Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11765/12882
An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models
Title: An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models
Authors: Keen, AnnBlockley, EdBailey, David A.Boldingh Debernard, JensBushuk, MitchellDelhaye, SteveDocquier, DavidFeltham, DanielMassonnet, FrançoisO’Farrell, SiobhanPonsoni, LeandroRodríguez González, José MaríaAutor AEMETSchroeder, DavidSwart, NeilToyoda, TakahiroTsujino, HiroyukiVancoppenolle, MartinWyser, Klaus
Keywords: Arctic sea ice; Sea ice models; CMIP6; Seasonal cycle
Issue Date: 2021
Publisher: European Geosciences Union; Copernicus Publications
Citation: The Cryosphere. 2021, 15(2), p. 951–982
Publisher version: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021
Abstract: We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice for 15 models submitted to the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), using new diagnostics that have not been available for previous model inter-comparisons. These diagnostics allow us to look beyond the standard metrics of ice cover and thickness to compare the processes of sea ice growth and loss in climate models in a more detailed way than has previously been possible. For the 1960–1989 multi-model mean, the dominant processes causing annual ice growth are basal growth and frazil ice formation, which both occur during the winter. The main processes by which ice is lost are basal melting, top melting and advection of ice out of the Arctic. The first two processes occur in summer, while the latter process is present all year. The sea ice budgets for individual models are strikingly similar overall in terms of the major processes causing ice growth and loss and in terms of the time of year during which each process is important. However, there are also some key differences between the models, and we have found a number of relationships between model formulation and components of the ice budget that hold for all or most of the CMIP6 models considered here. The relative amounts of frazil and basal ice formation vary between the models, and the amount of frazil ice formation is strongly dependent on the value chosen for the minimum frazil ice thickness. There are also differences in the relative amounts of top and basal melting, potentially dependent on how much shortwave radiation can penetrate through the sea ice into the ocean. For models with prognostic melt ponds, the choice of scheme may affect the amount of basal growth, basal melt and top melt, and the choice of thermodynamic scheme is important in determining the amount of basal growth and top melt.
Sponsorship : The ACCESS-CM2 CMIP6 submission was jointly funded through CSIRO and the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub of the Australian government’s National Environmental Science Program, with support from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. The ACCESS model simulations and data publication were supported by the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI).
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11765/12882
ISSN: 1994-0416
1994-0424
Appears in Collections:Artículos científicos 2019-2021


Files in This Item:
  File Description SizeFormat 
tc-15-951-2021.pdf
15,51 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record



Items in Arcimís are protected by Creative Commons License, unless otherwise indicated.

Arcimís Repository
Nota Legal Contacto y sugerencias