chukchi-Beaufort Seas (light blue: 

Alaskan Coast Current with the origin of freshwater; Courtesy of Tom Weingartner). 
12

In the shallow Chukchi Sea, tidal current and its mixing should be important (Nihoul et al. 

1993; Kowalik and Proshutinsky 1994). The wind-derived surface waves are also important 

mechanical sources to vertical mixing. These dynamic sources should be seriously taken into 

account in both observational and modeling studies. 

The winter atmospheric wind pattern is mainly controlled by the anticyclonic (clockwise) 

Beaufort High, while the summer wind stress is relatively weak due to the weakened Beaufort 

High. The northward propagating summer storms occasionally move to the Chukchi Sea via the 

Bering Strait (Zhang et al. 2004), producing strong wind and mixing. The winter anticyclonic wind 

stress associated with the Beaufort High has many important effects, such as 1) surface Ekman 

drift that advects the Beaufort coastal freshwater into the Beaufort Gyre (Yang 2006), 2) 

sub-surface upwelling that brings the warm, saline Arctic intermediate water (i.e., the Atlantic 

Water) into the Beaufort Sea shelf break, melting surface sea ice (Melling 1993), and 3) 

formation of landfast ice (Mahoney et al. 2007a, b). 

 An ocean-only model for the Bering-Chukchi shelves was developed during the Inner Shelf 

Transfer and Recycling in the Bering-Chukchi Seas (ISHTAR) Program by Nihoul et al. (1993). 

Though the ISHTAR model included both tidal and wind forcing, the deep basin was excluded 

(i.e., the Alaskan Stream, Bering Slope Current, Alaskan Coastal Current, and Kamchatka 

Current were excluded). Thus the heat and freshwater fluxes were neglected, leaving much to 

understand concerning this ocean system. Because Nihoul et al. used an ocean-only model, the 

simulation was conducted only in the ice-free seasons (spring-summer). There is no seasonal 

cycle simulation available for a realistic study of biological cycling. A biological-physical model 

was also developed, based on Nihoul’s ocean model, by Shuert and Walsh (1993). The model 

had the same domain as Nihoul’s model, but was confined to the northern Bering Sea and 

southern Chukchi Sea shelves, again without ice. The shelf break processes and the exchange 

between the deep basin and continental slope were also ignored as well as other important 

processes, such as upwelling and mesoscale eddies. The full seasonal cycle of the ecosystem 

has not yet been simulated. 

In the Chukchi Sea and the Western Arctic Ocean, extensive interdisciplinary surveys were 

conducted under the National Science Foundation Shelf-Basin Interactions (SBI) project in the 

last several years (Grebmeier et al. 2006). These datasets are available for model-data 

comparison. 

 Idealized ocean only modeling was conducted by Winsor and Chapman (2004) to study 

mechanisms of how wind stress affects the Chukchi Sea current system. An early study by 

Rutgers University, supported by MMS, also used an ocean only model to simulate ocean 

circulation in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Due to coarse resolution models and other factors, 

many of the phenomena mentioned above were not resolved. 
13

In general, most sea-ice models on basin scales use relatively simple thermodynamics and ice 

thickness distributions. These models approximate sea ice as slabs of one to a few mean 

thicknesses and open water (Hibler 1979; Wang et al. 1994a). While sufficient for simulating 

Arctic Ocean pack ice for climate study purposes, most present models lack the ability to 

sufficiently resolve the spectrum of ice thickness from thin, new ice to thick, ridged ice, or to 

resolve landfast ice anchored along the coast. Wang et al. (2002a, 2005) developed a pan-Arctic 

Coupled Ice-Ocean Model with a resolution of 27.5km, which, of course, is not sufficient to 

resolve coastal processes and its dynamics. 

During 2000-2003, MMS/CMI sponsored a research task titled “Nowcast/Forecast 

Model-Beaufort Sea Ice-Ocean-Oilspill System (NFM-BSIOS)” (Wang et al. 2002b, 2003a). This 

model uses 3.8km resolution grids for both ocean and sea ice. Sea ice is categorized into seven 

types, from thin to thick (Yao et al. 2000). The preliminary results show the model’s potential to 

study coastal sea ice and ocean dynamics (Wang et al. 2003a). However, because the nested 

domain is relatively small, the ability of the model to deal with coastal circulation variability and 

landfast ice is still not satisfactory. Much has been learned since. 

A workshop on small-scale Sea Ice and Ocean Modeling for the nearshore Beaufort and 

Chukchi seas was held at the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks (IARC/UAF) during August 7-9, 2002. The workshop produced a working plan for 

small-scale ice-ocean modeling over the next five years. The recommendations are summarized 

as follows (Wang 2003; Wang el al. 2003b): 

1) Although a viscous-plastic (VP) ice model is generally good for large-scale 

 climate modeling, the recommendation is that an elastic plus VP (EVP) ice 

 model (Hunke and Dukowicz 1997) would be better for both large-scale and 

 small scale modeling. 

2) Sea ice distribution for ridged ice and rafted ice should be used to better study sea ice of 

different types (multiple categories such as new ice, first year ice, and multi-year ice). 

3) Landfast ice is crucial to the coastal processes. Thus, landfast ice models including 

scouring and anchoring processes should be developed. At the same time, 

parameterization of landfast ice is also necessary. 

4) Discontinuous Lagrangian ice models such as granular models should be compared to 

the continuum models such as Eulerian (VP and EVP) models to find out the advantages 

and disadvantages of each. 

5) As spatial scale becomes less than 10km, satellite observations show that sea ice has a 

strong anisotropic property, whereas most models used so far are isotropic. Thus, 

anisotropic models should be developed to better capture sea ice properties such as sea 

ice fractures, stresses, ridging, rafting, etc. 
14

6) A coupled ocean-ice model should consider mixing by ocean tides and surface waves. 

The coupling of sea ice stress and convergence/divergence to the upper ocean 

(imbedded vs. levitated ice) should be taken into account (Hibler and Bryan 1987). A 

turbulence closure model should be implemented in the ocean model. 

7) Ocean model resolution has to be eddy resolving to resolve coastal eddies, 

upwelling/downwelling, dense water formation (Wang et al. 2003c), and the Arctic 

halocline ventilation. 

8) For climate atmosphere-sea ice-ocean models with a grid size larger than 10km, a 

parameterization of 10km processes for an anisotropic model is necessary. 

During 2004-2007, MMS/CMI continuously sponsored this project titled “Sea 

Ice-Ocean-Oilspill Modeling System for the Nearshore Beaufort and Chukchi Seas: 

Parameterization and improvement (Phase II).” The goal of this project was to build a 

state-of-the-art, stand-alone coupled ice-ocean model to resolve many of these important 

small-scale dynamic and thermodynamic features of both the ocean circulation and sea ice. The 

end-product is to provide ocean and sea ice information to MMS to conduct hypothetical oilspill 

impact assessments on the environment in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. This final report 

summarizes major accomplishments in the last three years. 

2. Model description 

 This coupled ice-ocean model was described in great detail in the model development and 

application to the pan-Arctic region (Wang et al. 2002a). In the following, we only describe the 

parts necessary for the completeness of this report. 

2.1 Sea-ice model 

The sea ice component of the coupled model is a thermodynamic model based on multiple 

categories of ice thickness distribution function (Thorndike et al. 1975; Hibler 1980) and a 

dynamic model based on a viscous-plastic sea ice rheology (Hibler 1979). 

The evolution of the thickness distribution function satisfies a continuity equation 

+ψ ∂+ ∇ ⋅ = − ∂

∂

h

fg Vg

t

g ( ) r (1) 

where V

r

 is velocity vector (u, v), f(h) is the thermodynamic vertical growth rate of ice, g is the 

sea ice thickness distribution function, and g(h)dh is defined as the fraction of area covered by 
15

the ice with thickness between h and h+dh. The averaged thickness h and concentration A of 

sea ice in a grid is expressed from g(h) as 

 0 ( )

h

A g h dh + = ∫ (2) 

and 

 0 ( )

h

h = g h hdh ∫ (3) 

ψ is the mechanical redistribution function, which represents the creation of open water and 

ridging during ice deformation. The redistribution process conserves ice volume. The 

redistribution function is parameterized as described by Yao et al. (2000). The vertical growth 

rate f(h) of ice thickness is determined by the ice thermodynamics. 

The model thermodynamic interactions between ice, ocean, and atmosphere are shown in 

Fig. 2. The heat budget on the upper ice surface is 

QAI=QSi+QEi+QL+(1-αi)I0-εiσT0

4

 (4)

where αi is the albedo of sea ice (0.75 during the freezing period from October to March, 0.65 

during the melting period from April to September). When snow exists, ice albedo is replaced by 

the snow albedo α S (0.9); εi is the emissivity of ice. I0 is the short wave solar radiation reaching 

the ice surface; QSi, QEi , and QL are the sensible heat flux, the 

Figure 2. Interactions among the air, ice, and ocean system in terms of heat budget. 

latent heat flux, and the effective longwave radiation flux from ice surface, respectively. QSi, QEi

and QL are parameterized by the following formulae, 

QSi =ρa CpCs |V

v

a |(Ta-T0) (5) 

I0 αi

I0 QSi QEi QL εiσT0

4

I0 αwI0 QSw QEw QLw εwσTw

4

snow

Sea Ice Fc

Fw

Upper ocean

mixed layer

Fw
16

QEi =ρa LeCe |V

v

|(qa-q0) (6) 

QL =εaσ[(1-kcCL)(a-b a e )Ta+4(T0-Ta)]Ta

3

 (7)

where qa and Ta are the specific humidity and air temperature of air; q0 is the saturated specific 

humidity on ice; T0 is the surface ice temperature; e a is the atmospheric vapor pressure. Cp is the 

specific heat of air at constant pressure. Le is the latent heat sublimation on the ice surface. Cs 

and Ce are the sensible heat and latent heat bulk transfer coefficients, respectively. εa is the 

emissivity of air. σ is Stefan-Boltzmann constant. kc is the cloud factor, and CL is the cloud 

fraction. Ta (in Kelvin) is the air temperature, a and b are empirical constants (a=0.254, 

b=4.95×10-3). The surface ice temperature T0 is determined from the surface heat balance 

equation, 

QAI - Qc =0 (8)

where Qc is the internal conductive heat flux through ice. A linear ice temperature profile and a 

constant thermal conductive coefficient ki are used in this study. Thus, for the ice category with 

thickness h, 

Qc=-ki(T0-Tf)/h (9)

where T f is the freezing temperature of seawater on bottom ice surface, which is a function of 

the salinity of seawater (=-0.0544S0 +273.15K, where S0 is the salinity of upmost ocean grid, in 

practical salinity unit, psu). For the snow-covered ice, the conductive coefficient will be replaced 

by i s

s si

k k

hk h k +

, where hs is the snow depth. 

If the calculated T0 is found to be over 0o

C, it is forced to be 0 oC. The extra heat of equation 

(8) is used to melt the ice at the upper surface, and the melted water will drain to the ocean 

immediately. The volume flux of melting water WAI is 

WAI =[QAI-Qc]/L (10) 

The growth rate at the bottom of the sea ice is 

WIW =[Qc-FT]/ L (11) 

where L is the volume latent heat of fusion, and FT is the oceanic heat flux out of the ocean 

surface (assumed to be uniform over a model grid cell). Thus, the growth rate f(h) for sea ice 

with thickness h is the sum of (10) and (11), i.e. 

f(h)=( QAI- FT)/ L (12) 
17

For the open water in the ice zone, the growth rate of sea ice is 

WAW=(QAW -FT)/L (13) 

where QAW is the heat budget between the atmosphere-ocean interface, excluding the solar 

radiation that is absorbed in the water column. QAW is calculated using a similar parameterization 

to (4) but without the solar radiation terms, i.e. 

QAW=QSw+QEw+QLw-εwσTw

4

 (14)

where εw is the emissivity of water. Tw is the sea surface temperature (SST). QSw, QEw, and QL

are the sensible heat flux, the latent heat flux, and the effective longwave radiation flux from 

water surface, which are parameterized similar to formulae (5)-(7). When the WAW is negative, 

the “melting” of ice to water is implied. In this case, the equivalent heat is redistributed to melt the 

remaining ice. The total ice growth rate is integral over various ice thicknesses with weight g(h). 

The ice velocity V

v

(u I , v I ) is determined from the momentum equation

mfk V mg H F

dt

dV

m a w

v r v v v v

+ × = − ∇ +τ −τ + (15) 

or in terms of scalar format, 

I

x

I

Wx

I

ax

I

I

I

I

I

I F

x

H fv g

y

u

v

x

u

u

t

u

ρ ρ

τ

ρ

τ

+ − +

∂

∂ − = − ∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

I

y

I

Wy

I

ay

I

I

I

I

I

I F

y

H fu g

y

v

v

x

v

u

t

v

ρ ρ

τ

ρ

τ

+ − +

∂

∂

+ = − ∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

where f is the Coriolis parameter, and m is the ice mass in a grid. ∇H is the gradient of sea 

surface elevation, F

v

 is the internal stresses (see Hibler 1979; Wang et al. 1994a), and a τ

v and 

w τ

v are the air and water stresses, respectively. They are determined by the bulk formulae 

 τ

v

a=ρaCa|V

v

a|V

v

a (16)

 τ

v

w=ρwCw|V

r

w-V

v

i|(V

v

w-V

v

i) (17)

where Va

r is the wind velocity vector. Vw

v is the current velocity vector of the upmost ocean 

layer. Ca (=1.2×10-3) and Cw (=5.5x10-3 ) are the bulk coefficients of wind stress and water stress, 

respectively. ρa is the air density, and ρw the seawater density. F

v

 is the two-dimensional 
18

internal ice stress tensor, which is derived from the viscous plastic rheology with elliptical yield 

curve rate e=2 of Hibler (1979) and involves a compressive ice strength 

 P=P* h exp[-C(1-A)] (18)

where P* and C are empirical constants (here 2.5×104

Nm-2 and 20, respectively). e is the ratio of 

principal axes of the ellipse, P* is the ice strength, and C is the ice strength decay constant. This 

formulation requires that the ice strength strongly depends on the amount of thin ice, 

characterized by (1-A), which also allows the ice to strengthen as it becomes thicker, as 

measured by thickness h . The redistribution function is parameterized as described by 

Thorndike et al. (1975) and Yao et al. (2000), differing from the treatment by Hibler (1980), who 

used a given thickness to ridged ice of a single thickness (the multiplication factor is chosen as 

15). Table 1 lists the parameters, their values and units that are used in this model. 

Table 1. Constants used in CIOM

(Note temperature is in Kelvin, 0

K, 0 0C=273.15 0K) 

Symbols Description Values Units 

a empirical constant 0.254 

b empirical constant 4.95x10 −3

αi albedo of sea ice 0.65-0.75 

α S albedo of snow 0.9 

α w albedo of sea water 0.1 

C ice decay constant 20 

C a wind stress bulk coef. 1.2x10 −3

C w water stress bulk coef. 5.5x10 −3

C e latent heat bulk transfer coef. 1.75x10 −3

C S sensible heat bulk transfer coef. 2.32x10 −3

 when Ts<Ta 

 1.75x10 −3

 when Ts>=Ta 

C P specific heat of air 1410 J kg −1

K −1

C P,W specific heat of sea water 3903 J kg −1

K −1
19

e yield curve eccentricity 2 

e i emission of sea ice 0.65-0.75 

L volume latent heat of fusion 

L e latent heat sublimation on ice surface 3.32 x10 −3 J kg −1

k von Karman constant 0.4 

k C cloud factor 0.62 

k i thermal conductive coef. 2.04 

P* ice strength 2.5x10 4 Nm −2

Pr molecular Prantl number 12.9 

ρ a air density 1.3 kg m −3

ρ i sea ice density 910 kg m −3

ρ w seawater density 1025 kg m −3

S I sea ice salinity 5 psu 

Sc Schmidt number 2432 

σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant 5.67 x10-8

Δx=Δy model horizontal grid size 3800 m 

ΔT time step for eternal mode 20 seconds 

Δt time step for internal mode and ice 400 seconds 

In this sea ice model, we introduced a thermodynamical process: lateral melting, which relates 

to a variable of the bulk heat transfer coefficient, Kb, depending on wind speed proposed by 

Ohshima and Nihashi (2005). 

 

Kb = Chu* (19) 

u* = Cd urel (20) 

where Ch and u* are the heat transfer coefficient and friction velocity, respectively. u* is 

derived from (20) using drag coefficient Cd and relative velocity urel (1 % of geostrophic wind 

velocity). The melting resulting from heat input by wind is expressed as 
20

 

0

0 ( )

L h

C K C T T

dt

dC

i

w w b f

ρ

ρ − = − (21) 

Note that the lateral melting is about twice as large as bottom melting during the melting season. 

The parameters used in the CIOM along with their units are listed in Table 1. 

2.2 Ocean model 

The Princeton Ocean Model (Blumberg and Mellor 1987; Mellor 2004; Wang 

2001) is used as the ocean component of the coupled mode in this study. The model 

has a free surface, uses sigma coordinates in the vertical, and employs a mode-split 

technique. The model embeds a second-order turbulence closure sub-model. 

Smagorinsky diffusivity along sigma surfaces is employed in the horizontal diffusion. 

The governing equations of ocean dynamics in Cartesian-coordinate are as follows: 

( ) ( ) ( )

z

u A

y z

u A

x y

u A

x x

fv g

z

u

w

y

u

v

x

u

u

t

u

H H Z ∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂ − = − ∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂ η

( ) ( ) ( )

z

v A

y z

v A

x y

v A

y x

fu g

z

v

w

y

v

v

x

v

u

t

v

H H Z ∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+ = − ∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂ η

= 0

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

z

w

y

v

x

u

The temperature and salt equations in sigma-coordinates are 

σ

α

σ σ σ

ω

∂

∂

+ − − ∂

∂

∂

∂ = ∂∂

+ ∇⋅ +

∂

∂ 0 ( ) ( ) (1 ) I F T K T V T

t

T w H T w

v (22) 

w H FS

S K S V S

t

S

+

∂

∂

∂

∂ = ∂∂

+ ∇ ⋅ +

∂

∂ ( ) ( )

σ σ σ

v ω (23) 

and the surface heat flux is 

QAW=QSw+QEw+QLw-εwσTw

4

 (24) 

in the ice-free grid cell , and 

AFT+(1-A)QAW (25) 

in the ice-covered grid cell. 

2.3 Ice-ocean coupling 

Heat and salt fluxes at the ice-ocean interface are governed by the boundary processes as 

discussed by Mellor and Kantha (1989). The new level 2.5 closure turbulence model is employed 
21

according to Kantha and Clayson (1994). In grid cells in which ice is present, the heat flux out of 

the ocean is 

FT=-ρwCpCTz(Tf-T) (26) 

where Cp is the specific heat of seawater, and T is the ocean temperature at the uppermost 

model grid (in our model the midpoint of the uppermost ocean layer). The heat transfer 

coefficient CTz is given by 

*

0 ln( / ) / Tz

rt T

u C

P zz k B = − +

 (27) 

BT=b(z0u*/ν)

1/2Pr

2/3 

where u* is the friction velocity, Prt is a turbulent Prantl number, z is the vertical coordinate 

corresponding to the temperature T, z0 is the roughness length, and k is the von Karman 

constant. The molecular sublayer correction is represented by BT where Pr is a molecular Prantl 

number, ν is the kinematic viscosity, and b is an empirical constant (= 3). The salt flux out of the 

ocean is 

FS=(WAI+WIW+WAW)(SI-S)+(1-A)S(P-E) (28)

where SI is the salinity of ice (=5 psu), S is the salinity at the uppermost model grid point, and 

(P-E) is the volume flux of precipitation minus evaporation. 

Analogous to the heat flux (26), the salt flux is defined as 

FS=-CSz(S0-S) (29) 

where S0 is the salinity at the ice-ocean interface. The salt transfer coefficient CSz is 

*

0 ln( / ) / Sz

rt S

u C

P zz k B = − +

 (30) 

BS=b(z0u*/ν)

1/2Sc2/3 

where Sc is the Schmidt number. Since Sc =2432, and Pr=12.9, and CTz>CSz, this can lead to the 

production of frazil ice in the water column as discussed by Mellor and Kantha (1989). Frazil ice 

is immediately added to the floating ice. 

The ice-water stress is 

τw/ρw= *

0 ln( / )

ku

z z

( V

v

i - V

r

w) 

where Vw

v is the ocean velocity vector at the uppermost model grid. 
22

2.4 Configuration of high-resolution CIOM and atmospheric forcing 

The CIOM should refer to the studies of Yao et al. (2000) and Wang et al. (2002a, b; 2003a, 

b; 2004, 2005). The ocean model used is the Princeton Ocean Model (POM) (Mellor 2004), and 

the ice model used is a full thermodynamic and dynamics model (Hibler 1980) that prognostically 

simulates sea-ice thickness, sea ice concentration (SIC), ice edge, ice velocity, and heat and salt 

flux through sea ice into the ocean. The model has been successfully applied to the Bering Sea 

(Hu and Wang 2008; Wang et al. 2008), the Beaufort Sea (Wang et al. 2003d), and in the 

northern China seas (Q. Liu, personal comm.). 

Ocean Model: 

• horizontal spherical grid with 3.8 km resolution in longitude and latitude covering the 

Chukchi-Beaufort seas; 

• 24 sigma levels in the vertical; 

• open boundaries (velocity, T, and S) are embedded by a climate 

(atmosphere-ice-ocean-land) GCM from Japan with a resolution of about 25 km (Watanabe 

et al. 2006) with volume transport conservation principle and radiation property (Wang et al. 

2001a). 

• river runoff is applied at the mouth of the Mackenzie River (Wang et al. 1999); 

• inclusion of parameterization of wind-wave mechanic mixing; 

• atmospheric forcing uses National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) 

Reanalysis products: heat flux, mass (moisture) flux, and six-hourly wind stress. 

Ice Model: 

• full thermodynamics with 2-layer ice and 1-layer snow; 

• full dynamics with plastic-viscous rheology (Hibler 1979, 1980; Wang et al. 1994a) under 

the NCEP forcing; 

• multi-category ice model (Thorndike et al. 1975; Yao et al. 2000) fully coupled to an ocean 

model (Mellor and Kantha 1989; Kantha and Clayson 1994); 

• inclusion of lateral melting of sea ice (Ohshima and Nihashi 2005); 

• prognostic and diagnostic variables: Ice velocity, compactness, ice edge, thickness, heat 

budget, salt budget, ice stress, etc. 

 In this study, ten ice categories (0, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 m) are used, each having 

a percentage in a grid point. Thus, a thickness equation for each category is calculated. Then, 

the summation of each category thickness is the total thickness at each grid. Thus, sea ice 
23

concentration and thickness at each grid are calculated from the sum of the ten ice categories.

 

 The model was spun up with the PHC temperature and salinity (Steele et al. 2001), sea ice 

climatology, January concentration, and motionless sea ice and ocean for the first four years 

under NCEP reanalysis monthly atmospheric forcing, which were derived from 1958 to 1997. At 

the bottom layer, both temperature and salinity are restored to the monthly climatology with the 

same time scale of 60 days. At the surface, salinity, with freshwater flux forcing from P-E, is 

restored to the observed monthly salinity fields at a time scale of 30 days for prescribing 

freshwater runoff into the Arctic Basin using the flux correction method of Wang et al. (2001a). 

After a four-year spinup, a dynamic and thermodynamic seasonal cycle is established. Then, we 

re-ran the model for another four years using the fourth year output as the restart or initial 

conditions. During the four-year run, all the monthly atmospheric forcings remain the same. 

Then, the last year variables are used for examining the seasonal cycle in this study. We also 

use the daily NCEP forcing to drive the CIOM from 1990 to 2006 for year-to-year variability. 

3. Description of observations 

3.1 JAMSTEC (Japan Agency for Marine-earth Science and TEChnology) observations 

 JAMSTEC conducted its field campaigns with R/V Mirai in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, 

as a bi-annual expedition (Figure 3). Data collection includes ship-board CTD, towed ADCP, 

moored ADCP, CTD, current meters, and biogeochemical sensors 

(http://www.jamstec.go.jp/arctic). The data we show here are from 1992 to 2000. The data after 

2000 will be analyzed after we have permission. These data are used as independent 

observations to validate the CIOM. 

3.2 Satellite measurements 

Satellite remotely sensed datasets were employed to validate the CIOM. To compare the 

sea ice area, we used the sea ice concentration maps derived from the Special Sensor 

Microwave Imager (SSM/I) on board the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-13. 

This product is available at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) website 

(http://nsidc.org/data/sea_ice.html#SEA_ICE_CONCENTRATION). There are two algorithms for 

sea ice concentration: the NASA team algorithm (Cavalieri et al. 1990) and the Bootstrap 
24

algorithm (Comiso 1990). The NASA team algorithm takes into account the multi-year ice fraction, 

while the Bootstrap algorithm assumes open water and ice. 

Figure 3. JAMSTEC observation stations. 

In this project, the NASA team algorithm was selected to evaluate sea ice concentration 

from 1998 to 2005. Horizontal resolution is 25 km. Map projection is the polar stereographic. 

Extraction of data and converting from the Polar stereographic projection to the cylindrical 

projection (9 km) were done using Interactive Data Language (IDL).

To compare the CIOM temperature field with the satellite dataset, we used the AVHRR 

Oceans Pathfinder Global 4 km Equal-Angle All SST V5 (Vazquez et al. 1998) provided by the 

NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (PO. 

DAAC; http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov). The accuracy of this pathfinder SST is 0.3o

C. Horizontal 

resolution is 4 km. We also utilized the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer 

(MODIS) Level 3 mapped standard product suite SST. Data processing was conducted by the 

SeaWiFS Data Analysis System (SeaDAS 5.0; ttp://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/seadas/, Fu et al. 

1998).

1-5: CBJ92—CBJ96 (Head of Barrow 

Canyon) 

6: CBE96 (Mouth of Barrow Canyon) 

7: CBE99 (Mouth of Barrow Canyon) 

8: CBW96 (Mouth of Barrow Canyon) 

9: CBE00 (Mouth of Barrow Canyon) 

10: BFK98 (Beaufort Sea) 

11: BFS98 (Beaufort Sea) 

12: MCJ99 (Mackenzie Canyon) 

13: MCJ00 (Mackenzie Canyon) 

14: AGJ99 (Mouth of Amundsen Gulf) 

15: AGJ00 (Mouth of Amundsen Gulf) 

16: NWR97 (Northwind Ridge) 
25

4. Model simulations: Climatology with monthly forcing and with no lateral melting 

 The CIOM was driven by the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis monthly atmospheric forcing (air 

temperature, humidity, sea surface wind, sea level pressure, latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, 

net shortwave radiation, net long wave radiation and precipitation rate). Those atmospheric 

datasets were derived from the NOAA/CDC/NCEP/NCAR website 

(http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cdc/reanalysis/reanalysis.shtml). 

4.1 General ocean circulation pattern vs. in situ observations 

The high resolution CIOM reproduced very fine structure of the Alaskan Coastal Current 

system (three branches) and the anticyclonic large-scale Beaufort Gyre superimposed by 

mesoscale eddies with anticyclones outnumbering cyclones (Figure 4). The first branch is the 

Alaska Coastal Water branch along the Alaska Arctic coast. This current flows mainly along the 

isobaths with relatively warm water, hugging to the Alaska coast. The second branch (middle) 

flows northward along the Central Channel and turns to the east, joining ACW/C. The ACW flows 

eastward all the way to the Canadian Beaufort Sea, encountering the Mackenzie River outflow, 

where the coastal current then turns sharply to the west and joins the Beaufort Gyre (westward) 

circulation. As a consequence, between the Beaufort Gyre and ACW current there is a strong 

horizontal shear, resulting in a deep trough in sea surface height (SSH). This phenomenon is 

found for the first time using this high resolution CIOM, and needs field measurements to confirm 

its existence. The third branch flows northwestward into the Chukchi Sea via a deep channel 

between the Wrangel Island and Herald Shoal. Part of this current turns to the east and joins the 

BSC (Pickart 2004). In addition, the ESC is also reproduced. These features are consistent with 

recent observations in the region (Woodgate et al. 2005). 

 The simulated Beaufort Gyre is confirmed by the high SSH (red) with anticyclones 

dominating due to baroclinic instability (Wang and Ikeda 1997; Chao and Shaw 2002). However, 

it is not well known whether or not the barotropic instability play a role in triggering mesoscale 

eddies. Thus, barotropic instability also deserves further investigation. 
26

Figure 4. Model-simulated upmost 50-m averaged ocean velocity on July 10 under climatological 

forcing, compared with the schematic ocean circulation pattern (imbedded on the lower right 

corner; courtesy of Weingartner). In the left panel, the color bar indicates the sea level height 

(SSH) with red being high SSH, while in the right panel, the color bar denotes the bottom 

topography in meters with red being shallow water. 
27

Figure 5. Climatological annual mean velocity reproduced by the model (black arrows) are 

compared to the JAMSTEC ADCP- measured velocity (red arrows) at the 70 m depth in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas. 

 Both in-situ and satellite remote sensed data are used to validate the Beaufort Sea CIOM. 

Figure 5 shows the comparison between the model simulation velocity (black) and the ADCP 

mooring velocity (red) at a subsurface layer of 70 m. The ADCP data were taken from 1992 to 

2001 by JAMSTEC. The simulated velocities are, in general, consistent with the observed. 

Nevertheless, there are discrepancies in both direction and magnitude, which may be due to the 

following facts: 1) the model topography/depth was smoothed, 2) the model vertical and 

horizontal resolution is still coarse, and 3) the model forcing is climatological monthly forcing, 

while the observations were taken from 1992 to 2001 by JAMSTEC. Therefore, simulations from 

year to year (such as from 1990 to present) under the daily forcing are necessary to objectively 

evaluate the model simulation skills. 

We further validate the CIOM using historical transitional CTD measurements. There were 

several observational campaigns in the region by JAMSTEC, NSF’s Shelf-Basin Interactions in 

the Western Arctic (SBI) project (Pickart 2004), Canadian Beaufort Sea project (Melling 1993) , 

and MMS-sponsored Beaufort Sea oceanographic survey (Weingartner et al. 1998) and landfast 

ice survey (Eicken et al. 2005). Comparisons were conducted using these available data. 
28

 Figure 6 shows a transect comparison off Barrow Canyon in the Chukchi Sea. In section 3 

(see the inserted map in the lower left corner), the summer observations show that there is a 

very saline, thick subsurface layer (see the inserted map at the lower right corner), thought to be 

the winter dense water that can survive summer (Weingartner et al. 1998). Our model-simulated 

the monthly salinity maps show that in summer (see August and September maps), the thick, 

saline subsurface layer is reproduced by the model. Furthermore, the model clearly captures and 

explains how this saline layer forms from autumn to spring because formation of sea ice (with 

residual salinity of ~5 psu) injects salt to the ocean surface. This process results in coastal dense 

water formation (Wang et al. 2003c). Sea ice starts forming in October and continues to April, 

providing salty, cold water to form the saline layer. This phenomenon is one of the important 

coastal processes revealed by the CIOM. The temperature in transect 2 also shows that cold 

water formed during the winter seasons in the subsurface layer can survive the summer (not 

shown). 

 Figure 7 shows a winter section in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (see section 5 in Figure 6), 

as simulated by CIOM. The observations (Melling 1993, lower right panel) indicate upwelled, 

warm Atlantic Water with subsurface, dome-shaped structure. The surface winter water is 

around the freezing temperature during winter. The model also shows the upwelled Atlantic 

Water with an upwelled tongue, particularly in the winter. 

 Figure 8 shows the alongshore velocity to transect 6 (see the inserted panel in Figure 6 

for the location) where velocity measurements were conducted by a high-resolution ADCP array 

(Pickart 2004). The observed subsurface core current or the so-called BSC was captured by the 

model, consistent with the measurements. The observations show three types of slope current 

structure. One is the westward at the surface and the eastward slope current at subsurface, 

which is captured from April to July by the CIOM. The second type of structure is the subsurface 

jet flowing to the east, which is captured by CIOM from January to March. The third type of 

structure has the surface eastward flow that the CIOM can reproduce from August to December. 

Note that the CIOM-simulated results are free of data assimilation. 
29

Figure 6. The CIOM-simulated monthly salinity in transect 3 (see the lower left map) from left to 

right and top to bottom: Jan., Feb., Mar., ... Dec., which reveals a thick, saline subsurface layer as 

observed in the summer survey by Weingartner et al. (1998, see the lower right map). 
30

Figure 7. The CIOM-simulated monthly temperature in transect 5 from left to right and top to 

bottom: Jan., Feb., Mar., ... Dec., which reveals a winter upwelling along the Beaufort coast due to 

the anticyclonic wind forcing. Observations for winter 1990 are shown in lower right corner of the 

figure (Melling 1993). 
31

Figure 8. (Upper) The CIOM-simulated the alongshore current at transect 6 (see the inserted panel 

in Figure 6 for the location) from left to right and top to bottom: Jan., Feb., Mar., ... Dec., which 

reveals intraseasonal variation of the Beaufort Slope Current (BSC) (Lower) The subsurface core 

current was observed by a high resolution ADCP array at this transect by Pickart (2004). 

Three regimes*:

• Winter-water

– Subsurface eastward jet

• Upwelling events

– Atlantic water present, 

westward flow at surface

• Summer-water

– Surface-intensified

eastward jet

*See Pickart, R.S. (2004),

Shelfbreak circulation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Mean 

structure and variability, JGR, 109, C04024, doi: 10.1029/2003JC001912
32

 Pacific waters entering the Chukchi Sea enter the Arctic Ocean via three branches: ACW 

branch, Herald Valley branch and Central Channel branch (Weingartner et al. 2005), as 

discussed above (see Figures 1 and 4) and as will be further discussed in section 9. The oceanic 

heat transport via these three branches is the key for sea ice melting. In particular, the 

overwintering of the Pacific waters could be one of the major reasons for the recent ice reduction 

in the Western Arctic (Shimada et al. 2006). 

 Figures 9, 10, and 11 show the seasonal variations of temperature, salinity, and 

northward velocity, respectively, in transect 1. The salinity section captures a seasonal 

freshening in summer and salinization in winter due to saline injection, in particular along the 

ACW current. The ESC waters are freshest, while the ACW is the second freshest (Weingartner 

et al. 1999). We also observed that the bottom waters are saltier because the saltier waters 

come from Anadyr Current waters and form locally during fall-winter seasons (see October to 

April), consistent qualitatively with the measurements of Weingartner et al. (2005). The saltier 

waters are enhanced in summer, because the Bering inflow consists of the fresher, nutrient-poor 

ACW and the saltier, nutrient-rich Anadyr Current water. Along with the ESC, this section 

captures the encountering of these three water masses. 

 The temperature section (Figure 10) indicates the seasonal cooling-warming variations. 

The major features simulated include 1) the Bering Inflow advects warm water in summer and 

cold water in winter into the Chukchi Sea, 2) from fall to winter, the water column is well-mixed 

due to cooling and tidal stirring, 3) the Pacific waters can survive the winter (see maps of Jan. to 

May), and 4) ESC water is coldest year round. These simulated features coincide qualitatively 

with the available measurements (Weingartner et al. 1999, 2005). 

 The velocity section (Figure 11) shows the Bering inflow is dominant in summer. While 

the ACW current tends to be barotropic in nature, the ESC appears full of eddies, consistent with 

the buoyancy-driven characteristics described by Weingartner et al. (1999). 
33

Figure 9. Same as Figure 6, except for section 1 salinity. 
34

Figure 10. Same as Figure 6, except for section 1 temperature. 

Figure 11. Same as Figure 6, except for section 1 velocity: red (blue) denotes northward 

(southward). 
35

4.2 Sea ice ridging and landfast ice

 Figure 12 shows sea ice concentration (SIC) and thickness on July 10 under the 

climatological monthly forcing. The SIC map (Figure 12, upper) indicates various shapes of ice 

floes during the melting season. During spring, sea ice melts offshore first, and the pack ice 

gradually melts piece by piece into various shapes. Even in July, the Beaufort coast landfast ice 

remains, not melting completely until August. Sea ice arching, leads, and cracks can be 

observed from the simulated seasonal SIC maps (not shown). The reason for the late (August) 

melting of landfast ice may be due to the monthly forcing that is too weak, compared to the daily 

forcing. 

 The sea ice thickness map (lower panel of Figure 12) on July 10 shows sea ice ridging and 

rafting due to sea ice dynamic interaction with oceanic circulation pattern, shear, convergence, 

and divergence. Landfast ice along the Beaufort Sea coast is clearly simulated. Mechanics of 

formation and maintenance of landfast ice in the model may be attributed to the following factors: 

1) a northeast wind due to the Beaufort High pressure system, 2) the eastward ACW current has 

a right-turning force due to the Coriolis effect, 3) high resolution topography and geometry, and 

4) internal sea ice stress. However, how to identify and quantify these major factors remains 

open. Sensitivity experiments will be used to test these mechanisms in section 8. 
36

Figure 12. The sea ice concentration (top; scale: from 0 to 1) and sea ice thickness (bottom panel) 

on July 10, as simulated by the high-resolution Coupled Ice-Ocean Model (CIOM; Wang et al. 

2002a, 2005) that is nested to the Japan CCSR/NIES/FRCGC (Center for Climate System 

Research/National Institute of Environmental Studies/Frontier Research Center for Global Change) 

high-resolution global model. Sea ice breaks up offshore piece by piece; landfast ice remains 

untouched along the Beaufort Sea coast. Sea ice floes are irregular in shape and break away from 

pack ice. Sea ice ridging, rafting, and openings/leads can be well reproduced by sea ice thickness 

(bottom panel). 
37

4.3 Comparison of model simulation with satellite measurements 

 The seasonal cycles of the Beaufort and Chukchi sea ice is well reproduced in comparison 

to the satellite-measured sea ice area as shown in Figure 13. Mizobata et al. (2008) not only 

collected and analyzed sea ice extent, SST via satellite, but they also collected chlorophyll a and 

the derived primary productivity data. Figure 13 indicates the model does not capture the 

summer minimum sea ice area, although the overall seasonal cycle is well reproduced. Note that 

the SSM/I does not identify ice ponds (i.e., melting water ponds on the sea ice) from sea water 

(R. Kwok, personal comm., 8/2006); thus, the satellite observed sea ice area minimum (black 

line) may underestimate the summer sea ice area (i.e., overestimate the open water). 

Nevertheless, CIOM still needs to be improved. 

Figure 13. Model-data comparison: Satellite-measured (black) and model-simulated (red) sea ice 

cover. 
38

Figure 14. The comparison between the CIOM-simulated SIC (a) and SST (c) and satellite-measured 

SIC (b) and SST (d). Superimposed into the modeled SIC and SST maps are the surface ocean 

currents (a, c), while superimposed into the remote sensed SIC and SST maps are the NCEP wind 

vectors (b, d). 

a)

b) 
39

c) 

d) 
40

 The model-simulated spatial patterns of sea ice extent and SST were compared to satellite 

measurements for July (not shown), August (Figure 14), and September (not shown). The 

August map indicates that the CIOM in general reproduces a reasonable spatial pattern of SIC 

and SST, except that the SST along the Beaufort Sea coast is underestimated. This results in the 

overestimate of sea ice along the Beaufort coast, particularly the landfast ice. The major reason 

should be that the monthly rather than daily forcing was used, because the monthly climatology 

is usually weak. This problem will be addressed in section 5. There may be several other 

reasons for the underestimate of SST: 1) the warm Bering Sea inflow is not well represented, 2) 

lateral melting is not included, and 3) tidal mixing is not included. 

5. Model simulations with daily forcing and lateral melting 

After the spin-up integration, we ran the CIOM under the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis daily 

atmospheric forcing. Those daily datasets also originated from the NOAA/CDC/NCEP/NCAR 

website. 

5.1 Validation of CIOM using in-situ observations 

 The JAMSTEC measurements were used to validate the model results under the daily 

atmospheric forcing in a specific year, such as during 1998-99 measurements at Station 10 

(BFK98, see location in Figure 3). We conducted a point-to-point comparison that has long 

challenged all ocean models (except for tide models), including CIOM. Nevertheless, the 

comparison between the averaged parameters is expected to be more reasonable. 

 Figure 15 shows the depth-time temperature comparison at BFK98 for the period of 

January-July 1999. The CIOM produces less temperature variability (Figure 15a) than in situ 

measurements, a common problem for models. This problem exists for all variables: salinity 

(Figure 15b) and velocity (Figure 15c). The point-to-point comparisons of T, S, and velocity time 

series are shown in Figure 16, indicating a large discrepancy exists in all the simulated variables 

with no data assimilation. The model basically captures the mean values (Figure 17), which is 

correct and encouraging on the first-order approximation, nevertheless, with less variability. This 

problem exists in all small-scale to large-scale circulation models, except for ocean tide 

simulations (Ford et al. 1990; Wang 1998). 

 There are many factors responsible for less variability derived from CIOM and from other 

models as well: 1) the boundary conditions use a coarse-resolution (1/4x1/6 degrees) global 

GCM monthly output, which filters out the high frequency and small-scale variability with smaller 
41

magnitude, 2) smoothing of topography, 3) less spatial variability of the wind field, 4) numerical 

filtering in the model, 5) numerical diffusivity due to truncation errors, and many others. This 

problem can be improved, but may never be cured until high accuracy numerical schemes with 

natural (zero) numerical diffusivity can be developed and applied to ocean models without 

smoothing topography. 
42

Figure 15. Time-depth comparison of observed (upper) and modeled (lower) temperature (a), 

salinity (b), and velocity, u (c) and v (d) at BFK98 (station 10). The model captures the mean state, 

with less variability for all the variables. 

(a) Temperature 

(b) Salinity 

Modeled 

Observed 

Observed 

Modeled 
43

(c) velocity, u 

(d) velocity, v 

Modeled 

Observed 

Modeled 

Observed 
44

Figure 16. The point-to-point comparisons of the time series of temperature (upper left), salinity 

(upper right), velocity u (lower left), and velocity v (lower right) at BFK98 (station 10). Black curves 

are observation, while blue lines are modeled time series. 

Jul1998 Oct1998 Jan1999 Apr1999 Jul1999 Oct1999 Jan2000 −2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (Deg C)

Tmean, mooring

Tmean, model

Jul1998 Oct1998 Jan1999 Apr1999 Jul1999 Oct1999 Jan2000 30.5

31

31.5

32

32.5

33

33.5

34

34.5

35

Salinity

Smean, mooring

Smean, model

Jul1998 Oct1998 Jan1999 Apr1999 Jul1999 Oct1999 Jan2000 −50

−40

−30

−20

−10

0

10

20

30

40

Velocity (cm/s)

Umean, mooring

Umean, model

Jul1998 Oct1998 Jan1999 Apr1999 Jul1999 Oct1999 Jan2000 −50

−40

−30

−20

−10

0

10

20

30

40

Velocity (cm/s)

Vmean, mooring

Vmean, model
45

Figure 17. Time-averaged vertical profiles of observed velocity, U and V (black) and modeled 

velocity, u and v (blue) at BFK98 (station 10). 

−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8

−130

−120

−110

−100

−90

−80

−70

−60

−50

Velocity (cm/s)

Depth (m)

U, mooring

V, mooring

u model

v model
46

5.2 Validation of CIOM using satellite measurements 

5.2-1 Seasonal cycle of sea ice area 

 To evaluate outputs of the CIOM, we compared the simulated results with satellite 

measurements. Figure 18 shows the time series of the averaged sea ice area derived from 

SSM/I measurements between 1997 and 2005 (blue line), sea ice area in 2002 (blue line), and 

sea ice area in 2002 simulated by the CIOM (red line). In Figure 18, we plotted a 3-day averaged 

sea ice area estimated from the CIOM output, so that short-term variability, which is shown by 

the SSM/I measurements, is reduced. However, the CIOM accurately reproduces the seasonal 

cycle of sea ice in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea, while the simulated sea ice was suddenly melted in 

late July due to the imposed lateral melting parameterization. The maximum sea ice area and the 

timing of ice melting/freezing are consistent with SSM/I measurements. Also, sea ice freezing 

during winter (October-December 2002) was accurately reproduced. During August, 2002, the 

open water area was larger in the simulation than what was measured by the SSM/I. The melting 

rate of sea ice from May to August and maximum sea ice retreat still need to be improved. 

Obviously ice melting rate is slow during May and early June and fast during late July and August, 

compared with the SSM/I measurements. 
47

 

Figure 18. Seasonal cycle of sea ice area in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea derived from the SSM/I 

measurements (blue line, daily) and simulated by the CIOM (red line, 3-day averaged). Sea ice 

concentration less than 15 % was ignored to avoid the error of SSM/I measurement. Gray area 

represents the daily variance of the averaged sea ice from 1997 to 2005. 
48

5.2-2 Simulated sea ice distributions and motions during ice freezing season (January - 

April) 

 Figure 19 shows sea ice concentration and sea surface temperature in the Chukchi/Beaufort 

Sea on January 15th to April 27th. Red arrows represent ice velocity and black arrows represent 

10-m ocean velocity. Generally, ice velocity in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea in January (Figure19a) 

and February (Figure19b) is greater than that in March (Figure 19c) or April (Figure 19d) due to 

thinner ice cover and strong sea surface wind in early winter, while ice movement is also affected 

by surface ocean current. Relatively strong ice velocities along the Alaska coast on April 27th

indicate ice advection by the Alaskan Coastal Current (Figure 19d). Those coastal currents flow 

in the narrow Beaufort coastal area and continue to the estuary of the Mackenzie River. On the 

other hand, cyclonic circulation, which has been observed (e.g., Pickart et al. 2005), was 

captured in the Beaufort Sea basin area during winter. 

5.2-3 Simulated sea ice distributions and ocean circulation during ice melting season 

(June – September) 

 The CIOM also simulated sea ice breakup/melting starting from June 2002. Figure 20 shows 

sea ice concentration greater than 30% (gray area), ice velocity (red arrows), sea surface 

temperature, and water velocity at 10 m water depth (black arrows) on June 20th (Figure 20a), 

July 20th (Figure 20b), August 10th (Figure 20c), and September 18th (Figure 20d). 

 Ice velocity is weak during winter (Figure 19). Open water started to form (i.e., ice started to 

break up) in the southern Chukchi Sea shelf in May or June (Figure 20a) and at the estuary of 

the Mackenzie River in July (Figure 20b). In August, wide open water occurred at the northern 

Chukchi Sea shelf and basin area (Figure 20c). Also a wide lead-like feature and landfast ice can 

be seen at the northern Alaska coast in the Beaufort Sea. Details of landfast ice will be discussed 

shortly. In September, sea ice cover is diminished, resulting in wide open water in the Beaufort 

Sea (Figure 20d). Mesoscale features can be found at the ice edge in the Beaufort Sea. In 

August and September, high water temperature of more than 8o

C was found in the Chukchi Sea. 

The distribution of warm water and ocean circulation represent the pathway of the Pacific 

Summer Water through the Bering Strait (Figure 20c, white arrows). Relatively high temperature 

in the Beaufort Sea is due to both river discharge of the Mackenzie River and the Alaskan 

Coastal Current flowing along the Alaska coast. The plume near the estuary of the Mackenzie 

River was well simulated. Those features are consistent with previous ship surveys. 
49

Figure 19. Sea ice cover and motion in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea on a) January 15th , b) Feb 26th , c) 

March 28th, and d) April 27th in 2002 simulated by the CIOM. Red arrows indicate ice velocity and 

black arrows indicate 10-m ocean velocity. Sea surface temperature is shown near the Bering 

Strait. 

a) b) 

c) d) 
50

Figure 20. Sea ice cover and motion in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea on a) June 20th, b) July 20th, c) 

August 10th, and d) September 18th in 2002 simulated by the CIOM. Gray area shows sea ice 

concentration between 30% and 100%. Red arrows and black arrows indicate ice velocity and 10-m 

ocean velocity, respectively. 

a) b) 

c) d) 
51

 Figure 21 shows remote-sensed SST and SIC in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea. Satellite 

measurements indicate that open water started at the southern Chukchi Sea and at the estuary 

of the Mackenzie River (Figure 21a), and covered the Chukchi Sea shelf in July (Figure 21b). 

The relatively warm ACW can be seen in the Chukchi Sea shelf in August (Figure 21c, white 

arrow) and near the northern Alaska coast from Point Barrow to the Mackenzie River in 

September (Figure 21d, white arrows). Those features are similar to the simulated results (Figure 

20). On the other hand, open water derived from satellite images is wider than that simulated by 

the CIOM during August and September in the Chukchi Sea. The difference between SSM/I 

measurements and CIOM simulation results could be due to the open boundary condition, 

ice-melting scheme, errors in satellite measurements, or other unidentified causes. 

Figure 21. Monthly mean sea ice cover and sea surface temperature in the Chukchi/Beaufort Sea 

between June and September 2002 derived from satellite measurements. Red arrows show 

NCEP/NCAR sea surface wind velocity. 

a) b) 

c) d) 

a) b) 

c) d) 
52

5.2-4 Ocean circulation in the Chukchi Sea Shelf 

 In the Chukchi Sea shelf, warm Pacific water intrudes through the Bering Strait. Heat input 

through the Bering Strait could be a trigger of rapid sea ice reduction (Shimada et al. 2006). 

Figure 22 shows AVHRR daily sea surface temperature images on July 21st (Figure 22a), August 

1st (Figure 22c), and September 22nd (Figure 22e) and ice-ocean circulation (Figures 22b, d, and 

f) simulated by the CIOM (same as Figure 20) in the Chukchi Sea. SST patterns are similar to the 

ocean temperature simulated by the CIOM. Both AVHRR SST and ocean temperature derived 

from the CIOM show warm water covering the Chukchi Sea in July (Figures 22a and b) and 

extending to the Herald Canyon, western Hanna Shoal, and southeastern Siberian coast in 

August (Figures 22c and d). The warm water pattern greater than 8o

C captured by the AVHRR 

indicates the ACW branches (Figure 22c, white arrows). Those features were well simulated by 

the CIOM, except for magnitude of temperature (Figure 22d, white arrows). The AVHRR SST 

indicates the warm Alaskan Coastal Current flowing along the Alaska coast. Warm water 

reached the Icy Cape in August (Figure 22c) and the Barrow Canyon in September (Figure 22e). 

The CIOM results are consistent with satellite measurements and previous ship surveys. Thus, 

the distribution of the warm Pacific water and ocean circulation in the Chukchi Sea were well 

simulated. The biggest difference between AVHRR images and CIOM results is the high water 

temperature core at the Siberian coast (Figures 22a and c). Currently, this high water 

temperature core is not well simulated. A similar warm core was found in July 2004. Therefore, 

this warm core is not due to error; however, it is hard to determine the origin. No scientific reports 

or papers exist showing this kind of feature. The investigation for this warm core is underway. If 

this warm core is a real phenomenon, it would affect the timing and pattern of sea ice freezing 

and melting. In this case, we will introduce it to the CIOM. A cold band at the Siberian coast in 

September (Figure 20e) is due to errors resulting from cloud or fog. 

 Note that the dates in the comparison of Figure 22 are not consistent. We tried to compare 

daily-basis satellite mappings and model output on the same date. But higher latitude ocean is 

very cloudy, i.e., it is very hard to compare them on the exact same dates. The model simulated 

surface data is very variable due to atmospheric conditions (i.e., wind). What we would like to say 

here is the CIOM can reproduce ocean circulation field, such as three branches separated from 

the Bering inflow, which were observed by hydrographic surveys and by satellite measurements, 

although there is discrepancy in dates. 
53

Figure 22. AVHRR-derived daily sea surface temperature images on a) July 21st, c) August 1st, and 

e) September 22nd (left) and simulated ice-ocean circulations (b, d, and f) same as Fig. 20 but only 

for the Chukchi Sea. 

2002/July/21

2002/August/1

2002/September/22

a)

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

f) 

c)

e)

b)
54

5.2-5 Landfast ice, ice cover, and ocean circulation in the nearshore Beaufort Sea 

 The ice-ocean circulation is very complex in the nearshore Beaufort Sea. There are sea ice, 

the ACW coastal current, small-scale eddies, river discharge, and the Beaufort gyre. Figure 23 

shows the CIOM results from August to November. Water velocity is plotted at every grid point 

(black arrows) because the scale of eddies is small (10-20 km) due to the fact that the Rossby 

radius of deformation is about 5 km. In August, open water was formed and warm Pacific water 

came from the Barrow Canyon. There was another source of heat, the Mackenzie River. Sea ice 

in the basin was melted, but the landfast ice still remained at the Alaska coast between 156o

W 

and 144o

W (Figures 23a, b, and c). SSM/I measurements also indicate the landfast ice along the 

Alaska coast in August (Figure 24). During September, wide open water and meandering of the 

boundary current resulting from eddies were simulated (Figures 23 d, e, f). Small-scale eddies in 

the Beaufort Sea will be discussed later. In October, the boundary current was close to the 

Alaska coast (Oct. 06, Figure 23g), and sea ice freezing started. In November, the CIOM 

simulated sea ice freezing and the polynya in the Beaufort basin (Figures 23 h, i). According to 

Figure 23, sea ice cover resulted from ice production at the coast (landfast ice) and in the basin, 

and ice advection from the basin to the Alaskan coast. Ice was produced at the Alaskan coast 

due to the shallow water depth, resulting in rapid freezing. On the other hand, SSM/I 

measurements show that sea ice cover is due to ice production in the basin area or advection 

from north or east (Figure 25). Wide landfast ice was not seen in October from SSM/I 

measurements possibly due to the coarse resolution (25 km), compared to the 3.8 km resolution 

CIOM. SSM/I measurements may also have errors because it is difficult to measure melt pond 

during the melting season. Due to coastal sea fog, the SSM/I measurements may also 

overestimate SIC along the coast by 10-15%, particularly in summer. There is a need to validate 

landfast ice production. The difference in the pattern of ice production between the CIOM and 

SSM/I measurements is under investigation. 
55

Figure 23. Sea ice cover and ocean circulation in the Beaufort Sea coastal area on (from left to 

right) a) August 10th, b) August 16th, c) August 28th, d) September 6th, e) September 15th, f) 

September 24th, g) October 6th, h) October 18th, i) October 27th, j) November 5th, k) November 14th, 

and l) November 29th in 2002 simulated by the CIOM. Gray area shows sea ice concentration 

between 30% and 100%. Black arrows indicate water velocity (10 m water depth) at every grid 

point. 

b) c) 

d) e) f) 

g) h) i) 

j) k) l) 

a) b) c)

i)

d) e) f)

j) k) l)

g) h)
56

Figure 24. SSM/I sea ice concentration images in the Beaufort basin area on a) August 10th, b) 

August 16th, and c) September 6th. Note that the resolution is 25 km. 

Figure 25. SSM/I sea ice concentration images in the Beaufort basin area on a) October 6th, b) 

October 14th, and c) October 16th. 

 Figure 26 shows the 10-year (1994-2004) climatology (mean) of minimum, mean, and 

maximum landfast ice extents in the Beaufort Sea, measured by SAR and SSM/I by Eicken et al. 

(2005). During the period, the Arctic Oscillation (AO) was weakened (Wang and Ikeda 2000, 

2001) and the Arctic Dipole Anomaly (DA; Wu et al. 2006; Watanabe et al. 2006) was intensified. 

The positive DA-derived anomalous meridional wind stress along the Trans-polar Drift Stream 

(TDS) toward the eastern Arctic produced anomalous open water in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 

and thus the anomalously less landfast ice along the coast. This is why there was little landfast 

ice in October (freezing season) and July (melting season). In other words, during the positive 

phase of DA, there is less landfast ice extent due to the offshore wind anomalies and during the 

negative phase of DA, there is more landfast ice extent due to the onshore wind anomalies. 

a) b) c) 

a) b) c) 
57

Figure 26. Minimum, mean, and maximum monthly landfast sea ice extents showing the change in 

landfast ice distribution in the study area through the annual cycle. The dotted area indicates 

where landfast ice was never observed. From Eicken et al. (2005). 
58

 During the open water period, small-scale eddies have been observed in the Beaufort Sea 

basin area (e.g., Muench et al. 2002). Figure 27 shows the simulated result on September 24th. 

Red boxes indicate the eddy field. There are two main streams of warm Pacific water having a 

north-south component in water velocity, implying a small-scale eddy field. Eddies also can be 

found near ice-edge. The CIOM has the potential to investigate the eddy field in the Beaufort Sea. 

Nevertheless, a higher resolution model (e.g., 1-km resolution) will be better than the current 

3.8-km CIOM. We will implement the nesting approach in the future. 

Figure 27. A snapshot of the CIOM simulation in the Beaufort Sea (September 24, 2002). Black 

arrows represent water velocity at 10-m water depth at each grid cell. 
59

6. Multiple year (1990-2006) simulations using daily forcing 

 We have conducted multiple year simulations from 1990 to 2006 to investigate the 

interannual variability. Summer ice concentration (or open water) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

measures interannual variability not only in the atmosphere, but also in the ice-ocean system 

(Wang and Ikeda 2001; Maslanik et al. 2007). Figure 28 shows only the year-to-year spatial 

variability on August 1 (almost end of melting season) and Figure 29 shows the same on 

November 14 (freezing season) from 1990 to 1995. There are obvious interannual variabilities in 

SIC (grey) and SST (color). We can see that there exists landfast ice along the Beaufort coast in 

1990, 1991, and 1994, while there are ice free conditions in the same region in 1992, 1993, and 

1995 (Fig. 28a). 

Wu et al. (2006) and Watanabe et al. (2006) point out that the Arctic Dipole Anomaly (DA), 

as defined by the second EOF mode of SLP, has more efficient impact on driving sea ice out of 

Arctic (i.e., driving sea ice from the Western Arctic to the East Arctic) than the Arctic Oscillation 

(AO, the first EOF mode). The key mechanism here is that DA’s wind anomaly is meridional, 

from Western to Eastern Arctic during positive phase and from East Arctic to Western Arctic 

during negative phase, while AO’s wind anomaly is cyclonic during its positive phase and 

anticyclonic during its negative phase. Furthermore, the DA’s anomaly action region is along the 

Trans-polar Drift Stream (TDS), adding more sensitivity of sea ice transport to the DA’s wind 

anomaly. Figure 30 shows the first three modes of SLP from a global GCM, called K1 (Watanabe 

et al. 2006), and NCEP reanalysis. From 1990 to1995, we found that 1990 was a negative DA 

year, while 1995 was a positive DA year, both indices being larger than one standard deviation. 

From Figure 28, note that there was more open water in 1995, which was extended all the way 

along the Canadian Archipelago, than in1990 because of the ice covered conditions in the 

Canadian Archipelago. 

 Figure 29 shows the freezing season (November 14) for all six years. Again, there was more 

open water in 1995 than in 1990 due partly to the preconditioning of the summer open water. It is 

observed that sea ice freezing in 1994 was faster than in other years. Landfast ice formed not 

only along the Beaufort coast, but also along the Chukchi coast. During the positive DA year of 

1995, there was no landfast ice along the Chukchi coast on November 14, compared to that in 

1990 (negative DA year) and other years. Nevertheless, AO also plays an important role when 

DA is negative. For example, in 1993, there was comparable open water on August 1 than 1995. 

The reason is that AO index was about 0.75 and DA index was -0.25. The cyclonic anomalous 

wind stress reduces the strength of the Beaufort Gyre, producing anomalous divergence that 
60

also creates open water in the Alaskan Beaufort coast. Therefore, there is significant interannual 

variability in both melting and freezing seasons, whereas the DA does play a key role in the 

interannual variability of sea ice in the study region, while AO-associated divergence in wind 

stress anomaly is also important when DA is negative. 
61

Figure 28. Sea ice cover and ocean circulation in the Beaufort Sea coastal area on 

August 1, a melting season, in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, simulated by the 

CIOM. Gray area shows sea ice concentration between 30% and 100%. Black arrows 

indicate water velocity (10-m water depth), red arrows ice velocity, and areal colors 

indicate the SST with the same scale of Figure. 29. 
62

Figure 29. Same as Figure 28, but for November 14, a freezing season. Gray area 

means sea ice concentration between 30% and 100%. Black arrows indicate water 

velocity (10-m water depth), red arrows ice velocity, and areal colors indicate the SST. 
63

60% 16% 9%

NCEP

K1

59% 17% 11%

95: +DA

90: -DA

AO DA 3rd Mode

Figure 30. The EOF analysis of SLP: First mode (AO), second mode (DA), and the third 

mode derived from a high-resolution global climate model (K1; Watanabe et al. 2006; 

first row) and NCEP Reanalysis (second row) for period 1948-2004. The lower panel 

show the AO (in red) and DA’s (in blue) eigenvectors (time series) of NCEP reanalysis. 

AO 
64

7. Ice-associated oilspill model simulations 

 An oil spill is a major environmental risk of offshore oil exploration and production. Since we 

do not know when, where, or how an oil spill will occur, a numerical oil spill trajectory model is an 

important tool to assess the possible impacts on the environment under various hypothetical oil 

spill scenarios. 

 We developed a subgrid-scale, turbulent-dispersion model that includes surface-wind drift, 

SIC, sea ice flow, and surface current simulated from the circulation model. We used the subgrid 

model to simulate the surface trajectory of passive particles, based on a previous model that did 

not consider sea ice impact (Wang 1999; 2001). The Lagrangian motion of a particle in a 

two-dimensional plane in the presence of a mean flow (u, v), a turbulent velocity (u’, v’), and 

surface wind (Wx, Wy) is described with the following equations: 

uoil u u bWx dt

dx = = + '+α , 

oil bWy v v v

dt

dy = = + '+α , 

where x and y are the particle trajectory coordinates at time t after the particle is released at a 

location (x 0 , y 0 ) at time (t 0 ). α is the wind factor of 0.025 in our model (typically between 0.02 

and 0.03). b is the ice factor, b=1-Cice, for normal cases that implies that the oil would adhere to 

ice and move only with ice, b=1 represents an open water condition, and Cice is ice concentration. 

The turbulent velocity (u’, v’) is the complex and inherent motion that occurs at spatial and 

temporal scales much smaller than the predominant scales of the coastal current and the 

wind-driven surface current. With sea ice cover, (u’, v’) will be calculated by only surface current 

velocity. This velocity is calculated by a random number generator obeying a 

Gaussian-distribution with a mean of zero and variance of unity. The turbulent velocity has only 

statistical meaning in contrast to the deterministic large-scale mean flow and wind-driven flow. 

The random flight model can be described as follows: 

u dt K dw

T

du 1/ 2 ' 1 '= − +

where T is the turbulent decorrelation time, K 2 /T 2 = δ (or K= 2 (Δx) /(2T)) is the turbulent 

diffusion coefficient, δ is the variance of turbulence, and dw is the stochastic kick received by 

the particle. More details on this random flight statistic approach and its applications to 

atmospheric and oceanic pollution dispersion can be found in Thomson (1986), Dutkiewicz et al. 

(1993), and Wang (1999, 2001). 
65

 The surface current (u, v) can be chosen as sea surface current in open water, ice flow in full 

ice-cover, or a combination of both. One special case is if oil spill occurs on landfast ice along the 

Beaufort Sea coast in winter. Then, the oil spill would stay with the ice, and the prediction is 

much easier as long as the fast ice does not break up before the oil can be removed. Actually, 

fast ice needs a higher resolution model than our present one to resolve both horizontally and 

vertically, which is what we plan to do in the next phase. For example, the scale of Barrier Islands 

is about several to tens of kilometers, which serve as a barrier to anchor landfast ice. So, the 

simulations in this study only consider oil spill on moving ice or water. In a case in which the ice 

concentration is between 0 and 1, the oil could be on water, ice, or under ice. The model cannot 

predict if an oil particle is on water or stuck on or under ice. We assume that the oil spill particles 

spread evenly in space, so the portion of particles stuck with ice is proportional to ice 

concentration, and the surface current driving the oil spill can be expressed statically as the 

combination of sea surface velocity (uwater, vwater), and ice velocity (uice, vice) weighed by ice 

concentration (Cice): 

u = uwater − Cice + uiceCice (1 )

water ice iceCice v = v (1− C ) + v

Sea surface current and ice velocity fields are very similar, especially at high ice concentration 

conditions. 

 We only present two cases in 2002. All the forcings are identical: particles are released on 

March 15, 2002 on the landfast ice region (grid) off Prudhoe Bay, driven by ocean current and 

sea ice velocity that are simulated by CIOM using daily NCEP wind forcing. The difference is that 

case I (Figure 31) has no direct wind forcing on the particles (about 2.5% of the wind speed), 

while case II (Figure 32) includes the direct wind forcing on the particles. 

 By April 15 (one month from releasing on the surface of landfast ice), the trajectories mainly 

stay on the landfast ice surface near the coast, which gives sufficient time for the authority to 

respond to such a hypothetical oilspill event. The cleaning effort can be conducted on the 

landfast zone. The worst scenario for cleaning effort is that the oilspill particles are released and 

trapped at the bottom of the landfast ice, although the oilspill trajectories may be, by and large, 

similar to those on the surface. 

 The oilspill particles stay mainly with the landfast ice until July when the landfast ice start to 

break up and melt. After landfast ice melts, the ocean current plays a major role in advecting the 

particles. The difference is that with a direct wind effect, the oilspill particles can be advected to 

the East Siberian coast (Figure 32) before winter arrives, while without the wind effect, the 

particles are only advected to the Chukchi Sea off Barrow Canyon (Figure 31). 
66

Figure 31. Oilspill trajectories released off Prudhoe Bay landfast ice on March 15, 2002, driven by 

the ocean and sea ice current, but with no direct wind contribution to the particles. 
67

Figure 32. Oilspill trajectories released off Prudhoe Bay landfast ice on March 15, 2002, driven by 

the ocean and sea ice current, with direct wind contribution to the particles. 
68

8. Sensitivity studies 

 We conducted a series of sensitivity studies to investigate different physical processes. We 

focus on the mechanisms for landfast ice formation, maintenance, and decay along with 

nearshore circulation and sea ice because we are mostly concerned with sea ice variability in the 

nearshore Beaufort and Chukchi seas that has a potential impact on nearshore hypothetical 

oilspill events. The following sensitivity experiments, with year 2002 as control run, were 

conducted to test the corresponding hypotheses: 

 1) No wind forcing during the growth/freezing (September-December) and 

decay/melting (May-September) periods of landfast ice: The onshore wind component 

induced by the anticyclonic Beaufort High pressure is the most important factor forming the 

landfast ice. Note that the onshore winds impose an opposite forcing to the Pacific-Arctic 

sea-level pressure-head induced Bering Strait inflow (Woodgate et al. 2005). In other words, the 

onshore winds would slow down the Bering Strait inflow. Thus, without the onshore wind forcing 

during the formation period, an extreme case of the weakened wind stress, the Bering Strait 

inflow would be enhanced, advecting more oceanic heat to the Beaufort Sea (Figure 33, upper 

right). Thus, landfast ice would be reduced in the melting season. However, during the melting 

season, without the continuous piling-up of sea ice along the coast by onshore wind-pushing, 

less landfast ice would exist than the control run, consistent with the observation (Mahoney et al. 

2007a). 

 There is no pronounced anomaly during the melting season (Aug. 1, upper right panel of 

Figure 33) that distinguishes it from the control run. The reason is that the Bering inflow is 

enhanced without the opposite wind forcing, leading to above-normal melting. However, during 

the freezing season, without wind forcing, less ice forms along the coast (Figure 34, upper right 

panel), because the pile-up process is removed. For example, on November 14, 2002, a freezing 

season for both landfast ice and pack ice, there is little landfast ice formation along the Beaufort 

coast without the onshore wind forcing derived from the anticyclonic Beaufort Gyre. 

 2) No sea ice advection term: We simply turned off the sea ice advection term in the sea 

ice dynamic equations to test that sea ice dynamics is a key factor. Without the non-linear term, 

sea ice is controlled by the thermodynamic process. 

 Without the sea ice advection (or non-linear term), more sea ice and landfast ice exist in the 

nearshore Beaufort Sea during the melting season (Figure 33, lower left panel) and during the 

freezing season (Figure 34, lower left panel), compared to the control run. Without the ice 

advection, landfast ice forms faster than the control run. This indicates that sea ice formation and 

decay controlled only by the thermodynamic process cannot reproduce open water along the 

Alaskan Beaufort coast. Thus, sea ice dynamics is not negligible. 
69

3) No Bering Strait inflow: We simply zeroed the Bering Strait inflow with the same 

temperature and salinity boundary conditions to investigate the Bering inflow impact on landfast 

ice and coastal current in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The reason is that this inflow advects 

the warm Bering water (i.e., transports heat) to the Chukchi Sea (Woodgate et al. 2005; 

Weingartner et al. 2005) and enhances both bottom and lateral melting (Ohshima and Nihashi 

2005) all the way to the Beaufort Sea. 

Thus, without this inflow, it is assumed that the coastal-trapped current is significantly 

weakened and thus, the pile-up process by the right-pointing Coriolis force would be reduced. 

This is why less landfast ice would stay along the Beaufort coast during the melting season (Aug. 

1, see Figure 33, lower right panel). The local melting dominates, in particular, near the 

Mackenzie Delta where the SST is higher than that in the Barrow Canyon area. Nevertheless, in 

the control run, both the Barrow Canyon area and Mackenzie Delta experience high SST, 

because in the former, oceanic heating is advected from the Bering inflow. 

In contrast, there is a more pronounced impact on sea ice without this inflow during the 

freezing season. The freezing process is enhanced (Figure 34, lower right panel), because the 

local cooling dominates thermodynamically in the relatively shallow shelf compared to the 

advection, while local winds dominate dynamically, leading to enhanced onshore piling-up 

process (Mahoney et al. 2007). 

 We also conducted the sensitivity studies of doubling Bering inflow, halving Bering inflow, 

and annual mean Bering inflow (suggested by Dr. W. Johnson of MMS, personal comm.), which 

further confirm our finding here. 

 The following experiments are being conducted (the delay was due to reallocation of J. 

Wang and K. Mizobata) and will be added to publications submitted to refereed journals: 

 4) No ocean heat advection: We simply turned off the ocean temperature advection term 

(i.e., non-linear term) to test the hypothesis that ocean heat advection contributes significantly to 

both bottom and lateral melting. Without this term, the landfast ice along the Beaufort Sea shelf 

would stay over summer. 

 5) No lateral melting processes during the spring-summer period: From section 4, we 

hypothesize that without lateral melting, sea ice would stay along the Beaufort coast over 

summer, because this process is twice as large as bottom melting. Thus, without the lateral 

melting, we anticipate that sea ice would over-summer the Beaufort coast. 

 6) With ocean tides: Ocean tides, as high frequency forcing near the inertial (f or Coriolis) 

frequency in high latitudes, play a crucial role in sea ice ridging and rafting, velocity shear, 

divergence/convergence, non-linear interactions within sea ice dynamics and with the ocean, 

and ocean mixing. It is assumed that ocean tides would enhance sea ice dynamic growth 

through ridging and rafting during the growth season, while they would speed up the melting 
70

during the melting season due to vertical entrainment of warm water beneath the sea ice via 

tide-induced vertical mixing. We would like to obtain a quantitative dynamic impact of tides on 

sea ice growth and decay, compared to the control run in terms of percentage. 

 In summary, wind forcing, ice advection, and Bering inflow all are important to landfast ice 

formation and stability, and melting along the Beaufort coast, compared to the control run. 

However, during the melting season when the advected ocean heat is increased, all the factors 

are involved, leading to very complex picture, i.e., it is difficult to interpret the implicit causes and 

effects. In contrast, during the freezing season when the oceanic heat flux advection is 

weakened, the local cooling and wind forcing dominate the landfast formation. 
71

 

Figure 33. The CIOM-simulated sea ice concentration during the melting season on August 1, 2002 

for 1) the control run (upper left), 2) no wind during the melting season (May-Sep, upper right), 3) 

no sea ice advection (lower left), and 4) no Bering Strait inflow. 
72

Figure 34. Same as Figure 33, except for the freezing season on November 14, 2002. 
73

9. Process studies: The Bering Sea inflow and its contribution to volume transports in the 

Chukchi Sea 

Observations show that there is annual Bering inflow of 0.8 Sv via the Bering Strait, which 

separates into three branches: Barrow Canyon ACW current has ~0.3 Sv, Herald Valley branch 

has ~0.3 Sv (Woodgate et al. 2005), and the Central Channel branch is of ~0.2 Sv (Weingartner 

et al. 2005). These transport estimates are based on limited measurements with sparse 

moorings. Thus, the estimate of the transport using CIOM should be more systematic, and this 

process study focusing on the Chukchi Sea is CIOM’s strength in terms of resolution and 

coverage, compared to the measurements. 

Figure 35 shows the domain that is used to estimate the transports along the three open 

boundaries. Figure 36 shows the Bering inflow (positive) indicating strong seasonal variation with 

summer transport being the largest. The Barrow transect also has similar seasonality: strong 

Barrow Canyon outflow (negative) in summer, and a weak one in other seasons with many 

reversals (positive) due to wind forcing (Woodgate et al. 2005). The 2002 annual average 

transports are estimated to be -0.14 (outflow) Sv for the Wrangel section, -1.92 Sv (inflow) for the 

Northwind section, and 1.12 Sv (outflow) for the Barrow section, respectively, which sums up to 

be 0.94 Sv. With an inflow of 0.86 Sv from Bering Strait, the error of the transport estimate (0.94 

Sv) is about 0.08 Sv, i.e., there is an error of ~10% in the estimate. Our estimates also further 

confirm the partitioning of the Bering inflow transport into three branches in the Chukchi Sea: 

ACW current has ~0.08 Sv, Central Channel Current is ~ 0.23 Sv, and Herald Valley Current is ~ 

0.39 Sv, consistent with, but differing in quantity from, measurements. Furthermore, our model 

also estimates an outflow of 0.07 Sv across the Long Strait and an outflow of 0.072 Sv north of 

Wrangel Island, making up a total outflow of 0.84 Sv, which originates from the Bering Strait 

inflow of 0.86 Sv. In other words, the model estimate error is only 2%. 

Based on the CIOM’s estimates (Figures 36-37), we observed that strong seasonal 

variations exist in the Barrow Canyon outflow, following those in the Bering inflow by one month 

(Figure 37) consistent with the measurement (Shimada personal commun.), with the Bering 

inflow being the strongest in summer (Woodgate et al. 2005). Current reversals were found in 

other seasons. We found little seasonal variation in the Wrangel outflow. We found current 

reversals in all three branches in the Chukchi Sea, due to the wind forcing. Local wind forcing 

caused short-term variations, while the Pacific-Arctic pressure-head driven Bering inflow had a 

seasonal cycle due to the sea-level (i.e., sea-level pressure) seasonal cycle in both the North 

Pacific and the Arctic Ocean. Land-ocean contrast drove the Pacific-Arctic pressure head. The 

statistics are shown below: 
74

Table 2. The statistics for the simulated 2002 annual mean transports. 

 

Annual Bering Northwind Wrangel Barrow

Transport (Sv) 0.86 -1.92 -0.14 1.12 

STDs 0.28 1.15 0.11 1.15 

Max 1.31 4.96 0.75 0.25 

Min 0.42 -0.75 -0.50 -0.54 

Figure 35. The domain and sections in the Chukchi Sea used for estimating volume transports. 

Bering

Section

Wrangel

Section

Northwind

Section

Barrow

Section
75

Figure 36. The 2002 seasonal cycle of volume transport for the Bering inflow (blue diamonds), 

outflows from Wrangel (black triangles), Northwind (red squares), and Barrow (green crosses) 

sections (see Fig. 35), respectively. Note that legend “7 per Mov Avg” stands for 7-day moving 

average. 

Figure 37. Seasonal cycle of volume transport of the Bering inflow (red, positive) and the 

model-estimated volume transport of Barrow section outflow (blue, negative; here a sign change 

was applied). Note that the Barrow section outflow maximum lags the Bering inflow maximum by 

about one month. 

Comparison of Net Volume Transport (Sv) 

CIOM 2002 simulation [the western Arctic Ocean]

-5.5

-5

-4.5

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

01-JAN-2002 00 02-MAR-2002 00 01-MAY-2002 00 30-JUN-2002 00 29-AUG-2002 00 28-OCT-2002 00 27-DEC-200

Julian Date

Net Volume Transport (Sv)

Bering

Wrangel

Barrow

Northwind

7 per. Mov. Avg. (Bering)

7 per. Mov. Avg. (Wrangel)

7 per. Mov. Avg. (Barrow)

7 per. Mov. Avg. (Northwind)

Comparison of Net Volume Transport (Sv)

Barrow canyon and Bering Strait 

CIOM 2002 simulation [the western Arctic Ocean]

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

01-JAN-2002

00

02-MAR-2002

00

01-MAY-2002

00

30-JUN-2002

00

29-AUG-2002

00

28-OCT-2002

00

27-DEC-2

00

Julian Date

Net Volume Transport (Sv)

Barrow Canyon

Bering Strait

7 per. Mov. Avg. (Barrow Canyon)

7 per. Mov. Avg. (Bering Strait)
76

10. Conclusions and future efforts 

Because of our efforts and also through lessons learned from Phase I, we have successfully 

improved the CIOM and conducted a realistic simulation for the last three years (Phase II). 

Simulation results were compared to available ship surveys and satellite measurements. 

The major improvements and parameterizations are as follows: 

i) modify boundary conditions by combining global GCM outputs with 

modification using historical data and satellite measurements to conserve 

transport with radiation property along the open boundaries. 

ii) in addition to previous ice-bottom melting processes, a lateral melting 

parameterization, which is twice as large as the bottom melting, was 

implemented into this new version of CIOM during the melting season. 

iii) Wind-wave mixing parameterization was added to the surface ocean. 

Based on the above investigations including the sensitivity studies, the following major 

conclusions can be drawn: 

1) The Chukchi-Beaufort seas coastal current was well reproduced: ACW coastal current, 

and the other two branches: the Central Channel and Herald Valley. The ESC was also 

captured with a cold and fresh water mass. 

2) The ocean circulation, such as the Beaufort Gyre and the imbedded mesoscale eddies 

with anticyclones outnumbering cyclones along with the seasonal cycle were very well 

simulated. 

3) The seasonal cycle of sea ice was well reproduced with some discrepancy from the 

satellite measurements. Without lateral melting, the CIOM produces more sea ice along 

the Beaufort coast in summer, leading to an excess of sea ice; while with the lateral 

melting, the sea ice seasonal cycle with ice-free conditions in September along the 

Beaufort coast was well reproduced. 

4) Surprisingly, the landfast ice, for the first time, was reproduced under both monthly and 

daily atmospheric forcing. Sensitivity experiments suggest the most important factors 

affecting landfast ice are wind, the Bering inflow, sea ice advection, ocean heat 
77

advection, and the lateral melting process. Tides are weak and less important in 

modifying landfast ice distribution. 

5) Sea ice ridging, cracks, arching, and other downscaling characteristics were captured. 

The following important downscaling processes were captured and the corresponding 

conclusions can be drawn: 

6) In the Chukchi Sea, the CIOM captures and reproduces the overwintering of the Bering 

Inflow water (or Pacific water). The year-to-year accumulation (or change) of the 

overwintering Pacific water is an important source in melting sea ice in the Western Arctic 

(Shimada et al. 2006). 

7) The summer saline layer was reproduced by CIOM that compares well to the summer 

observations (Weingartner et al. 1998). Furthermore, our model can explain how this 

cold, saline layer forms during autumn, winter, and spring when the formation of sea ice 

injects salt to the upper ocean surface, leading to dense water formation along the shelf 

(Wang et al. 2004). The dense water cannot sink all the way to the bottom, because of 

the warmer but still saltier Atlantic water underneath. 

8) A strong winter Beaufort High can produce surface Ekman drift, advecting Beaufort 

Alaska freshwater water originally from the Mackenzie River into the center of the 

Beaufort Sea. At the same time, the subsurface upwelling due to Ekman pumping (Yang 

2006) can bring the Atlantic Water to the surface layer. The CIOM confirms this 

mechanism. 

 

 Nevertheless, the CIOM and SIOMS are far from perfect. As we strive forward, new 

problems emerge that challenge our capability and model limitations. The following are the 

problems, challenges, and future efforts we are facing today: 

1) High resolution model of the Beaufort Sea coastal area. In the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas, mesoscale, small scale eddies (less than 4~8 km radius) are a ubiquitous feature. 

The current CIOM has 3.8-km resolution that is still too coarse to resolve small scale 

eddies. To reveal small eddy dynamics, the CIOM resolution should be increased to ~ 1-2 

km. Nevertheless, the 3.8-km sea ice model almost breaks the limit of an isotropic sea ice 

model. The reason is that we often encountered a similar problem: in some years, 
78

CIOM’s sea ice model blows up with no reasonable warning, i.e., sea ice velocity and 

thickness are normal in previous time step (archive) before it suddenly blows up. When 

the resolution is reduced to 1 km, the isotropic limit is anticipated to break down. 

Furthermore, model integration would demand more computing resources. Thus, an 

anisotropic model should be used or an alternative sea ice model such as a granular 

Lagrangian model may be used, which, nevertheless, still has its intrinsic problem. 

2) A sea ice melting scheme, including melt ponds in summer that have been confirmed to 

be a factor speeding up the melting process (Inoue et al. 2006), is an important positive 

feedback between the sea ice and ocean. 

3) Replace the present VP ice model with EVP ice model. 

4) Ship-based survey. To validate the CIOM, the present in-situ data are not sufficient. 

During the IPY (International Polar Year 2007-2009), we will join three cruises to collect 

more hydrographic data. In 2007, we joined the T/S Oshoro-Maru (Hokkaido University, 

Japan) summer cruises in the Chukchi Sea. We will also join the R/V Mirai cruise and 

other cruises in the western Arctic Ocean in 2008. 

5) Data assimilation. To achieve more realistic 3-D simulation results, we plan to conduct 

near real-time data assimilation starting with the nudging method (Wang 2001). We will 

assimilate satellite measurements (sea surface temperature, sea ice concentration, and 

sea level anomaly) and in-situ measurements, if possible. 

6) Implementation of the ecosystem model. The CIOM has reproduced oceanic circulation 

in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, even though the ice model needs to be improved. We 

will couple an ecosystem model to the CIOM, for understanding dynamics of lower trophic 

levels (e.g., phytoplankton, zooplankton). 
79

Acknowledgments 

We are sincerely thankful for support from the University of Alaska Costal Marine Institute (CMI) 

and Minerals Management Service (MMS) and IARC/JAMSTEC Cooperative Agreement. JW 

wants to thank Drs. Dick Prentki and Walter Johnson of MMS for valuable guidance and for 

discussion during the course of this research. Thanks also go to Drs. Ron Lai and Caryn Smith of 

MMS for their inputs. JW also wants to thank Dr. Vera Alexander, former CMI director, for 

providing research vision in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. This is NOAA GLERL Contribution 

No. 1475. 

References 

Blumberg, A.F. and G.L. Mellor. 1987. A description of 3-D coastal ocean circulation model. In 

Heaps, N.S. (Ed.), Coastal and Estuarine Sciences 4: 3-D Coastal Ocean Models. American 

Geophysical Union, Washington DC, pp 1-16. 

Cavalieri, D., P. Gloersen, and J. Zwally. 1990. DMSP SSM/I daily and monthly polar gridded 

sea ice concentrations, [1990 Jan 1st to 2006 December 31st ]. Edited by J. Maslanik and J. 

Stroeve. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Digital media. 

Chao, S.-Y. and P.-T. Shaw. 2002. A numerical investigation of slanted convection and 

subsurface anticyclone generation in an Arctic baroclinic current system. J. Geophys. 

Res.,107(C3), 3019, doi:10.1029/2001JC000786.

Comiso, J. 1990. DMSP SSM/I daily and monthly polar gridded sea ice concentrations. Edited by 

J. Maslanik and J. Stroeve. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. 

Digital media. 

Dutkiewicz, S., A. Griffa, and D.B. Olson. 1993. Particle diffusion in a meandering jet. J. 

Geophys. Res., 98, 16487-16500.

Eicken, H., L.H. Shapiro, A.G. Gaylord, A. Mahoney, and P.W. Cotter. 2005. Mapping and 

characterization of recurring spring leads and landfast ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. 

U.S., Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS), Alaska Outer 

Continental Shelf Region. Anchorage, Alaska, 141 pp. 
80

Ford, J.M., J. Wang, and R.T. Cheng. 1990. Predicting the vertical structure of tidal current and 

salinity in San Francisco Bay, California. Water Resources Res., 26(5): 1,027-1,045. 

Fu, G., K.S. Baith, and C.R. McClain. 1998. "SeaDAS: The SeaWiFS Data Analysis System," 

Proceedings of "The 4th Pacific Ocean Remote Sensing Conference." Qingdao, China, July 

28-31, 1998, pp 73-79. 

Grebmeier, J.M., J.E. Overland, S.E. Moore, E.V. Farley, E.C. Carmack, L.W. Cooper, K.E. Frey, 

J.H. Helle, F.A. McLaughlin, and S.L. McNutt. 2006. A major ecosystem shift in the Northern 

Bering Sea. Science, doi: 10.1126/science.1121365, 311, 1461-1464. 

Hibler, W.D. III. 1979. A dynamic and thermodynamic sea ice model. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 9, 

15,959-15,969.

Hibler, W.D. III. 1980. Modeling a variable thickness sea ice cover. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108,

1943-1973.

Hibler, III, W.D. and K. Bryan. 1987. A diagnostic ice-ocean model. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 17, 

987-1015.

Hu, H. and J. Wang. 2008. Modeling the ocean circulation in the Bering Sea. Ocean Modeling

(under revision). 

Hunke, E. C. and J. K. Dukowicz. 1997. An elastic-viscous-plastic model for sea ice dynamics. J. 

Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849-1867. 

Inoue, J., T. Kikuchi, D.K. Perovich, J.H. Morison. 2005. A drop in mid-summer shortwave 

radiation induced by changes in the ice-surface condition in the central Arctic. Geophys. Res. 

Lett., 32 (13): Art. No. L13603. 

Kantha, L.H. and G.L. Mellor. 1989. Application of a two-dimensional coupled ocean-ice model to 

the Bering Sea marginal ice zone. J. Geophys. Res., 94, 10,921-10,936. 

Kantha, L.H. and C.A. Clayson. 1994. An improved mixed layer model for geophysical 

applications. J. Geophys. Res., 99(C12), 25,235-25,266. 
81

Kowalik, Z. and A. Proshutinsky. 1994. The Arctic Ocean Tides, In: The Polar Oceans and Their 

Role in Shaping the Global Environment: Nansen Centennial Volume. Geoph. Monograph 85, 

AGU, pp 137-158. 

Mahoney, A., H. Eicken, A.G. Gaylord, and L. Shapiro. 2007a. Alaska landfast sea ice: Links with 

bathymetry and atmospheric circulation. J. Geophys. Res., 112, C02001, 

doi:10.1029/2006JC003559. 

Mahoney, A., H. Eicken, and L. Shapiro. 2007b. How fast is landfast ice? A study of the 

attachment and detachment of nearshore ice at Barrow, Alaska. Cold Regions Science and 

Technology, 47, 233-255. 

Manley, T.O. and K. Hunkins. 1985. Mesoscale eddies of the Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 

90:4911–4930.

Maslanik, J., S. Drobot, C. Fowler, W. Emery, and R. Barry. 2007. On the Arctic climate paradox 

and the continuing role of atmospheric circulation in affecting sea ice conditions. Geophys. 

Res. Lett., 34 (3): Art. No. L03711. 

Melling, H. 1993. The formation of a haline shelf front in wintertime in an ice-covered sea. 

Continen. Shelf. Res., 13, 1123-1147 

Mellor, G.L. 2004. Users guide for a 3-D, primitive equation, numerical ocean model. 

Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton Univ. (Princeton, NJ 08540), 39 pp. 

Mellor, G.L. and L. Kantha. 1989. An ice-ocean coupled model. J. Geophys. Res., 94, 

10,937-10,954.

Mizobata, K., S.-I. Saitoh, and J. Wang. 2008. Summer biological enhancement in relation to the 

mesoscale eddy at the shelf break in the vicinity of the Pribilof Islands. Deep Sea Res. II, 

doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.03.002 

Muench R.D., J.T. Gunn, T.E. Whitledge, P. Schlosser, and W. Smethie. 2002. An Arctic Ocean 

cold core eddy. J. Geophys. Res., 105 (C10): 23,997-24,006. 
82

Münchow, A. and E.C. Carmack. 1997. Synoptic flow and density observations near an arctic 

shelf break. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1402–1419. 

Nihoul, J.C.J, P. Adam, P. Brasseur, E. Deleersnijder, S. Djenidi, and J. Haus. 1993. 

Three-dimensional general circulation model of the northern Bering Sea’s summer 

ecohydrodynamics. Continen. Shelf Res.,13, 509-542. 

Ohshima, K.I. and S. Nihashi. 2005. A simple ice-ocean coupled model for the Antarctic ice melt 

season. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 35, 188-201. 

Pickart, R.S. 2004. Shelfbreak circulation in the Alaska Beaufort Sea: Mean structure and 

variability. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C04024 doi: 10.1029/2003JC001912. 

Pickart, R.S., T.J. Weingartner, L.J. Pratt, S. Zimmermann, and D.J. Torres. 2005. Flow of 

winter-transformed Pacific water into the Western Arctic. Deep-Sea Res., Part II, 52 (24-26): 

3175-3198. 

Shimada, K., T. Kamoshida, M. Itoh, S. Nishino, E. Carmack, F. McLaughlin, S. Zimmermann, 

and A. Proshutinsky. 2006. Pacific Ocean inflow: Influence on catastrophic reduction of sea 

ice cover in the Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08605, doi:10.1029/2005GL025624. 

Shuert, P.G. and J.J. Walsh. 1993. A coupled physical-biological model of the Bering-Chukchi 

seas. Continen. Shelf Res.,13, 543-573. 

Steele, M., R. Rebecca, and W. Ermold. 2001. PHC: A global ocean hydrography with a highquality Arctic Ocean. J. Climate, 14, 2079-2087. 

Thorndike, A.S., D.A. Rothrock, G.A. Maykut, and R. Colony. 1975. The thickness distribution of 

sea ice. J. Geophys. Res., 80, 4,501-4,513 

Thomson, D.J. 1987. Criteria for selection of stochastic models of particle trajectories in turbulent 

flow. J. Fluid Mech. 180:529–556. 

Vazquez et al. 1998. "NOAA/NASA AVHRR Oceans Pathfinder Sea Surface Temperature Data 

Set User's Reference Manual Version 4.0." 10 April 1998, JPL Publication D-14070. 
83

Wang, J., L.A. Mysak, and R.G. Ingram. 1994a. A numerical simulation of sea-ice cover in Hudson 

Bay, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 24, 2515-253. 

Wang, J, L.A. Mysak, and R.G. Ingram. 1994b. Interannual variability of sea-ice cover in Hudson 

 Bay, Baffin Bay and the Labrador Sea. Atmosphere-Ocean, 32(2): 421-447. 

Wang, J. 1998. A two-channel laterally averaged estuarine circulation model (LAECIM). J. 

Geophys. Res., 103: 18,381-18,391. 

Wang, J. 1999. A nowcast/forecast system for coastal ocean circulation (NFSCOC). International 

Arctic Research Center-Frontier Research System for Global Change. IARC/Frontier Tech. 

Rep. No. 99-1. University of Alaska Fairbanks, 97 pp. 

Wang, J., V. Patrick, J. Allen, S. Vaughan, C.N.K. Mooers, and M. Jin. 1999. Modeling seasonal 

ocean circulation of Prince William Sound, Alaska using freshwater of a line source. In Coastal 

Engineering and Marina Development, eds. C.A. Brebbia and P. Anagnostopoulos. WIT Press, 

Southampton-Boston, pp 55-66. 

Wang, J. and M. Ikeda. 1997. Diagnosing ocean unstable baroclinic waves and meanders using 

quasi-geostrophic equations and Q-vector method. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 27(6): 1158-1172. 

Wang, J. and M. Ikeda. 2000. Arctic Oscillation and Arctic Sea-Ice Oscillation. Geophys. Res. 

Lett. 27, 1287-1290.

Wang, J. 2001. A nowcast/forecast system for coastal ocean circulation (NFSCOC) with a simple 

nudging data assimilation. Journal of Atmospheric Oceanic Technology,18(6), 1037-1047. 

Wang, J. and M. Ikeda. 2001. Arctic Sea-Ice Oscillation: Regional and seasonal perspectives. 

Annals of Glaciology, 33, 481-492. 

Wang, J., M. Jin, V. Patrick, J. Allen, D. Eslinger, C. Mooers and T. Cooney. 2001a. Numerical 

simulation of the seasonal ocean circulation patterns and thermohaline structure of Prince 

William Sound, Alaska. Fisheries Oceanogr., 10 (Suppl. 1), 132-148. 
84

Wang, J., Q. Liu, M. Jin. 2001b. A nested coupled ice-ocean model for the Beaufort Sea. Annual 

Report No. 8. University of Alaska, MMS/Alaska OCS Region. Anchorage, Dept. of the Interior, 

pp 80-94. 

Wang, J., Q. Liu, and M. Jin. 2002a. A User’s Guide for a Coupled Ice-Ocean Model (CIOM) in the 

Pan-Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans. International Arctic Research Center-Frontier Research 

System for Global Change, Tech. Rep. 02-01, 65 pp. 

Wang, J., Q. Liu, and M. Jin. 2002b. A nested coupled ice-ocean model for the Beaufort Sea. 

Annual Report No. 8. University of Alaska, MMS/Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Dept. of the 

Interior, pp 80-94. 

Wang, J. 2003. Proceedings of a Workshop on Small-Scale Sea-Ice and Ocean Modeling (SIOM) in 

the Nearshore Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Final Report, Coastal Marine Institute, University of 

Alaska, OCS Study MMS 2003-043, 56pp. 

Wang, J., M. Jin, M. Ikeda, K. Shimada, and J. Takahashi. 2003a. Validation of a nested coupled 

ice-ocean model in the Beaufort Sea. Annual Report No. 9. University of Alaska, MMS/Alaska 

OCS Region, Anchorage, Dept. of the Interior, pp 19-31. 

Wang, J., R. Kwok, F.J. Saucier, J. Hutchings, M. Ikeda, W. Hibler III, J. Haapala, M.D. Coon, 

H.E.M. Meier, H. Eicken, N. Tanaka, R. Prentki, and W. Johnson. 2003b. Working towards 

improved small-scale sea ice and ocean modeling in the Arctic seas. EOS, AGU, Vol . 84 (34), 

325, 329-330. 

Wang, J., M. Ikeda and F. Saucier. 2003c. A theoretical, two-layer, reduced-gravity model for 

descending dense water flow on continental slopes. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C5), 3161, doi: 

10.1029/2000JC000517. 

Wang, J., M. Jin, M. Ikeda, K. Shimada, and J. Takahashi. 2003d. The validation of a nested 

coupled ice-ocean model in the Beaufort Sea. Annual Report No. 9. University of Alaska, 

MMS/Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Dept. of the Interior. 

Wang, J., B. Wu, C. Tang, J.E. Walsh, and M. Ikeda. 2004. Seesaw structure of subsurface 

temperature anomalies between the Barents Sea and the Labrador Sea. Geophys. Res. Lett., 

31, L19301, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019981. 
85

Wang, J., Q. Liu, M. Jin, M. Ikeda and F.J. Saucier. 2005. A coupled ice-ocean model in the 

pan-Arctic and the northern North Atlantic Ocean: Simulation of seasonal cycles. J. Oceanogr., 

61, 213-233. 

Wang, J., H. Hu, K. Mizobata, and S. Saitoh. 2008. Seasonal variations of sea ice and ocean 

circulation in the Bering Sea: A model-data fusion study. J. Geophys. Res. (accepted with 

revision) 

Watanabe, E., J. Wang, T. Sumi, and H. Hasumi. 2006. Arctic Dipole and its contribution to sea 

ice export from the Arctic in the last 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L23703, 

doi:10.1029/2006GL028112. 

Weingartner, T.J., D.J. Cavalieri, K. Aagaard, and Y. Sasaki. 1998. Circulation, dense water 

formation, and outflow on northeast Chukchi shelf. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 7647-7661. 

Weingartner, T.J., S. Danielson, Y. Sasaki, V. Pavlov, and M. Kulakov. 1999. The Siberian 

Coastal Current: a wind and buoyancy-forced arctic coastal current. J. Geophys Res., 104: 

29,697–29,713. 

Weingartner, T.J., K. Aagaard, R. Woodgate, S. Danielson, Y. Sasaki, and D.J. Cavalieri. 2005. 

Circulation on the north central Chukchi Sea shelf. Deep Sea Res. II, 3150-3174.

Winsor, P. and D. Chapman. 2004. Pathways of Pacific water across the Chukchi Sea: A numerical 

model study. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C03002, doi:10.1029/2003JC001962. 

Woodgate, R., T.J. Weingartner, and K. Aagaard, 2005. A year in the physical oceanography of the 

Chukchi Sea: Moored measurements from autumn 1990-1991. Deep Sea Res. II, 3116-3149. 

Wu, B., J. Wang, and R. Zhang. 2004. Effects of intraseasonal variations of the Arctic Oscillation on 

the Barents Sea. Polar Meteorolo. Glaciol., 18, 82-95. 

Wu, B., J. Wang, and J.E. Walsh. 2006. Dipole anomaly in the winter Arctic atmosphere and its 

association with Arctic sea ice motion. J. Clim., 19(2), 210-225. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3619.1
86

Yang, J. 2006. The seasonal variability of the Arctic Ocean Ekman transport and its role in the 

mixed layer heat and salt fluxes. J. Clim., 19, 5366-5387. 

Yao, T., C.L. Tang, and I.K. Peterson. 2000. Modeling the seasonal variation of sea ice in the 

Labrador Sea with a coupled multi-category ice model and the Princeton Ocean Model. J. 

Geophys. Res., 105 (C1), 1153-1165. 

Zhang, X., J.E. Walsh, J. Zhang, U.S. Bhatt, and M. Ikeda. 2004. Climatology and interannual 

variability of Arctic cyclone activity, 1948-2002. J. Clim. 17: 2300-2317. 
The Minerals Management Service Mission

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation’s Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and 

Indian lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management 

Program administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and 

environmentally sound exploration and production of our Nation’s offshore natural gas, oil and 

other mineral resources. The MMS Royalty Management Program meets its responsibilities 

by ensuring the efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from 

mineral leasing and production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury.

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principals of: (1) being 

responsive to the public’s concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection. 

The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.