Articles | Volume 13, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
19 Jul 2019
Research article |
| 19 Jul 2019
| 19 Jul 2019
Induced surface fluxes: a new framework for attributing Arctic sea ice volume balance biases to specific model errors
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Mat Collins
Centre for Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4SB, UK
Ed Blockley
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Jeff Ridley
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Related authors
Prince Xavier, Martin Willett, Tim Graham, Paul Earnshaw, Dan Copsey, Nikesh Narayan, Charline Marzin, Alistair Sellar, Duncan Ackerley, Adam Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Andrew Bushell, Nakbin Choi, Xin Rong Chua, Catherine Guiavarc'h, Muhammad Hassim, Julian Heming, Debra Hudson, Sarah Ineson, Anthony Jones, Colin Jones, Richard Keane, Kiwook Kim, Jiyeong Kim, Till Kuhlbrodt, Myong-In Lee, Richard Levine, Chen Li, Gill Martin, Alex Megann, Anne Mccabe, Aurel Moise, Leighton Regayre, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Sandeep Sahany, Reinhard K. H. Schiemann, David Storkey, Warren Tennant, Lorenzo Tomassini, Yoko Tsushima, Graham P. Weedon, Alex West, Matthew C. Wheeler, Keith Williams, Xiaobing Zhou, and Hongyan Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
GC5 is the Met Office's newest climate and weather model, combining an updated atmosphere/land component with an improved ocean and sea-ice component. Compared to its predecessor GC4, it better simulates global temperatures, winds, monsoons over India and SE Asia, and African weather, and forecasts tropical cyclones more accurately. Southern Ocean errors shrank too. Some tropical patterns and regional biases worsened slightly. A lower-resolution version will underpin the UK's Earth System Model.
Louise C. Sime, Rachel Diamond, Christian Stepanek, Chris Brierley, David Schroeder, Masa Kageyama, Matthew Pollock, Irene Malmierca-Vallet, Ed Blockley, Alex West, Danny Feltham, Jeff Ridley, Pascale Braconnot, Charles J. R. Williams, Xiaoxu Shi, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Sophia I. Macarewich, Silvana Ramos Buarque, Qiong Zhang, Allegra LeGrande, Weipeng Zheng, Dabang Jiang, Polina Morozova, Chuncheng Guo, Zhongshi Zhang, Nicholas Yeung, Laurie Menviel, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Masakazu Yoshimori, Olivia Reeves, and Anni Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 5881–5905, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5881-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5881-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic may have lost its summer sea ice 127,000 years ago during a naturally warm period in Earth’s past. Climate models can be tested by recreating those conditions, with similar sunlight and greenhouse gas levels. Analysing the large sea ice changes in these simulations helps us understand how the Arctic might respond in the near future and improves how we test and trust our climate models.
Alex E. West and Edward W. Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3041–3064, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses ice mass balance buoys – temperature- and height-measuring devices frozen into sea ice – to find how well climate models simulate (1) melt and growth of Arctic sea ice and (2) conduction of heat through Arctic sea ice. This may help understand why models produce varying amounts of sea ice in the present day. We find that models tend to show more melt, growth or conduction for a given ice thickness than the buoys, although the difference is smaller for models with more physically realistic thermodynamics.
Ed Blockley, Emma Fiedler, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Alex West, Dan Copsey, Daniel Feltham, Tim Graham, David Livings, Clement Rousset, David Schroeder, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6799–6817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents the sea ice model component of the latest Met Office coupled model configuration, which will be used as the physical basis for UK contributions to CMIP7. Documentation of science options used in the configuration are given along with a brief model evaluation. This is the first UK configuration to use NEMO’s new SI3 sea ice model. We provide details on how SI3 was adapted to work with Met Office coupling methodology and documentation of coupling processes in the model.
Alex West, Edward Blockley, and Matthew Collins
The Cryosphere, 16, 4013–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we explore a method of examining model differences in ice volume by looking at the seasonal ice growth and melt. We use simple physical relationships to judge how model differences in key variables affect ice growth and melt and apply these to three case study models with ice volume ranging from very thin to very thick. Results suggest that differences in snow and melt pond cover in early summer are most important in causing the sea ice differences for these models.
Paulo Ceppi, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Mark D. Zelinka, Timothy Andrews, Florent Brient, Robin Chadwick, An-Zhuo Dai, Jonathan M. Gregory, Yen-Ting Hwang, Sarah M. Kang, Jennifer E. Kay, Thorsten Mauritsen, Tomoo Ogura, George Tselioudis, Masahiro Watanabe, Mark J. Webb, and Allison A. Wing
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 8693–8708, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8693-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8693-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds constitute a key uncertainty for climate change projections. The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) aims to address this challenge by evaluating and understanding clouds and their impacts on atmospheric circulation, precipitation, and climate sensitivity. The present paper describes the CFMIP experiment protocol for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 7 (CMIP7), and discusses the accompanying science questions and opportunities for progress.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathan Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Medeiros, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Phil Kershaw, André Lanfer Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O'Rourke, Beth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 7415–7455, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-7415-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-7415-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) is a community-driven platform for benchmarking and performance assessment of Earth system models. Built upon four disparate community evaluation tools, the REF is designed to provide model-data comparisons for the Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The REF will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation to enable model devleopers and scientists to quickly identify model biases and performance issues.
Prince Xavier, Martin Willett, Tim Graham, Paul Earnshaw, Dan Copsey, Nikesh Narayan, Charline Marzin, Alistair Sellar, Duncan Ackerley, Adam Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Andrew Bushell, Nakbin Choi, Xin Rong Chua, Catherine Guiavarc'h, Muhammad Hassim, Julian Heming, Debra Hudson, Sarah Ineson, Anthony Jones, Colin Jones, Richard Keane, Kiwook Kim, Jiyeong Kim, Till Kuhlbrodt, Myong-In Lee, Richard Levine, Chen Li, Gill Martin, Alex Megann, Anne Mccabe, Aurel Moise, Leighton Regayre, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Sandeep Sahany, Reinhard K. H. Schiemann, David Storkey, Warren Tennant, Lorenzo Tomassini, Yoko Tsushima, Graham P. Weedon, Alex West, Matthew C. Wheeler, Keith Williams, Xiaobing Zhou, and Hongyan Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4281, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
GC5 is the Met Office's newest climate and weather model, combining an updated atmosphere/land component with an improved ocean and sea-ice component. Compared to its predecessor GC4, it better simulates global temperatures, winds, monsoons over India and SE Asia, and African weather, and forecasts tropical cyclones more accurately. Southern Ocean errors shrank too. Some tropical patterns and regional biases worsened slightly. A lower-resolution version will underpin the UK's Earth System Model.
Louise C. Sime, Rachel Diamond, Christian Stepanek, Chris Brierley, David Schroeder, Masa Kageyama, Matthew Pollock, Irene Malmierca-Vallet, Ed Blockley, Alex West, Danny Feltham, Jeff Ridley, Pascale Braconnot, Charles J. R. Williams, Xiaoxu Shi, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Sophia I. Macarewich, Silvana Ramos Buarque, Qiong Zhang, Allegra LeGrande, Weipeng Zheng, Dabang Jiang, Polina Morozova, Chuncheng Guo, Zhongshi Zhang, Nicholas Yeung, Laurie Menviel, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Masakazu Yoshimori, Olivia Reeves, and Anni Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 5881–5905, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5881-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5881-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic may have lost its summer sea ice 127,000 years ago during a naturally warm period in Earth’s past. Climate models can be tested by recreating those conditions, with similar sunlight and greenhouse gas levels. Analysing the large sea ice changes in these simulations helps us understand how the Arctic might respond in the near future and improves how we test and trust our climate models.
John W. Rostron, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, David M. H. Sexton, Colin G. Jones, Edward W. Blockley, Till Kuhlbrodt, Jane P. Mulcahy, Tamzin E. Palmer, Saloua Peatier, Mark A. Ringer, Steven T. Rumbold, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Yongming Tang, and Martin R. Willet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1676, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1676, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Met Office’s latest weather and climate model warms very strongly in response to increases in carbon dioxide. We created a modified version of the model with a more moderate warming response by adjusting key model parameters, using both automated methods and expert judgement. The new model matches historical temperatures more closely and is better suited for studies of long‑term climate, but has reduced overall accuracy when simulating the baseline climate.
Andrew G. Pauling, Inga J. Smith, Torge Martin, Jeff K. Ridley, David P. Stevens, Max Thomas, Rebecca L. Beadling, Christopher Danek, Tore Hattermann, Qian Li, John Marshall, Morven Muilwijk, Ariaan Purich, and Neil C. Swart
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-658, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-658, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models typically do not include meltwater entering the Southern Ocean due to Antarctic ice sheet mass loss. Previous work shows this meltwater drives sea ice growth, but the varying responses have been difficult to compare across models. We ran 11 climate models using the same meltwater input and found a wide range of sea ice responses depending on the background state in each model. Understanding this uncertainty in response is important for future projections of Antarctic sea ice.
Alison J. McLaren, Louise C. Sime, Simon Wilson, Jeff Ridley, Qinggang Gao, Merve Gorguner, Giorgia Line, Martin Werner, and Paul Valdes
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 8129–8142, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8129-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8129-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We describe a new development in a state-of-the-art computer atmosphere model, which follows the movement of the model’s water. This provides an efficient way to track all the model's rain and snow back to the average location of the evaporative source, as shown in a present-day simulation. The new scheme can be used in simulations of the future to predict how sources of regional rain or snowfall might change owing to human actions, providing useful information for water management purposes.
Davi Mignac, Jennifer Waters, Daniel J. Lea, Matthew J. Martin, James While, Anthony T. Weaver, Arthur Vidard, Catherine Guiavarc'h, Dave Storkey, David Ford, Edward W. Blockley, Jonathan Baker, Keith Haines, Martin R. Price, Michael J. Bell, and Richard Renshaw
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3405–3425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3405-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3405-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We describe major improvements of the Met Office's global ocean–sea ice forecasting system. The models and the way observations are used to improve the forecasts were changed, which led to a significant error reduction of 1 d forecasts. The new system performance in past conditions, where subsurface observations are scarce, was improved with more consistent ocean heat content estimates. The new system will be of better use for climate studies and will provide improved forecasts for end users.
Laurent Bertino, Patrick Heimbach, Ed Blockley, and Einar Ólason
State Planet, 5-opsr, 14, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-5-opsr-14-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-5-opsr-14-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts of sea ice are in high demand in the polar regions, and they are also quickly improving and becoming more easily accessible to non-experts. We provide here a brief status of the short-term forecasting services – typically 10 d ahead – and an outlook of their upcoming developments.
Alex E. West and Edward W. Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3041–3064, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses ice mass balance buoys – temperature- and height-measuring devices frozen into sea ice – to find how well climate models simulate (1) melt and growth of Arctic sea ice and (2) conduction of heat through Arctic sea ice. This may help understand why models produce varying amounts of sea ice in the present day. We find that models tend to show more melt, growth or conduction for a given ice thickness than the buoys, although the difference is smaller for models with more physically realistic thermodynamics.
David Storkey, Pierre Mathiot, Michael J. Bell, Dan Copsey, Catherine Guiavarc'h, Helene T. Hewitt, Jeff Ridley, and Malcolm J. Roberts
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2725–2745, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2725-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2725-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Southern Ocean is a key region of the world ocean in the context of climate change studies. We show that the Met Office Hadley Centre coupled model with intermediate ocean resolution struggles to accurately simulate the Southern Ocean. Increasing the frictional drag that the seafloor exerts on ocean currents and introducing a representation of unresolved ocean eddies both appear to reduce the large-scale biases in this model.
Catherine Guiavarc'h, David Storkey, Adam T. Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alex Megann, Helene Hewitt, Michael J. Bell, Daley Calvert, Dan Copsey, Bablu Sinha, Sophia Moreton, Pierre Mathiot, and Bo An
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 377–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Ocean and Sea Ice configuration version 9 (GOSI9) is the new UK hierarchy of model configurations based on the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) and available at three resolutions. It will be used for various applications, e.g. weather forecasting and climate prediction. It improves upon the previous version by reducing global temperature and salinity biases and enhancing the representation of Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Jacqueline E. Russell, Richard J. Bantges, Helen E. Brindley, and Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 4243–4266, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-4243-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-4243-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a dataset of top-of-atmosphere diurnally resolved reflected solar and emitted thermal energy for Earth system model evaluation. The multi-year, monthly hourly dataset, derived from observations made by the Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget instrument, covers the range 60° N–60° S, 60° E–60° W at 1° resolution. Comparison with two versions of the Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model highlight how the data can be used to assess updates to key model parameterizations.
Ed Blockley, Emma Fiedler, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Alex West, Dan Copsey, Daniel Feltham, Tim Graham, David Livings, Clement Rousset, David Schroeder, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6799–6817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents the sea ice model component of the latest Met Office coupled model configuration, which will be used as the physical basis for UK contributions to CMIP7. Documentation of science options used in the configuration are given along with a brief model evaluation. This is the first UK configuration to use NEMO’s new SI3 sea ice model. We provide details on how SI3 was adapted to work with Met Office coupling methodology and documentation of coupling processes in the model.
Maria Vittoria Guarino, Louise C. Sime, Rachel Diamond, Jeff Ridley, and David Schroeder
Clim. Past, 19, 865–881, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-19-865-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-19-865-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the response of the atmosphere, ocean, and ice domains to the release of a large volume of glacial meltwaters thought to have occurred during the Last Interglacial period. We show that the signal that originated in the North Atlantic travels over great distances across the globe. It modifies the ocean gyre circulation in the Northern Hemisphere as well as the belt of westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, with consequences for Antarctic sea ice.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Antony Siahaan, Robin S. Smith, Paul R. Holland, Adrian Jenkins, Jonathan M. Gregory, Victoria Lee, Pierre Mathiot, Antony J. Payne, Jeff K. Ridley, and Colin G. Jones
The Cryosphere, 16, 4053–4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4053-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4053-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The UK Earth System Model is the first to fully include interactions of the atmosphere and ocean with the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Under the low-greenhouse-gas SSP1–1.9 (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway) scenario, the ice sheet remains stable over the 21st century. Under the strong-greenhouse-gas SSP5–8.5 scenario, the model predicts strong increases in melting of large ice shelves and snow accumulation on the surface. The dominance of accumulation leads to a sea level fall at the end of the century.
Alex West, Edward Blockley, and Matthew Collins
The Cryosphere, 16, 4013–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we explore a method of examining model differences in ice volume by looking at the seasonal ice growth and melt. We use simple physical relationships to judge how model differences in key variables affect ice growth and melt and apply these to three case study models with ice volume ranging from very thin to very thick. Results suggest that differences in snow and melt pond cover in early summer are most important in causing the sea ice differences for these models.
Adam William Bateson, Daniel L. Feltham, David Schröder, Yanan Wang, Byongjun Hwang, Jeff K. Ridley, and Yevgeny Aksenov
The Cryosphere, 16, 2565–2593, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2565-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-2565-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical models are used to understand the mechanisms that drive the evolution of the Arctic sea ice cover. The sea ice cover is formed of pieces of ice called floes. Several recent studies have proposed variable floe size models to replace the standard model assumption of a fixed floe size. In this study we show the need to include floe fragmentation processes in these variable floe size models and demonstrate that model design can determine the impact of floe size on size ice evolution.
Emma K. Fiedler, Matthew J. Martin, Ed Blockley, Davi Mignac, Nicolas Fournier, Andy Ridout, Andrew Shepherd, and Rachel Tilling
The Cryosphere, 16, 61–85, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-61-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-61-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice thickness (SIT) observations derived from CryoSat-2 satellite measurements have been successfully used to initialise an ocean and sea ice forecasting model (FOAM). Other centres have previously used gridded and averaged SIT observations for this purpose, but we demonstrate here for the first time that SIT measurements along the satellite orbit track can be used. Validation of the resulting modelled SIT demonstrates improvements in the model performance compared to a control.
Emily A. Hill, Sebastian H. R. Rosier, G. Hilmar Gudmundsson, and Matthew Collins
The Cryosphere, 15, 4675–4702, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-4675-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-4675-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Using an ice flow model and uncertainty quantification methods, we provide probabilistic projections of future sea level rise from the Filchner–Ronne region of Antarctica. We find that it is most likely that this region will contribute negatively to sea level rise over the next 300 years, largely as a result of increased surface mass balance. We identify parameters controlling ice shelf melt and snowfall contribute most to uncertainties in projections.
Cited articles
Anderson, M., Bliss, A., and Drobot, S.: Snow Melt Onset Over Arctic Sea Ice
from SMMR and SSM/I-SSMIS Brightness Temperatures, Version 3, Boulder,
Colorado USA, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active
Archive Centerm https://doi.org/10.5067/22NFZL42RMUO, 2011 (updated 2012).
Bitz, C. M.: Some Aspects of Uncertainty in Predicting Sea Ice Thinning, in:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and
Implications, edited by: DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M., and Tremblay, L.-B., American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.1029/180GM06, 2008.
Bitz, C. M. and Roe, G. H.: A Mechanism for the High Rate of Sea Ice
Thinning in the Arctic Ocean, J. Climate, 17, 3623–3632, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<3623:AMFTHR>2.0.CO;2, 2004.
Bitz, C. M., Holland, M. M., Hunke, E. C., and Moritz, R. M.: Maintenance of
the Sea-Ice Edge, J. Climate, 18, 2903–2921, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3428.1, 2005.
Boeke, R. C. and Taylor, P. C.: Evaluation of the Arctic surface radiation
budget in CMIP5 models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 8525–8548,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025099, 2016.
Cavalieri, D. J., Parkinson, C. L., Gloersen, P., and Zwally, H. J.:
updated yearly. Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP
SSM/I-SSMIS Passive Microwave Data, Version 1. (1980–1999),
Boulder, Colorado USA, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed
Active Archive Center, https://doi.org/10.5067/8GQ8LZQVL0VL, 1996.
Christensen, M. W., Behrangi, A., L'ecuyer, T. S., Wood, N. B., Lebsock, M.
D., and Stephens, G. L.: Arctic Observation and Reanalysis Integrated System:
A New Data Product for Validation and Climate Study, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc.,
97, 907–916, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00273.1, 2016.
Collins, W. J., Bellouin, N., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Gedney, N., Halloran,
P., Hinton, T., Hughes, J., Jones, D., Joshi, M., Liddicoat, S., Martin, G.,
O'Connor, F., Rae, J., Senior, C., Sitch, S., Totterdell, I., Wiltshire, A.,
and Woodward, S.: Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model –
HadGEM2, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 1051–1075, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-1051-2011, 2011.
Dee, D. P, Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Belsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., J., Haimberger, L., Healy,
S. B., Hersbach, H., Holm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler,
M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J.,
Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and
Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the
data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011.
DeWeaver, E. T., Hunke, E. C., and Holland, M. M.: Sensitivity of Arctic Sea
Ice Thickness to Intermodel Variations in the Surface Energy Budget. AGU
Geophysical Monograph 180: Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations,
Projections, Mechan. Imp., 180, 77–91, https://doi.org/10.1029/180GM07, 2008.
HadGEM2 Development Team: G. M. Martin, Bellouin, N., Collins, W. J., Culverwell, I. D., Halloran, P. R., Hardiman, S. C., Hinton, T. J., Jones, C. D., McDonald, R. E., McLaren, A. J., O'Connor, F. M., Roberts, M. J., Rodriguez, J. M., Woodward, S., Best, M. J., Brooks, M. E., Brown, A. R., Butchart, N., Dearden, C., Derbyshire, S. H., Dharssi, I., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Edwards, J. M., Falloon, P. D., Gedney, N., Gray, L. J., Hewitt, H. T., Hobson, M., Huddleston, M. R., Hughes, J., Ineson, S., Ingram, W. J., James, P. M., Johns, T. C., Johnson, C. E., Jones, A., Jones, C. P., Joshi, M. M., Keen, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Lock, A. P., Maidens, A. V., Manners, J. C., Milton, S. F., Rae, J. G. L., Ridley, J. K., Sellar, A., Senior, C. A., Totterdell, I. J., Verhoef, A., Vidale, P. L., and Wiltshire, A.: The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model climate configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 723–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-723-2011, 2011.
Holland, M. M., Serreze, M. C., and Stroeve, J.: The sea ice mass budget of the
Arctic and its future change as simulated by coupled climate models, Clim.
Dynam., 34, 185–200, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0493-4, 2010.
Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An Elastic-Viscous-Plastic Model for Sea
Ice Dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1997)027<1849:AEVPMF>2.0.CO;2, 1997.
Johns, T. C., Durman, C. F., Banks, H. T., Roberts, M. J., McLaren, A. J.,
Ridley, J. K., Senior, C. A., Williams, K. D., Jones, A., Rickard, G. J.,
Cusack, S., Ingram, W. J., Crucifix, M., Sexton, D. M. H., Joshi, M. M.,
Dong, B.-W., Spencer, H., Hill, R. S. R., Gregory, J. M., Keen, A. B.,
Pardaens, A. K., Lowe, J. A., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Stark, S., and Searl, Y.:
The New Hadley Centre Climate Model (HadGEM1): Evaluation of Coupled
Simulations, J. Climate, 19, 1327–1353, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3712.1, 2006.
Keen, A. and Blockley, E.: Investigating future changes in the volume budget of the Arctic sea ice in a coupled climate model, The Cryosphere, 12, 2855–2868, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2855-2018, 2018.
Laxon, S., Peacock, N., and Smith, D.: High interannual variability of sea
ice thickness in the Arctic region, Nature, 425, 947–950,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02050, 2003.
Laxon, S., Giles, K. A., Ridout, A., Wingham, D. J., Willatt, R., Cullen,
R., Kwok, R., Schweiger, A., Zhang, J., Haas, C., Hendricks, S., Krishfield,
R., Kurtz, N., Farrell, S., and Davidson, M.: Cryosat-2 estimates of Arctic
sea ice thickness and volume, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 732–737, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50193, 2013.
Lindsay, R.: Temporal Variability of the Energy Balance of Thick Arctic Pack
Ice, J. Climate, 11, 313–333, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<0313:TVOTEB>2.0.CO;2, 1998.
Lindsay, R., Wensnahan, M., Schweiger, A., and Zhang, J.: Evaluation of Seven
Difference Atmospheric Reanalysis Products in the Arctic, J. Climate, 27,
2588–2606, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00014.1, 2014.
Lindsay, R. and Schweiger, A.: Arctic sea ice thickness loss determined using subsurface, aircraft, and satellite observations, The Cryosphere, 9, 269–283, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-269-2015, 2015.
Lipscomb, W. H. and Hunke, E. C., Modeling Sea Ice Transport Using
Incremental Remapping, Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 1341–1354, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1341:MSITUI>2.0.CO;2, 2004.
Liu, J., Curry, J. A., Rossow, W. B., Key, J. R., and Wang, X.: Comparison of
surface radiative flux data sets over the Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 110, C02015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002381, 2005.
Loeb, N. G., Wielicki, B. A., Doelling, D. R., Louis Smith, G., Keyes, D.
F., Kato, S., Manalo-Smith, N., and Wong, T.: Toward Optimal Closure of the
Earth's Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget, J. Climate, 22, 748–766, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1, 2009.
Markus, T., Stroeve, J. C., and Miller, J.: Recent changes in Arctic sea ice
melt onset, freezeup, and melt season length, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C12024,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005436, 2009.
Maslanik, J., Stroeve, J. C., Fowler, C., and Emery, W.: Distribution and
trends in Arctic sea ice age through spring 2011, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38,
47735, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047735, 2011.
Massonnet, F., Fichefet, T., Goosse, H., Bitz, C. M., Philippon-Berthier, G., Holland, M. M., and Barriat, P.-Y.: Constraining projections of summer Arctic sea ice, The Cryosphere, 6, 1383–1394, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-1383-2012, 2012.
McLaren, A. J., Banks, H. T., Durman, C. F., Gregory, J. M., Johns, T. C.,
Keen, A. B., Ridley, J. K., Roberts, M. J., Lipscomb, W. H., Connolley, W.
M., and Laxon, S. W.: Evaluation of the sea ice simulation in a new coupled
atmosphere-ocean climate model (HadGEM1), J. Geophys. Res., 111, C12014,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003033, 2006.
McPhee, M. G., Kikuchi, T., Morison, J. H., and Stanton, T. P.: Ocean-to-ice
heat flux at the North Pole environmental observatory, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
30, 2274, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018580, 2003.
Notz, D.: How well must climate models agree with observations?, Philos. T.
Roy. Soc. A, 373, 20140164, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0164, 2015.
Perovich, D. K., Richter-Menge, J. A., Jones, K. F., and Light, B.: Sunlight,
water, and ice: Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2007,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034007, 2008.
Pithan, F., Medeiros, B., and Mauritsen, T.: Mixed-phase clouds cause climate
model biases in Arctic wintertime temperature inversions, Clim. Dynam., 43,
289–303, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1964-9, 2014.
Raddatz, R. L., Papakyriakou, T. N., Else, B. G., Asplin, M. G., Candlish,
L. M., Galley, R. J., and Barber, D. G.: Downwelling longwave radiation and
atmospheric winter states in the western maritime Arctic, Int. J. Clim., 35,
2339–2351, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4149, 2014.
Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L.
V., Rowell, D. P., Kent, E. C., and Kaplan, A.: Global analyses of sea
surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the
late nineteenth century, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4407, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002670, 2003.
Rothrock, D. A., Percival., D. B., and Wensnahan, M.: The decline in arctic
sea ice thickness: Separating the spatial., annual., and interannual
variability in a quarter century of submarine data, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
C05003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004252, 2008.
Rutan, D. A., Kato, S., Doelling, D. R., Rose, F. G., Nguyen, L. T.,
Caldwell, T. E., and Loeb, N. G.: CERES Synoptic Product: Methodology and
Validation of Surface Radiant Flux, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 32,
1121–1143, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00165.1, 2015.
Schauer, U., Fahrbach, E., Osterhus, S., and Rohardt,, G.: Arctic warming
through Fram Strait: Oceanic heat transport from 3 years of measurements, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 109, C06026, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001823, 2004.
Semtner, A. J.: A Model for the Thermodynamic Growth of Sea Ice in Numerical
Investigations of Climate, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 6, 379–389, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1976)006<0379:AMFTTG>2.0.CO;2, 1976.
Serreze, M. C., Barrett, A. P., Slater, A. G., Woodgate, R. A., Aagaard, K.,
Lammers, R. B., Steele. M., Moritz, R., Meredith, M., and Lee, C. M.: The
large-scale freshwater cycle of the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res., 111, C11010,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003424, 2006.
Serreze, M. C., Barratt, A. P., Slater, A. G., Steele, M., Zhang, J., and
Trenberth, K. E.: The large-scale energy budget of the Arctic, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, D11122, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008230, 2007.
Shu, Q., Song, Z., and Qiao, F.: Assessment of sea ice simulations in the CMIP5 models, The Cryosphere, 9, 399–409, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-399-2015, 2015.
Stammerjohn, S., Massom, R., Rind, D., and Martinson, D: Regions of rapid sea
ice change: An inter-hemispheric seasonal comparison, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
39, L06501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL050874, 2012.
Steele, M., Zhang, J., and Ermold, W.: Mechanisms of summer Arctic Ocean warming,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 115, C11004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005849, 2010.
Stramler, K., Del Genio, A. D., and Rossow, W. B.: Synoptically Driven Arctic
Winter States, J. Climate, 24, 1747–1762, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3817.1, 2011.
Stroeve, J. C., Kattsov, V, Barrett, A., Serreze, M., Pavlova, T., Holland,
M. M., and Meier, W. N.: Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3
and observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L16502, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052676, 2012a.
Stroeve, J. C., Serreze, M. C., Holland, M. M., Kay, J. E., Maslanik, J.,
and Barratt, A. P.: The Arctic's rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: a research
synthesis, Clim. Ch., 110, 1005–1027, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0101-1, 2012b.
Swart, N. C., Fyfe, J. C., Hawkins, E., Kay, J. E., and Jahn, A.: Influence
of internal variability on Arctic sea ice trends, Nat. Clim. Ch., 5, 86–89,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2483, 2015.
Titchner, H. A. and Rayner, N. A.: The Met Office Hadley Centre sea
ice and sea surface temperature data set, version 2: 1. Sea ice
concentrations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2864–2889, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020316, 2014.
Wang, M. and Overland, J. E.: A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years: An update from CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L18501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052868, 2012.
Wang, X., Key, J., Kwok, R., and Zhang, J.: Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice
Thickness from Satellites, Aircraft and PIOMAS data, Remote Sens., 8, 713, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8090713, 2016.
Zhang, J. and Rothrock, D. A.: Modeling Global Sea Ice with a Thickness and
Enthalpy Distribution Model in Generalized Curvilinear Coordinates, Mon.
Weather Rev., 131, 845–861, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2003)131<0845:MGSIWA>2.0.CO;2, 2003
Zhang, Y., Rossow, W. B., Lacis, A. A., Oinas, V., and Mishchenko, M. I.:
Calculation of radiative fluxes from the surface to top of atmosphere based
on ISCCP and other global data sets: Refinements of the radiative transfer
model and the input data, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D19105,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004457, 2004.
Short summary
This study presents a framework for examining the causes of model errors in Arctic sea ice volume, using HadGEM2-ES as a case study. Simple models are used to estimate how much of the error in energy arriving at the ice surface is due to error in key Arctic climate variables. The method quantifies how each variable affects sea ice volume balance and shows that for HadGEM2-ES an annual mean low bias in ice thickness is likely due to errors in surface melt onset.
This study presents a framework for examining the causes of model errors in Arctic sea ice...
