The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume
Abstract
[1] Uncertainty in the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) Arctic sea ice volume record is characterized. A range of observations and approaches, including in situ ice thickness measurements, ICESat retrieved ice thickness, and model sensitivity studies, yields a conservative estimate for October Arctic ice volume uncertainty of 1.35 × 103 km3 and an uncertainty of the ice volume trend over the 1979–2010 period of 1.0 × 103 km3 decade–1. A conservative estimate of the trend over this period is −2.8 × 103 km3 decade–1. PIOMAS ice thickness estimates agree well with ICESat ice thickness retrievals (<0.1 m mean difference) for the area for which submarine data are available, while difference outside this area are larger. PIOMAS spatial thickness patterns agree well with ICESat thickness estimates with pattern correlations of above 0.8. PIOMAS appears to overestimate thin ice thickness and underestimate thick ice, yielding a smaller downward trend than apparent in reconstructions from observations. PIOMAS ice volume uncertainties and trends are examined in the context of climate change attribution and the declaration of record minima. The distribution of 32 year trends in a preindustrial coupled model simulation shows no trends comparable to those seen in the PIOMAS retrospective, even when the trend uncertainty is accounted for. Attempts to label September minima as new record lows are sensitive to modeling error. However, the September 2010 ice volume anomaly did in fact exceed the previous 2007 minimum by a large enough margin to establish a statistically significant new record.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Recent and future changes in Arctic sea ice simulated by the HadCM3 AOGCM
Gregory, J. M., Stott, P. A., Cresswell, D. J., Rayner, N. A., Gordon, C., & Sexton, D. M. H. (2002) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2001gl014575 · Cited by 145
Cited by
Anomalous collapses of Nares Strait ice arches leads to enhanced export of Arctic sea ice
Moore, G. W. K., Howell, S. E. L., Brady, M., Xu, X., & McNeil, K. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20314-w · Cited by 5,155
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., et al. (2020) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2019rg000678 · Cited by 1,254
The Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6)
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerny, J., et al. (2019) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2019jd030943 · Cited by 786
When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?
Overland, J. E., & Wang, M. (2013) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/grl.50316 · Cited by 554
Metadata
- Authors
- Schweiger, A., Lindsay, R., Zhang, J., Steele, M., Stern, H., & Kwok, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2011-09-27
- Volume
- 116
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019314030
- Cited by
- 692
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2011jc007084
- The paper
- Schweiger, A., Lindsay, R., Zhang, J., Steele, M., Stern, H., & Kwok, R. (2011). Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume. Journal of Geophysical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011jc007084
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.