Articles | Volume 15, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021
© Author(s) 2021. 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-15-951-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
24 Feb 2021
Research article |
| 24 Feb 2021
| 24 Feb 2021
An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models
Ann Keen
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Ed Blockley
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
David A. Bailey
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO, USA
Jens Boldingh Debernard
Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
Mitchell Bushuk
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), Princeton, NJ, USA
Steve Delhaye
Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research (TECLIM),
Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
David Docquier
Rossby Centre, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI),
Norrköping, Sweden
Daniel Feltham
Centre for Polar Observations and Modelling (CPOM), University of
Reading, Reading, UK
François Massonnet
Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research (TECLIM),
Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Siobhan O'Farrell
CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
Leandro Ponsoni
Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research (TECLIM),
Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
José M. Rodriguez
Agencia Estatal de Meteorología (AEMET), Madrid, Spain
David Schroeder
Centre for Polar Observations and Modelling (CPOM), University of
Reading, Reading, UK
Neil Swart
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Canadian Centre for
Climate Modelling and Analysis, Victoria, BC, Canada
Takahiro Toyoda
Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba,
Japan
Hiroyuki Tsujino
Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba,
Japan
Martin Vancoppenolle
Laboratoire d'Océanographie et du Climat and Institut Pierre-Simon
Laplace (LOCEAN-IPSL), Paris, France
Klaus Wyser
Rossby Centre, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI),
Norrköping, Sweden
Related authors
No articles found.
Lise Seland Graff, Jerry Tjiputra, Ada Gjermundsen, Andreas Born, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Heiko Goelzer, Yan-Chun He, Petra Margaretha Langebroek, Aleksi Nummelin, Dirk Olivié, Øyvind Seland, Trude Storelvmo, Mats Bentsen, Chuncheng Guo, Andrea Rosendahl, Dandan Tao, Thomas Toniazzo, Camille Li, Stephen Outten, and Michael Schulz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1671–1698, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The magnitude of future Arctic amplification is highly uncertain. Using the Norwegian Earth System Model, we explore the effect of improving the representation of clouds, ocean eddies, the Greenland ice sheet, sea ice, and ozone on the projected Arctic winter warming in a coordinated experiment set. These improvements all lead to enhanced projected Arctic warming, with the largest changes found in the sea ice retreat regions and the largest uncertainty found on the Atlantic side.
Théo Brivoal, Virginie Guemas, Martin Vancoppenolle, Clément Rousset, and Bertrand Decharme
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6885–6902, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6885-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6885-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Snow in polar regions is key to sea ice formation and the Earth's climate, but current climate models simplify snow cover on sea ice. This study integrates an intermediate-complexity snow-physics scheme into a sea ice model designed for climate applications. We show that modeling the temporal changes in properties such as the density and thermal conductivity of the snow layers leads to a more accurate representation of heat transfer between the underlying sea ice and the atmosphere.
Léna L. Champiot-Bayard, Lester L. Kwiatkowski, and Martin M. Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4296, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4296, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
To investigate the future of primary production, we analyzed outputs from several climate models. Changes vary greatly from one region to another: some areas show large increases, while others experience little change or even declines. These differences reflect the balance between water temperature, light availability, and nutrient supply. We also found that the newer generation of climate models projects a much stronger increase than previous models, but with greater uncertainty.
Stephan Harrison, Adina Racoviteanu, Sarah Shannon, Darren Jones, Karen Anderson, Neil Glasser, Jasper Knight, Anna Ranger, Arindan Mandal, Bramha Dutt Vishwakarma, Jeffrey S. Kargel, Dan Shugar, Umesh Haritashya, Dongfeng Li, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Klaus Wyser, and Sam Inglis
The Cryosphere, 19, 4113–4124, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-4113-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-4113-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is leading to a global recession of mountain glaciers, and numerical modelling suggests that this will result in the rapid disappearance of many glaciers, impacting water supplies. However, an alternative scenario suggests that increased rock fall and debris flows to valley bottoms will cover glaciers with thick rock debris, slowing melting and transforming glaciers into rock–ice mixtures called rock glaciers. This paper explores these scenarios.
Louise C. Sime, Rachel Diamond, Christian Stepanek, Chris Brierley, David Schroeder, Masa Kageyama, 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, Olivia Reeves, Matthew Pollock, and Anni Zhao
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3531, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3531, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
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.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Annelies Sticker, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, Patricia DeRepentigny, Alexandra Jahn, David Docquier, Christopher Wyburn-Powell, Daphne Quint, Erica Shivers, and Makayla Ortiz
The Cryosphere, 19, 3259–3277, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3259-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3259-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study analyzes rapid ice loss events (RILEs) in the Arctic, which are significant reductions in sea ice extent. RILEs are expected throughout the year, varying in frequency and duration with the seasons. Our research gives a year-round analysis of their characteristics in climate models and suggests that summer RILEs could begin before the middle of the century. Understanding these events is crucial as they can have profound impacts on the Arctic environment.
Cécile Osy, Sophie Opfergelt, Arsène Druel, and François Massonnet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3680, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Short summary
The refreezing period of the active layer (the layer on top of the permafrost that freezes and thaws each year) is changing, with a delay of about five days over a large area in Siberia from 1950 to 2020 in the ERA5-Land reanalysis data. We investigate the drivers of this delay, and find that 2 m air temperature is the main driver of these changes at the large scale, which contrasts with field results in which snow cover is the main driver of changes in refreezing dynamics.
Florian Sauerland, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Sylvain Marchi, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, François Klein, François Massonnet, Bianca Mezzina, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Charles Pelletier, Deborah Verfaillie, Lars Zipf, and Nicole van Lipzig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
We simulated the Antarctic climate from 1985 to 2014. Our model is driven using the ERA-5 reanalysis for one simulation and the EC-Earth global climate model for three others. Most of the simulated trends, such as sea ice extent and precipitation over land, have opposite signs for the two drivers, but agree between the three EC-Earth driven simulations. We conclude that these opposing trends must be due to the different drivers, and that the climate over land is less predictable than over sea.
Cecilia Äijälä, Yafei Nie, Lucía Gutiérrez-Loza, Chiara De Falco, Siv Kari Lauvset, Bin Cheng, David Anthony Bailey, and Petteri Uotila
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4823–4853, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4823-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4823-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The sea ice around Antarctica has experienced record lows in recent years. To understand these changes, models are needed. MetROMS-UHel is a new version of an ocean–sea ice model with updated sea ice code and the atmospheric data. We investigate the effect of our updates on different variables with a focus on sea ice and show an improved sea ice representation as compared with observations.
Tian Tian, Richard Davy, Leandro Ponsoni, and Shuting Yang
The Cryosphere, 19, 2751–2768, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-2751-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-2751-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduced a modulating factor to the surface heat flux in the EC-Earth3 model to address the lack of parameterization for turbulent exchange over sea ice leads and correct the bias in Arctic sea ice. Three pairwise experiments showed that the amplified heat flux effectively reduces the overestimated sea ice, especially during cold periods, thereby improving agreement with observed and reanalysis data for sea ice area, volume, and ice edge, particularly in the North Atlantic sector.
Robert Massom, Phillip Reid, Stephen Warren, Bonnie Light, Donald Perovich, Luke Bennetts, Petteri Uotila, Siobhan O'Farrell, Michael Meylan, Klaus Meiners, Pat Wongpan, Alexander Fraser, Alessandro Toffoli, Giulio Passerotti, Peter Strutton, Sean Chua, and Melissa Fedrigo
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3166, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3166, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Ocean waves play a previously-neglected role in the rapid annual melting of Antarctic sea ice by flooding and pulverising floes, removing the snow cover and reducing the albedo by an estimated 0.38–0.54 – to increase solar absorption and enhance the vertical melt rate by up to 5.2 cm/day. Ice algae further decrease the albedo, to increase the melt-rate enhancement to up to 6.1 cm/day. Melting is accelerated by four previously-unconsidered wave-driven positive feedbacks.
Yong-Fei Zhang, Mitchell Bushuk, Michael Winton, William Gregory, Bill Hurlin, Liwei Jia, and Feiyu Lu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2807, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2807, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Antarctic sea ice has shifted from its steady increasing trend in the past decades to the recent decline, which attracted attention from the research community. Providing more accurate subseasonal predictions of Antarctic sea ice is critical to manage the accelerating human activities. We demonstrate that by incorporating satellite observations of sea ice concentration with modeling, the subseasonal predictions of Antarctic sea ice can be improved significantly.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel 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 Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Baylor Fox-Kemper, Patricia DeRepentigny, Anne Marie Treguier, Christian Stepanek, Eleanor O’Rourke, Chloe Mackallah, Alberto Meucci, Yevgeny Aksenov, Paul J. Durack, Nicole Feldl, Vanessa Hernaman, Céline Heuzé, Doroteaciro Iovino, Gaurav Madan, André L. Marquez, François Massonnet, Jenny Mecking, Dhrubajyoti Samanta, Patrick C. Taylor, Wan-Ling Tseng, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The earth system model variables needed for studies of the ocean and sea ice are prioritized and requested.
Mehdi Pasha Karami, Torben Koenigk, Shiyu Wang, René Navarro Labastida, Tim Kruschke, Aude Carreric, Pablo Ortega, Klaus Wyser, Ramon Fuentes Franco, Agatha M. de Boer, Marie Sicard, and Aitor Aldama Campino
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2653, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2653, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses a high-resolution global climate model to simulate future climate, focusing on the Arctic and North Atlantic. The model captures observed sea ice loss and Atlantic circulation trends, projecting a nearly ice-free Arctic by 2040. It introduces a new method to quantify deep water formation, revealing how different ocean regions contribute to the weakening of overturning circulation in a warming climate.
Rebecca C. Frew, Adam William Bateson, Daniel L. Feltham, and David Schröder
The Cryosphere, 19, 2115–2132, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-2115-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-2115-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As summer Arctic sea ice extent has retreated, the marginal ice zone (MIZ) has been widening and making up an increasing percentage of the summer sea ice. The MIZ is projected to become a larger percentage of the summer ice cover, as the Arctic transitions to ice-free summers. Using a sea ice model, we find that the processes and timing of sea ice loss differ in the MIZ to the rest of the sea cover. We also find the balance of processes within the MIZ changes over time as the sea ice retreats.
Ricarda Winkelmann, Donovan P. Dennis, Jonathan F. Donges, Sina Loriani, Ann Kristin Klose, Jesse F. Abrams, Jorge Alvarez-Solas, Torsten Albrecht, David Armstrong McKay, Sebastian Bathiany, Javier Blasco Navarro, Victor Brovkin, Eleanor Burke, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Reik V. Donner, Markus Drüke, Goran Georgievski, Heiko Goelzer, Anna B. Harper, Gabriele Hegerl, Marina Hirota, Aixue Hu, Laura C. Jackson, Colin Jones, Hyungjun Kim, Torben Koenigk, Peter Lawrence, Timothy M. Lenton, Hannah Liddy, José Licón-Saláiz, Maxence Menthon, Marisa Montoya, Jan Nitzbon, Sophie Nowicki, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Francesco Pausata, Stefan Rahmstorf, Karoline Ramin, Alexander Robinson, Johan Rockström, Anastasia Romanou, Boris Sakschewski, Christina Schädel, Steven Sherwood, Robin S. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Didier Swingedouw, Matteo Willeit, Wilbert Weijer, Richard Wood, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Tipping Points Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) is an international collaborative effort to systematically assess tipping point risks in the Earth system using state-of-the-art coupled and stand-alone domain models. TIPMIP will provide a first global atlas of potential tipping dynamics, respective critical thresholds and key uncertainties, generating an important building block towards a comprehensive scientific basis for policy- and decision-making.
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.
Hugues Goosse, Stephy Libera, Alberto C. Naveira Garabato, Benjamin Richaud, Alessandro Silvano, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1837, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1837, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The position of the winter sea ice edge in the Southern Ocean is strongly linked to the one of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and thus to ocean bathymetry. This is due to the influence of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current on the southward heat flux that limits sea ice expansion, directly through oceanic processes and indirectly through its influence on atmospheric heat transport.
Benjamin Richaud, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, Dániel Topál, Antoine Barthélemy, and David Docquier
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-886, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-886, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice covers in the Arctic and Antarctic experienced intense reduction during specific recent years. Using an ocean-sea ice model, we found similarities between hemispheres and years to explain the ice reduction, such as ice melt (or lack of growth) at the ice-ocean interface. Differences between years and regions are also evident, such as increased ice transport or snow precipitation. This highlights the importance of heat stored by the ocean to explain ice melt in a warming climate.
Jerome Sauer, François Massonnet, Giuseppe Zappa, and Francesco Ragone
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 683–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-683-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-683-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
An obstacle in studying climate extremes is the lack of robust statistics. We use a rare event algorithm to gather robust statistics on extreme Arctic sea ice lows with probabilities below 0.1 % and to study drivers of events with amplitudes larger than observed in 2012. The work highlights that the most extreme sea ice reductions result from the combined effects of preconditioning and weather variability, emphasizing the need for thoughtful ensemble design when turning to real applications.
Letizia Tedesco, Giulia Castellani, Pedro Duarte, Meibing Jin, Sebastien Moreau, Eric Mortenson, Benjamin Tobey Saenz, Nadja Steiner, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1107, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1107, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice is home to tiny algae that support polar marine life, but understanding how they grow and interact with their environment remains challenging. We compared six computer models that simulate these algae and nutrients in sea ice, testing them against real-world data from Arctic sea ice. Our results show that while models can capture algal growth, they struggle to represent nutrient changes. Improving these models will help in understanding how climate change affects polar marine ecosystems.
Wilma G. C. Huneke, Andy McC. Hogg, Martin Dix, Daohua Bi, Arnold Sullivan, Shayne McGregor, Chiara Holgate, Siobhan P. O'Farrell, and Micael J. T. Oliveira
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1006, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1006, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A new configuration of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator coupled model, ACCESS-CM2, with a higher resolution ocean-sea ice component is introduced. The new version of the coupled climate model was designed to better capture smaller-scale ocean motions. While this configuration improves the representation of many aspects of the climate system, some biases from the existing lower-resolution version persist.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
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.
Alex T. Archibald, Bablu Sinha, Maria R. Russo, Emily Matthews, Freya A. Squires, N. Luke Abraham, Stephane J.-B. Bauguitte, Thomas J. Bannan, Thomas G. Bell, David Berry, Lucy J. Carpenter, Hugh Coe, Andrew Coward, Peter Edwards, Daniel Feltham, Dwayne Heard, Jim Hopkins, James Keeble, Elizabeth C. Kent, Brian A. King, Isobel R. Lawrence, James Lee, Claire R. Macintosh, Alex Megann, Bengamin I. Moat, Katie Read, Chris Reed, Malcolm J. Roberts, Reinhard Schiemann, David Schroeder, Timothy J. Smyth, Loren Temple, Navaneeth Thamban, Lisa Whalley, Simon Williams, Huihui Wu, and Mingxi Yang
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 135–164, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-135-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-135-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Here, we present an overview of the data generated as part of the North Atlantic Climate System Integrated Study (ACSIS) programme that are available through dedicated repositories at the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA; www.ceda.ac.uk) and the British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC; bodc.ac.uk). The datasets described here cover the North Atlantic Ocean, the atmosphere above (it including its composition), and Arctic sea ice.
Jean Rabault, Trygve Halsne, Ana Carrasco, Anton Korosov, Joey Voermans, Patrik Bohlinger, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Malte Müller, Øyvind Breivik, Takehiko Nose, Gaute Hope, Fabrice Collard, Sylvain Herlédan, Tsubasa Kodaira, Nick Hughes, Qin Zhang, Kai Haakon Christensen, Alexander Babanin, Lars Willas Dreyer, Cyril Palerme, Lotfi Aouf, Konstantinos Christakos, Atle Jensen, Johannes Röhrs, Aleksey Marchenko, Graig Sutherland, Trygve Kvåle Løken, and Takuji Waseda
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.07619, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.07619, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We observe strongly modulated waves-in-ice significant wave height using buoys deployed East of Svalbard. We show that these observations likely cannot be explained by wave-current interaction or tide-induced modulation alone. We also demonstrate a strong correlation between the waves height modulation, and the rate of sea ice convergence. Therefore, our data suggest that the rate of sea ice convergence and divergence may modulate wave in ice energy dissipation.
Sofia Allende, Anne Marie Treguier, Camille Lique, Clément de Boyer Montégut, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Antoine Barthélemy
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7445–7466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7445-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7445-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We study the parameters of the turbulent-kinetic-energy mixed-layer-penetration scheme in the NEMO model with regard to sea-ice-covered regions of the Arctic Ocean. This evaluation reveals the impact of these parameters on mixed-layer depth, sea surface temperature and salinity, and ocean stratification. Our findings demonstrate significant impacts on sea ice thickness and sea ice concentration, emphasizing the need for accurately representing ocean mixing to understand Arctic climate dynamics.
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.
Joseph Fogarty, Elie Bou-Zeid, Mitchell Bushuk, and Linette Boisvert
The Cryosphere, 18, 4335–4354, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4335-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4335-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We hypothesize that using a broad set of surface characterization metrics for polar sea ice surfaces will lead to more accurate representations in general circulation models. However, the first step is to identify the minimum set of metrics required. We show via numerical simulations that sea ice surface patterns can play a crucial role in determining boundary layer structures. We then statistically analyze a set of high-resolution sea ice surface images to obtain this minimal set of parameters.
Manu Anna Thomas, Klaus Wyser, Shiyu Wang, Marios Chatziparaschos, Paraskevi Georgakaki, Montserrat Costa-Surós, Maria Gonçalves Ageitos, Maria Kanakidou, Carlos Pérez García-Pando, Athanasios Nenes, Twan van Noije, Philippe Le Sager, and Abhay Devasthale
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6903–6927, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6903-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6903-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol–cloud interactions occur at a range of spatio-temporal scales. While evaluating recent developments in EC-Earth3-AerChem, this study aims to understand the extent to which the Twomey effect manifests itself at larger scales. We find a reduction in the warm bias over the Southern Ocean due to model improvements. While we see footprints of the Twomey effect at larger scales, the negative relationship between cloud droplet number and liquid water drives the shortwave radiative effect.
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.
Jean-François Lemieux, William H. Lipscomb, Anthony Craig, David A. Bailey, Elizabeth C. Hunke, Philippe Blain, Till A. S. Rasmussen, Mats Bentsen, Frédéric Dupont, David Hebert, and Richard Allard
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6703–6724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6703-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6703-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present the latest version of the CICE model. It solves equations that describe the dynamics and the growth and melt of sea ice. To do so, the domain is divided into grid cells and variables are positioned at specific locations in the cells. A new implementation (C-grid) is presented, with the velocity located on cell edges. Compared to the previous B-grid, the C-grid allows for a natural coupling with some oceanic and atmospheric models. It also allows for ice transport in narrow channels.
Bianca Mezzina, Hugues Goosse, François Klein, Antoine Barthélemy, and François Massonnet
The Cryosphere, 18, 3825–3839, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3825-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3825-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We analyze years with extraordinarily low sea ice extent in Antarctica during summer, until the striking record in 2022. We highlight common aspects among these events, such as the fact that the exceptional melting usually occurs in two key regions and that it is related to winds with a similar direction. We also investigate whether the summer conditions are preceded by an unusual state of the sea ice during the previous winter, as well as the physical processes involved.
Jenny Hieronymus, Magnus Hieronymus, Matthias Gröger, Jörg Schwinger, Raffaele Bernadello, Etienne Tourigny, Valentina Sicardi, Itzel Ruvalcaba Baroni, and Klaus Wyser
Biogeosciences, 21, 2189–2206, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2189-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2189-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The timing of the net primary production annual maxima in the North Atlantic in the period 1750–2100 is investigated using two Earth system models and the high-emissions scenario SSP5-8.5. It is found that, for most of the region, the annual maxima occur progressively earlier, with the most change occurring after the year 2000. Shifts in the seasonality of the primary production may impact the entire ecosystem, which highlights the need for long-term monitoring campaigns in this area.
David Docquier, Giorgia Di Capua, Reik V. Donner, Carlos A. L. Pires, Amélie Simon, and Stéphane Vannitsem
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 31, 115–136, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-31-115-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-31-115-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Identifying causes of specific processes is crucial in order to better understand our climate system. Traditionally, correlation analyses have been used to identify cause–effect relationships in climate studies. However, correlation does not imply causation, which justifies the need to use causal methods. We compare two independent causal methods and show that these are superior to classical correlation analyses. We also find some interesting differences between the two methods.
Marika M. Holland, Cecile Hannay, John Fasullo, Alexandra Jahn, Jennifer E. Kay, Michael Mills, Isla R. Simpson, William Wieder, Peter Lawrence, Erik Kluzek, and David Bailey
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1585–1602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate evolves in response to changing forcings, as prescribed in simulations. Models and forcings are updated over time to reflect new understanding. This makes it difficult to attribute simulation differences to either model or forcing changes. Here we present new simulations which enable the separation of model structure and forcing influence between two widely used simulation sets. Results indicate a strong influence of aerosol emission uncertainty on historical climate.
Nico Wunderling, Anna S. von der Heydt, Yevgeny Aksenov, Stephen Barker, Robbin Bastiaansen, Victor Brovkin, Maura Brunetti, Victor Couplet, Thomas Kleinen, Caroline H. Lear, Johannes Lohmann, Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta, Sacha Sinet, Didier Swingedouw, Ricarda Winkelmann, Pallavi Anand, Jonathan Barichivich, Sebastian Bathiany, Mara Baudena, John T. Bruun, Cristiano M. Chiessi, Helen K. Coxall, David Docquier, Jonathan F. Donges, Swinda K. J. Falkena, Ann Kristin Klose, David Obura, Juan Rocha, Stefanie Rynders, Norman Julius Steinert, and Matteo Willeit
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 41–74, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-41-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-41-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper maps out the state-of-the-art literature on interactions between tipping elements relevant for current global warming pathways. We find indications that many of the interactions between tipping elements are destabilizing. This means that tipping cascades cannot be ruled out on centennial to millennial timescales at global warming levels between 1.5 and 2.0 °C or on shorter timescales if global warming surpasses 2.0 °C.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Johannes Röhrs, Yvonne Gusdal, Edel S. U. Rikardsen, Marina Durán Moro, Jostein Brændshøi, Nils Melsom Kristensen, Sindre Fritzner, Keguang Wang, Ann Kristin Sperrevik, Martina Idžanović, Thomas Lavergne, Jens Boldingh Debernard, and Kai H. Christensen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5401–5426, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5401-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5401-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A model to predict ocean currents, temperature, and sea ice is presented, covering the Barents Sea and northern Norway. To quantify forecast uncertainties, the model calculates ensemble forecasts with 24 realizations of ocean and ice conditions. Observations from satellites, buoys, and ships are ingested by the model. The model forecasts are compared with observations, and we show that the ocean model has skill in predicting sea surface temperatures.
Steve Delhaye, Rym Msadek, Thierry Fichefet, François Massonnet, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
The climate impact of Arctic sea ice loss may depend on the region of sea ice loss and the methodology used to study this impact. This study uses two approaches across seven climate models to investigate the winter atmospheric circulation response to regional sea ice loss. Our findings indicate a consistent atmospheric circulation response to pan-Arctic sea ice loss in most models and across both approaches. In contrast, more uncertainty emerges in the responses linked to regional sea ice loss.
Max Thomas, Briana Cate, Jack Garnett, Inga J. Smith, Martin Vancoppenolle, and Crispin Halsall
The Cryosphere, 17, 3193–3201, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-3193-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-3193-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A recent study showed that pollutants can be enriched in growing sea ice beyond what we would expect from a perfectly dissolved chemical. We hypothesise that this effect is caused by the specific properties of the pollutants working in combination with fluid moving through the sea ice. To test our hypothesis, we replicate this behaviour in a sea-ice model and show that this type of modelling can be applied to predicting the transport of chemicals with complex behaviour in sea ice.
Mukesh Gupta, Leandro Ponsoni, Jean Sterlin, François Massonnet, and Thierry Fichefet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1560, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1560, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
We explored the relationship of Arctic September minimum sea ice extent with mid-summer melt pond area fraction, under the present-day climate. We confirm through the advanced numerical modelling, with an explicit melt pond scheme in the global climate model, EC-EARTH3, that melt pond fraction in mid-summer (June–July, not May) shows a strong relationship with the Arctic September sea ice extent. Satellite-based inferences validated our findings of this association.
Katherine Hutchinson, Julie Deshayes, Christian Éthé, Clément Rousset, Casimir de Lavergne, Martin Vancoppenolle, Nicolas C. Jourdain, and Pierre Mathiot
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3629–3650, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3629-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3629-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Bottom Water constitutes the lower half of the ocean’s overturning system and is primarily formed in the Weddell and Ross Sea in the Antarctic due to interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice and ice shelves. Here we use a global ocean 1° resolution model with explicit representation of the three large ice shelves important for the formation of the parent waters of Bottom Water. We find doing so reduces salt biases, improves water mass realism and gives realistic ice shelf melt rates.
Nicholas Williams, Nicholas Byrne, Daniel Feltham, Peter Jan Van Leeuwen, Ross Bannister, David Schroeder, Andrew Ridout, and Lars Nerger
The Cryosphere, 17, 2509–2532, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2509-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2509-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Observations show that the Arctic sea ice cover has reduced over the last 40 years. This study uses ensemble-based data assimilation in a stand-alone sea ice model to investigate the impacts of assimilating three different kinds of sea ice observation, including the novel assimilation of sea ice thickness distribution. We show that assimilating ice thickness distribution has a positive impact on thickness and volume estimates within the ice pack, especially for very thick ice.
David Docquier, Stéphane Vannitsem, and Alessio Bellucci
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 577–591, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-577-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-577-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The climate system is strongly regulated by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere. However, many uncertainties remain in the understanding of these interactions. Our analysis uses a relatively novel approach to quantify causal links between the ocean surface and lower atmosphere based on satellite observations. We find that both the ocean and atmosphere influence each other but with varying intensity depending on the region, demonstrating the power of causal methods.
Xia Lin, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Martin Vancoppenolle
The Cryosphere, 17, 1935–1965, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1935-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1935-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides clues on how improved atmospheric reanalysis products influence sea ice simulations in ocean–sea ice models. The summer ice concentration simulation in both hemispheres can be improved with changed surface heat fluxes. The winter Antarctic ice concentration and the Arctic drift speed near the ice edge and the ice velocity direction simulations are improved with changed wind stress. The radiation fluxes and winds in atmospheric reanalyses are crucial for sea ice simulations.
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.
Alban Planchat, Lester Kwiatkowski, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Torres, James R. Christian, Momme Butenschön, Tomas Lovato, Roland Séférian, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Olivier Aumont, Michio Watanabe, Akitomo Yamamoto, Andrew Yool, Tatiana Ilyina, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Kristen M. Krumhardt, Jörg Schwinger, Jerry Tjiputra, John P. Dunne, and Charles Stock
Biogeosciences, 20, 1195–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ocean alkalinity is critical to the uptake of atmospheric carbon and acidification in surface waters. We review the representation of alkalinity and the associated calcium carbonate cycle in Earth system models. While many parameterizations remain present in the latest generation of models, there is a general improvement in the simulated alkalinity distribution. This improvement is related to an increase in the export of biotic calcium carbonate, which closer resembles observations.
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.
Yafei Nie, Chengkun Li, Martin Vancoppenolle, Bin Cheng, Fabio Boeira Dias, Xianqing Lv, and Petteri Uotila
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1395–1425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1395-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1395-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
State-of-the-art Earth system models simulate the observed sea ice extent relatively well, but this is often due to errors in the dynamic and other processes in the simulated sea ice changes cancelling each other out. We assessed the sensitivity of these processes simulated by the coupled ocean–sea ice model NEMO4.0-SI3 to 18 parameters. The performance of the model in simulating sea ice change processes was ultimately improved by adjusting the three identified key parameters.
Hugues Goosse, Sofia Allende Contador, Cecilia M. Bitz, Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Clare Eayrs, Thierry Fichefet, Kenza Himmich, Pierre-Vincent Huot, François Klein, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Bianca Mezzina, Charles Pelletier, Lettie Roach, Martin Vancoppenolle, and Nicole P. M. van Lipzig
The Cryosphere, 17, 407–425, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-407-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-407-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Using idealized sensitivity experiments with a regional atmosphere–ocean–sea ice model, we show that sea ice advance is constrained by initial conditions in March and the retreat season is influenced by the magnitude of several physical processes, in particular by the ice–albedo feedback and ice transport. Atmospheric feedbacks amplify the response of the winter ice extent to perturbations, while some negative feedbacks related to heat conduction fluxes act on the ice volume.
Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, David A. Bailey, Nan Rosenbloom, Brian Dobbins, Walker R. Lee, Mari Tye, and Jean-Francois Lamarque
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI).
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
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.
Stephen G. Yeager, Nan Rosenbloom, Anne A. Glanville, Xian Wu, Isla Simpson, Hui Li, Maria J. Molina, Kristen Krumhardt, Samuel Mogen, Keith Lindsay, Danica Lombardozzi, Will Wieder, Who M. Kim, Jadwiga H. Richter, Matthew Long, Gokhan Danabasoglu, David Bailey, Marika Holland, Nicole Lovenduski, Warren G. Strand, and Teagan King
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6451–6493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system changes over a range of time and space scales, and some of these changes are predictable in advance. Short-term weather forecasts are most familiar, but recent work has shown that it is possible to generate useful predictions several seasons or even a decade in advance. This study focuses on predictions over intermediate timescales (up to 24 months in advance) and shows that there is promising potential to forecast a variety of changes in the natural environment.
Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Laurent Bopp, Jim R. Christian, Tatiana Ilyina, John P. Krasting, Roland Séférian, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Michio Watanabe, Andrew Yool, and Jerry Tjiputra
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1097–1118, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is the main driver for the natural variability of global atmospheric CO2. It modulates the CO2 fluxes in the tropical Pacific with anomalous CO2 influx during El Niño and outflux during La Niña. This relationship is projected to reverse by half of Earth system models studied here under the business-as-usual scenario. This study shows models that simulate a positive bias in surface carbonate concentrations simulate a shift in the ENSO–CO2 flux relationship.
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.
Pedro Duarte, Jostein Brændshøi, Dmitry Shcherbin, Pauline Barras, Jon Albretsen, Yvonne Gusdal, Nicholas Szapiro, Andreas Martinsen, Annette Samuelsen, Keguang Wang, and Jens Boldingh Debernard
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 4373–4392, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4373-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4373-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice models are often implemented for very large domains beyond the regions of sea ice formation, such as the whole Arctic or all of Antarctica. In this study, we implement changes in the Los Alamos Sea Ice Model, allowing it to be implemented for relatively small regions within the Arctic or Antarctica and yet considering the presence and influence of sea ice outside the represented areas. Such regional implementations are important when spatially detailed results are required.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
Steve Delhaye, Thierry Fichefet, François Massonnet, David Docquier, Rym Msadek, Svenya Chripko, Christopher Roberts, Sarah Keeley, and Retish Senan
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 555–573, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-555-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-555-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
It is unclear how the atmosphere will respond to a retreat of summer Arctic sea ice. Much attention has been paid so far to weather extremes at mid-latitude and in winter. Here we focus on the changes in extremes in surface air temperature and precipitation over the Arctic regions in summer during and following abrupt sea ice retreats. We find that Arctic sea ice loss clearly shifts the extremes in surface air temperature and precipitation over terrestrial regions surrounding the Arctic Ocean.
Ralf Döscher, Mario Acosta, Andrea Alessandri, Peter Anthoni, Thomas Arsouze, Tommi Bergman, Raffaele Bernardello, Souhail Boussetta, Louis-Philippe Caron, Glenn Carver, Miguel Castrillo, Franco Catalano, Ivana Cvijanovic, Paolo Davini, Evelien Dekker, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, David Docquier, Pablo Echevarria, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Matthias Gröger, Jost v. Hardenberg, Jenny Hieronymus, M. Pasha Karami, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Torben Koenigk, Risto Makkonen, François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Paul A. Miller, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Lars Nieradzik, Twan van Noije, Paul Nolan, Declan O'Donnell, Pirkka Ollinaho, Gijs van den Oord, Pablo Ortega, Oriol Tintó Prims, Arthur Ramos, Thomas Reerink, Clement Rousset, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Philippe Le Sager, Torben Schmith, Roland Schrödner, Federico Serva, Valentina Sicardi, Marianne Sloth Madsen, Benjamin Smith, Tian Tian, Etienne Tourigny, Petteri Uotila, Martin Vancoppenolle, Shiyu Wang, David Wårlind, Ulrika Willén, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, and Qiong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system model EC-Earth3 is documented here. Key performance metrics show physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new ESM components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.
Yunhe Wang, Xiaojun Yuan, Haibo Bi, Mitchell Bushuk, Yu Liang, Cuihua Li, and Haijun Huang
The Cryosphere, 16, 1141–1156, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-1141-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-1141-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a regional linear Markov model consisting of four modules with seasonally dependent variables in the Pacific sector. The model retains skill for detrended sea ice extent predictions for up to 7-month lead times in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. The prediction skill, as measured by the percentage of grid points with significant correlations (PGS), increased by 75 % in the Bering Sea and 16 % in the Sea of Okhotsk relative to the earlier pan-Arctic model.
Charles Pelletier, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, Samuel Helsen, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Christoph Kittel, François Klein, Sébastien Le clec'h, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Pierre Mathiot, Ehsan Moravveji, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Niels Souverijns, Guillian Van Achter, Sam Vanden Broucke, Alexander Vanhulle, Deborah Verfaillie, and Lars Zipf
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 553–594, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present PARASO, a circumpolar model for simulating the Antarctic climate. PARASO features five distinct models, each covering different Earth system subcomponents (ice sheet, atmosphere, land, sea ice, ocean). In this technical article, we describe how this tool has been developed, with a focus on the
coupling interfacesrepresenting the feedbacks between the distinct models used for contribution. PARASO is stable and ready to use but is still characterized by significant biases.
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.
Hakase Hayashida, Meibing Jin, Nadja S. Steiner, Neil C. Swart, Eiji Watanabe, Russell Fiedler, Andrew McC. Hogg, Andrew E. Kiss, Richard J. Matear, and Peter G. Strutton
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6847–6861, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6847-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6847-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Ice algae are tiny plants like phytoplankton but they grow within sea ice. In polar regions, both phytoplankton and ice algae are the foundation of marine ecosystems and play an important role in taking up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, state-of-the-art climate models typically do not include ice algae, and therefore their role in the climate system remains unclear. This project aims to address this knowledge gap by coordinating a set of experiments using sea-ice–ocean models.
Rachel Diamond, Louise C. Sime, David Schroeder, and Maria-Vittoria Guarino
The Cryosphere, 15, 5099–5114, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-5099-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-5099-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Hadley Centre Global Environment Model version 3 (HadGEM3) is the first coupled climate model to simulate an ice-free summer Arctic during the Last Interglacial (LIG), 127 000 years ago, and yields accurate Arctic surface temperatures. We investigate the causes and impacts of this extreme simulated ice loss and, in particular, the role of melt ponds.
Xia Lin, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6331–6354, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6331-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6331-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study introduces a new Sea Ice Evaluation Tool (SITool) to evaluate the model skills on the bipolar sea ice simulations by providing performance metrics and diagnostics. SITool is applied to evaluate the CMIP6 OMIP simulations. By changing the atmospheric forcing from CORE-II to JRA55-do data, many aspects of sea ice simulations are improved. SITool will be useful for helping teams managing various versions of a sea ice model or tracking the time evolution of model performance.
Twan van Noije, Tommi Bergman, Philippe Le Sager, Declan O'Donnell, Risto Makkonen, María Gonçalves-Ageitos, Ralf Döscher, Uwe Fladrich, Jost von Hardenberg, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Hannele Korhonen, Anton Laakso, Stelios Myriokefalitakis, Pirkka Ollinaho, Carlos Pérez García-Pando, Thomas Reerink, Roland Schrödner, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5637–5668, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5637-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5637-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents the global climate model EC-Earth3-AerChem, one of the members of the EC-Earth3 family of models participating in CMIP6. We give an overview of the model and describe in detail how it differs from its predecessor and the other EC-Earth3 configurations. The model's performance is characterized using coupled simulations conducted for CMIP6. The model has an effective equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.9 °C and a transient climate response of 2.1 °C.
Klaus Wyser, Torben Koenigk, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Mehdi Pasha Karami, and Tim Kruschke
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4781–4796, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4781-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4781-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the large ensemble done by SMHI with the EC-Earth3 climate model. The ensemble comprises 50 realizations for each of the historical experiments after 1970 and four different future projections for CMIP6. We describe the creation of the initial states for the ensemble and the reduced set of output variables. A first look at the results illustrates the changes in the climate during this century and puts them in relation to the uncertainty from the model's internal variability.
Tian Tian, Shuting Yang, Mehdi Pasha Karami, François Massonnet, Tim Kruschke, and Torben Koenigk
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4283–4305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4283-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4283-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Three decadal prediction experiments with EC-Earth3 are performed to investigate the impact of ocean, sea ice concentration and thickness initialization, respectively. We find that the persistence of perennial thick ice in the central Arctic can affect the sea ice predictability in its adjacent waters via advection process or wind, despite those regions being seasonally ice free during two recent decades. This has implications for the coming decades as the thinning of Arctic sea ice continues.
Erik Johansson, Abhay Devasthale, Michael Tjernström, Annica M. L. Ekman, Klaus Wyser, and Tristan L'Ecuyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4087–4101, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4087-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4087-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding the coupling of clouds to large-scale circulation is a grand challenge for the climate community. Cloud radiative heating (CRH) is a key parameter in this coupling and is therefore essential to model realistically. We, therefore, evaluate a climate model against satellite observations. Our findings indicate good agreement in the seasonal pattern of CRH even if the magnitude differs. We also find that increasing the horizontal resolution in the model has little effect on the CRH.
Andrew Yool, Julien Palmiéri, Colin G. Jones, Lee de Mora, Till Kuhlbrodt, Ekatarina E. Popova, A. J. George Nurser, Joel Hirschi, Adam T. Blaker, Andrew C. Coward, Edward W. Blockley, and Alistair A. Sellar
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3437–3472, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean plays a key role in modulating the Earth’s climate. Understanding this role is critical when using models to project future climate change. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate their realism against the ocean's observed state. Here we validate UKESM1, a new Earth system model, focusing on the realism of its ocean physics and circulation, as well as its biological cycles and productivity. While we identify biases, generally the model performs well over a wide range of properties.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Qiong Zhang, Ellen Berntell, Josefine Axelsson, Jie Chen, Zixuan Han, Wesley de Nooijer, Zhengyao Lu, Qiang Li, Qiang Zhang, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1147–1169, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1147-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1147-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Paleoclimate modelling has long been regarded as a strong out-of-sample test bed of the climate models that are used for the projection of future climate changes. Here, we document the model experimental setups for the three past warm periods with EC-Earth3-LR and present the results on the large-scale features. The simulations demonstrate good performance of the model in capturing the climate response under different climate forcings.
Masa Kageyama, Louise C. Sime, Marie Sicard, Maria-Vittoria Guarino, Anne de Vernal, Ruediger Stein, David Schroeder, Irene Malmierca-Vallet, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Cecilia Bitz, Pascale Braconnot, Esther C. Brady, Jian Cao, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Danny Feltham, Chuncheng Guo, Allegra N. LeGrande, Gerrit Lohmann, Katrin J. Meissner, Laurie Menviel, Polina Morozova, Kerim H. Nisancioglu, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Ryouta O'ishi, Silvana Ramos Buarque, David Salas y Melia, Sam Sherriff-Tadano, Julienne Stroeve, Xiaoxu Shi, Bo Sun, Robert A. Tomas, Evgeny Volodin, Nicholas K. H. Yeung, Qiong Zhang, Zhongshi Zhang, Weipeng Zheng, and Tilo Ziehn
Clim. Past, 17, 37–62, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-37-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-37-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Last interglacial (ca. 127 000 years ago) is a period with increased summer insolation at high northern latitudes, resulting in a strong reduction in Arctic sea ice. The latest PMIP4-CMIP6 models all simulate this decrease, consistent with reconstructions. However, neither the models nor the reconstructions agree on the possibility of a seasonally ice-free Arctic. Work to clarify the reasons for this model divergence and the conflicting interpretations of the records will thus be needed.
Qian Shi, Qinghua Yang, Longjiang Mu, Jinfei Wang, François Massonnet, and Matthew R. Mazloff
The Cryosphere, 15, 31–47, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-31-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-31-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The ice thickness from four state-of-the-art reanalyses (GECCO2, SOSE, NEMO-EnKF and GIOMAS) are evaluated against that from remote sensing and in situ observations in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Most of the reanalyses can reproduce ice thickness in the central and eastern Weddell Sea but failed to capture the thick and deformed ice in the western Weddell Sea. These results demonstrate the possibilities and limitations of using current sea-ice reanalysis in Antarctic climate research.
Øyvind Seland, Mats Bentsen, Dirk Olivié, Thomas Toniazzo, Ada Gjermundsen, Lise Seland Graff, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Alok Kumar Gupta, Yan-Chun He, Alf Kirkevåg, Jörg Schwinger, Jerry Tjiputra, Kjetil Schanke Aas, Ingo Bethke, Yuanchao Fan, Jan Griesfeller, Alf Grini, Chuncheng Guo, Mehmet Ilicak, Inger Helene Hafsahl Karset, Oskar Landgren, Johan Liakka, Kine Onsum Moseid, Aleksi Nummelin, Clemens Spensberger, Hui Tang, Zhongshi Zhang, Christoph Heinze, Trond Iversen, and Michael Schulz
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The second version of the coupled Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) is presented and evaluated. The temperature and precipitation patterns has improved compared to NorESM1. The model reaches present-day warming levels to within 0.2 °C of observed temperature but with a delayed warming during the late 20th century. Under the four scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5), the warming in the period of 2090–2099 compared to 1850–1879 reaches 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, and 3.9 K.
Guillian Van Achter, Leandro Ponsoni, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Vincent Legat
The Cryosphere, 14, 3479–3486, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3479-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3479-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We document the spatio-temporal internal variability of Arctic sea ice thickness and its changes under anthropogenic forcing, which is key to understanding, and eventually predicting, the evolution of sea ice in response to climate change.
The patterns of sea ice thickness variability remain more or less stable during pre-industrial, historical and future periods, despite non-stationarity on short timescales. These patterns start to change once Arctic summer ice-free events occur, after 2050.
Cited articles
Adcroft, A., Anderson, W., Balaji, V., Blanton, C., Bushuk, M., Dufour, C. O., Dunne, J. P., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R., Harrison, M. J., Held, I. M., Jansen, M. F., John, J. G., Krasting, J. P., Langenhorst, A. R., Legg, S., Liang, Z., McHugh, C., Radhakrishnan, A., Reichl, B. G., Rosati, T., Samuels, B. L., Shao, A., Stouffer, R., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A. T., Xiang, B., Zadeh, N., and Zhang, R.: The GFDL global ocean and sea ice model OM4.0: Model description
and simulation features, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11,
3167–3211, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001726, 2019
Bailey, D. A., Holland, M. M., DuVivier, A. K., Hunke, E. C., and Turner, A. K.:
Impact of a New Sea Ice Thermodynamic Formulation in the CESM2 sea ice
component, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2020MS002154,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002154, 2020
Bathiany, S., van der Bolt, B., Williamson, M. S., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., van Nes, E. H., and Notz, D.: Statistical indicators of Arctic sea-ice stability – prospects and limitations, The Cryosphere, 10, 1631–1645, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1631-2016, 2016.
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013, 2013.
Bentsen, M., Ilicak, M., Nummelin, A., Guo, C., and Debernard, J. B.: Bergen
Layered Ocean Model (BLOM): Description and evaluation of global
ocean-sea-ice experiments, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., in preparation, 2021.
Bitz, C. M., Holland, M. M., Weaver, A. J., and Eby, M.: Simulating the ice-thickness distribution in a coupled climate model, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 106, 2441–2463, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC000113, 2001.
Bitz, C. M., and Lipscomb, W. H.: An energy-conserving thermodynamic sea ice
model for climate
study, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 104, 15669–15677, 1999.
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.
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y.,
Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bonnet, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P.,
Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Caubel, A., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A.,
Cugnet, D., D'Andrea, F., Davini, P., de Lavergne, C., Denvil, S., Deshayes,
J., Devilliers, M., Ducharne, A., Dufresne, J.-L., Dupont, E., Ethé, C.,
Fairhead, L., Falletti, L., Flavoni, S., Foujols, M.-A., Gardoll, S.,
Gastineau, G., Ghattas, J., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Guenet, B., Guez, L.,
Guilyardi, E., Guimberteau, M., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A.,
Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Khadre-Traoré, A., Khodri, M., Krinner, G.,
Lebas, N., Levavasseur, G., Lévy, C., Li, L., Lott, F., Lurton, T.,
Luyssaert, S., Madec, G., Madeleine, J.-B., Maignan, F., Marchand, M.,
Marti, O., Mellul, L., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Ottlé, C.,
Peylin, P., Planton, Y., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Rochetin, N., Rousset, C.,
Sepulchre, P., Sima, A., Swingedouw, D., Thieblemont, R., Traoré, A.,
Vancoppenolle, M., Vial, J., Vialard, J., and Viovy, N.: Presentation and
evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020.
Bouillon, S., Morales Maqueda, M. A., Legat, V., and Fichefet, T.:
An elastic-viscous-plastic sea ice model formulated on Arakawa B and C grids,
Ocean Model., 27, 174–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.01.004, 2009.
Briegleb, B. P. and Light, B.: A Delta-Eddington Mutiple Scattering
Parameterization for Solar Radiation in the Sea Ice Component of the
Community Climate System Model (No. NCAR/TN-472+STR), University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6B27S71, 2007.
Coon, M. D., Maykut, G. A., Pritchard, R. S., Rothrock, D. A., and
Thordnike, A. S: Modeling the pack ice as an elastic-plastic material,
AIDJEX Bull., 24, 1–106, 1974.
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bachmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier,
A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A.,
Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T.
M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W.,
Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout,
L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C.,
Fox-Kember, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Long, M. C.,
Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and
Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2), J.
Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916., https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020.
Dansereau, V., Weiss, J., Saramito, P., and Lattes, P.: A Maxwell elasto-brittle rheology for sea ice modelling, The Cryosphere, 10, 1339–1359, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1339-2016, 2016.
Dussin, R., Barnier, B., and Brodeau, L.: The making of Drakkar forcing set
DFS5, DRAKKAR/MyOcean Report 01-04-16, LGGE, Grenoble, France, 2016.
Ebert, E. E. and Curry, J. A.: An intermediate one-dimensional thermodynamic
sea ice model for investigating ice-atmosphere interactions, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 98, 10085–10109, 1993.
Fichefet, T. and Morales Maqueda, M. A.: Sensitivity of a global sea ice
model to the treatment of ice thermodynamics and dynamics, J. Geophys.
Res., 102, 12609–12646, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JC00480, 1997.
Flocco, D., Schröder, D., Feltham, D. L., and Hunke, E.
C.: Impact of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice simulations from 1990 to 2007, J.
Geophys. Res., 117, C09032, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC008195, 2012.
Gidden, M. J., Riahi, K., Smith, S. J., Fujimori, S., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., van Vuuren, D. P., van den Berg, M., Feng, L., Klein, D., Calvin, K., Doelman, J. C., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Hilaire, J., Hoesly, R., Horing, J., Popp, A., Stehfest, E., and Takahashi, K.: Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1443–1475, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019, 2019.
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional
Climate Predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1095–1108,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, 2009.
Hazeleger, W., Wang, X., Severijns, C., Ştefănescu, S., Bintanja,
R., Sterl, A., Wyser, K., Semmler, T., Yang, S., van den Hurk, B., van
Noije, T., van der Linden, E., and van der Wiel, K.: EC-Earth V2.2:
description and validation of a new seamless earth system prediction model,
Clim. Dynam., 39, 2611–2629, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1228-5,
2012.
Held, I. M., Guo, H., Adcroft, A., Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J., Shevliakova, E., Winton, M., Zhao, M., Bushuk, M., Wittenberg, A. T., Wyman, B., Xiang, B., Zhang, R., Anderson, W., Balaji, V., Donner, L., Dunne, K., Durachta, J., Gauthier, P. P. G., Ginoux, P., Golaz, J.‐C., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R., Harris, L., Harrison, M., Hurlin, W., John, J., Lin, P., Lin, S.‐J., Malyshev, S., Menzel, R., Milly, P. C. D., Ming, Y., Naik, V., Paynter, D., Paulot, F., Rammaswamy, V., Reichl, B., Robinson, T., Rosati, A., Seman, C., Silvers, L. G., Underwood, S., and Zadeh, N.: Structure and performance of GFDL's CM4.0 climate model, J.
Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 3691–3727,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001829, 2019.
Hibler, W. D.: A Dynamic Thermodynamic Sea Ice Model, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 9, 815–846, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009<0815:ADTSIM>2.0.CO;2, 1979.
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.
Holmes, C., Holland, P., and Bracegirdle, T.: Compensating Biases and a
Noteworthy Success in the CMIP5 Representation of Antarctic Sea Ice
Processes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 4299–4307,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL081796, 2019.
Hourdin, F., Rio, C., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Madeleine, J.-B., Cheruy, F.,
Rochetin, N., Musat, I., Idelkadi, A., Fairhead, L., Foujols, M.-A., Mellul,
L., Traore, A.-K., Dufresne, J.-L., Boucher, O., Lefebvre, M.-P., Millour,
E., Vignon, E., Jouaud, J., Diallo, F. B., Lott, F., Caubel, A., Meurdesoif,
Y., and Ghattas, J.: LMDZ6: Improved atmospheric component of the IPSL
coupled model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12,
e2019MS001892, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001892, 2019.
Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An elastic-viscous-plastic model for sea
ice dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867, 1997.
Hunke, E. C. and Lipscomb, W. H.: CICE: The Los Alamos sea ice model documentation and software user's manual, Version 4.1. LA-CC-06-012, Los Alamos National Laboratory, N.M., USA, 2010/
Hunke, E. C., Hebert, D. A., and Lecomte, O.: Level-ice melt ponds in the
Los Alamos Sea Ice Model, CICE Ocean Mod., 71, 26–42, 2013.
Hunke, E. C., Lipscomb, W. H., Turner, A. K., Jeffery, N., and Elliott, S.:
CICE: the Los Alamos Sea Ice Model Documentation and Software User's Manual
Version 5.1, LA-CC-06-012, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA, 2015.
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, in: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean
and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, edited by:
Portner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegriìa, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B., Weyer, N. M., available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/, last access: 12 November 2019.
Iversen, T., Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Kristjansson, J. E., Medhaug, I., Sand, M., and Seierstad, I. A.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 2: Climate response and scenario projections, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 389–415, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-389-2013, 2013.
Jahn, A., Kay, J. E., Holland, M. M., and Hall, D. M.: How predictable is
the timing of a summer ice-free Arctic?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9113–9120,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070067, 2016.
Keen, A.: Code used to produced figures for “An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models”, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4541581, 2021a.
Keen, A.: Data used in “An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models”, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4541595, 2021b.
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.
Kirkevåg, A., Iversen, T., Seland, Ø., Hoose, C., Kristjánsson, J. E., Struthers, H., Ekman, A. M. L., Ghan, S., Griesfeller, J., Nilsson, E. D., and Schulz, M.: Aerosol–climate interactions in the Norwegian Earth System Model – NorESM1-M, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 207–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-207-2013, 2013.
Kirkevåg, A., Grini, A., Olivié, D., Seland, Ø., Alterskjær, K., Hummel, M., Karset, I. H. H., Lewinschal, A., Liu, X., Makkonen, R., Bethke, I., Griesfeller, J., Schulz, M., and Iversen, T.: A production-tagged aerosol module for Earth system models, OsloAero5.3 – extensions and updates for CAM5.3-Oslo, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3945–3982, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3945-2018, 2018.
Kwok, R.: Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage:
losses and coupled variability (1958–2018), Environ. Res. Lett., 13,
105005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec, 2018.
Large, W. G. and Yeager, S. G.: The global climatology of an interannually
varying air-sea flux data set, Clim. Dynam., 33, 341–364, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0441-3, 2009.
Lavergne, T., Sørensen, A. M., Kern, S., Tonboe, R., Notz, D., Aaboe, S., Bell, L., Dybkjær, G., Eastwood, S., Gabarro, C., Heygster, G., Killie, M. A., Brandt Kreiner, M., Lavelle, J., Saldo, R., Sandven, S., and Pedersen, L. T.: Version 2 of the EUMETSAT OSI SAF and ESA CCI sea-ice concentration climate data records, The Cryosphere, 13, 49–78, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-49-2019, 2019.
Lecomte, O., Fichefet, T., Vancoppenolle, M., Domine, F., Massonnet, F.,
Mathiot, P., Morin, S., and Barriat, P. Y.: On the formulation of snow
thermal conductivity in large scale sea ice models, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 5, 542–557, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20039, 2013.
Lipscomb, W. H: Remapping the thickness distribution in sea ice models, J.
Geophys. Res., 106, 13989–14000, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC000518, 2001.
Madec, G.: NEMO Ocean ocean engine, Note du Pôle de modélisation,
Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL), No 27, France,
2016.
Madec, G., Bourdallé‐Badie, R., Bouttier, P. A., Bricaud, C., Bruciaferri, D., Calvert, D., and Vancoppenolle, M.: NEMO ocean engine(Version v3.6), Notes du Pôle de modélisation de l'Institut Pierre‐simon Laplace (IPSL), 27, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1472492, 2017.
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.
Massonnet, F., Vancoppenolle, M., Hugues, G., Docquier, D., Fichefet, T., and
Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E.: Arctic Sea-Ice Change Tied to Its Mean State
through Thermodynamic Processes, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 599–603,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0204-z, 2018.
Maykut, G. A. and Untersteiner, N.: Some results from a time dependent
thermodynamic model of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 1550–1575, 1971.
Melia, N., Haines, K., and Hawkins, E.: Improved Arctic sea ice thickness projections using bias-corrected CMIP5 simulations, The Cryosphere, 9, 2237–2251, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-2237-2015, 2015.
Mellor, G. L. and Kantha, L.: An ice-ocean coupled model, J. Geophys. Res.,
94, 10937–10954, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC094iC08p10937, 1989.
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., and Jones, P. D.: Quantifying
uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of
observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset, J. Geophys. Res., 117,
D08101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017187, 2012.
Notz, D. and Stroeve, J.: Arctic sea ice loss directly follows cumulative
anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Science 354, 750–747, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2345, 2016.
Notz, D., Jahn, A., Holland, M., Hunke, E., Massonnet, F., Stroeve, J., Tremblay, B., and Vancoppenolle, M.: The CMIP6 Sea-Ice Model Intercomparison Project (SIMIP): understanding sea ice through climate-model simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3427–3446, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3427-2016, 2016.
Olason, E. and Notz, D.: Drivers of variability in Arctic sea-ice drift
speed, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 119, 5755–5775, 2014.
OSI-SAF: EUMETSAT Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility, Global
sea ice concentration climate data record 1979–2015 (v2.0), Norwegian and
Danish Meteorological Institutes, https://doi.org/10.15770/EUM_SAF_OSI_0008, 2017.
Pringle, D. J., Eicken, H., Trodahl, H. J., and Backstrom, L. G. E.: Thermal
conductivity of landfast Antarctic and Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.,
112, C04017, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003641, 2007.
Rampal, P., Weiss, J., Dubois, C., and Campin, J.-M.: IPCC climate models do not
capture Arctic sea ice drift acceleration: Consequences in terms of
projected sea ice thinning and decline, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, C00D07, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007110, 2011.
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.
Ridley, J. K., Blockley, E. W., Keen, A. B., Rae, J. G. L., West, A. E., and Schroeder, D.: The sea ice model component of HadGEM3-GC3.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 713–723, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, 2018.
Roberts, M. J., Baker, A., Blockley, E. W., Calvert, D., Coward, A., Hewitt, H. T., Jackson, L. C., Kuhlbrodt, T., Mathiot, P., Roberts, C. D., Schiemann, R., Seddon, J., Vannière, B., and Vidale, P. L.: Description of the resolution hierarchy of the global coupled HadGEM3-GC3.1 model as used in CMIP6 HighResMIP experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4999–5028, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4999-2019, 2019.
Rousset, C., Vancoppenolle, M., Madec, G., Fichefet, T., Flavoni, S., Barthélemy, A., Benshila, R., Chanut, J., Levy, C., Masson, S., and Vivier, F.: The Louvain-La-Neuve sea ice model LIM3.6: global and regional capabilities, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2991–3005, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2991-2015, 2015.
Schröder, D., Feltham, D. L., Tsamados, M., Ridout, A., and Tilling, R.: New insight from CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness for sea ice modelling, The Cryosphere, 13, 125–139, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-125-2019, 2019.
Schweiger, A., Lindsay, R., Zhang, J., Steele, M., Stern, H.: Uncertainty in
modeled arctic sea ice volume, J. Geophys. Res., 116, C00D06, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007084,
2011.
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y.-C., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, 2020.
Sellar, A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wilt-shire, A., O’Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J.,Woodward, S., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S., Kelley,D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., An-drews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T., Berthou, S., Burke,E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J., Folberth,G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A.,Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Lid-dicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson,E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M.,Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019.
SIMIP Community: Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47,
e2019GL086749, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086749, 2020.
Smith, B., Wårlind, D., Arneth, A., Hickler, T., Leadley, P., Siltberg, J., and Zaehle, S.: Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model, Biogeosciences, 11, 2027–2054, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014, 2014
Storkey, D., Blaker, A. T., Mathiot, P., Megann, A., Aksenov, Y., Blockley, E. W., Calvert, D., Graham, T., Hewitt, H. T., Hyder, P., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rae, J. G. L., and Sinha, B.: UK Global Ocean GO6 and GO7: a traceable hierarchy of model resolutions, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3187–3213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3187-2018, 2018.
Stroeve, J. and Notz, D.: Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons,
Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 103001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aade56, 2018.
Stroeve, J., Barrett, A., Serreze, M., and Schweiger, A.: Using records from submarine, aircraft and satellites to evaluate climate model simulations of Arctic sea ice thickness, The Cryosphere, 8, 1839–1854, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-1839-2014, 2014.
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019.
Tandon, N. F., Kushner, P. J., Docquier, D., Wettstein, J. J., and Li, C,:
Reassessing Sea Ice Drift and Its Relationship to Long-Term Arctic Sea Ice
Loss in Coupled Climate Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 123,
4338–4359, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017jc013697, 2018.
Thorndike, A. S., Rothrock, D. A., Maykut, G. A., and Colony, R.: The
thickness distribution of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 80,
4501–4513, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i033p04501, 1975.
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.
Topál, D., Ding, Q., Mitchell, J., Baxter, I., Herein, M., Haszpra, T., Luo, R., and Li, Q.: An Internal Atmospheric Process Determining Summertime
Arctic Sea Ice Melting in the Next Three Decades: Lessons Learned from Five
Large Ensembles and Multiple CMIP5 Climate Simulations, J. Climate, 33,
7431–7454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0803.1, 2020.
Tsamados, M., Feltham, D. L., and Wilchinsky, A. V.: Impact of a new
anisotropic rheology on simulations of Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.,
118, 91–107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC007990, 2013.
Tsujino, H., Nakano, H., Sakamoto, K., Urakawa, S., Hirabara, M., Ishizaki,
H., and Yamanaka, G.: Reference Manual for the Meteorological Research
Institute Community Ocean Model version 4 (MRI.COMv4), MRI Technical Report no. 80,
https://doi.org/10.11483/mritechrepo.80, 2017.
Turner, A. K., Hunke, E. C., and Bitz, C. M.: Two modes of sea-ice gravity
drainage: a parameterization
for large-scale modeling, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 2279–2294,
https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20171, 2013.
Vancoppenolle, M., Fichefet, T., Goosse, H., Bouillon, S., Madec, G., and
Morales Maqueda, M. A: Simulating the mass balance and salinity of Arctic
and Antarctic sea ice. 1. Model description and validation, Ocean Model.,
27, 33–53, 2009.
van den Hurk, B., Viterbo, P., Beljaars, A., and Betts, A.: Offline
validation of the ERA40 surface scheme, ECMWF Technical Memoranda no 295, https://doi.org/10.21957/9aoaspz8,
2000.
von Salzen, K., Scinocca, J. F., McFarlane, N. A., Li, J., Cole, J. N. S.,
Plummer, D., Verseghy, D., Reader, M. C., Ma, X., Lazare, M., and Solheim,
L.: The Canadian Fourth Generation Atmospheric Global Climate Model (CanAM4)
– Part I: Representation of Physical Processes, Atmos. Ocean, 51, 104–125,
https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2012.755610, 2013.
Walters, D., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Melvin, T., Stratton, R., Vosper, S., Wells, H., Williams, K., Wood, N., Allen, T., Bushell, A., Copsey, D., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Gross, M., Hardiman, S., Harris, C., Heming, J., Klingaman, N., Levine, R., Manners, J., Martin, G., Milton, S., Mittermaier, M., Morcrette, C., Riddick, T., Roberts, M., Sanchez, C., Selwood, P., Stirling, A., Smith, C., Suri, D., Tennant, W., Vidale, P. L., Wilkinson, J., Willett, M., Woolnough, S., and Xavier, P.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 6.0/6.1 and JULES Global Land 6.0/6.1 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1487–1520, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1487-2017, 2017.
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.
West, A., Collins, M., and Blockley, E.: Using Arctic ice mass balance buoys for evaluation of modelled ice energy fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4845–4868, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, 2020.
West, A. E., McLaren, A. J., Hewitt, H. T., and Best, M. J.: The location of the thermodynamic atmosphere–ice interface in fully coupled models – a case study using JULES and CICE, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1125–1141, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, 2016.
Wilchinsky, A. and Feltham, D.: Modelling the rheology of sea ice as a
collection of diamond shape floes, J. Non-Newton. Fluid,
138, 22–32, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001115, 2006.
Williams, K. D., Copsey, D., Blockley, E. W., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Calvert, D., Comer, R., Davis, P., Graham, T., Hewitt, H. T., Hill, R., Hyder, P., Ineson, S., Johns, T. C., Keen, A. B., Lee, R. W., Megann, A., Milton, S. F., Rae, J. G. L., Roberts, M. J., Scaife, A. A., Schiemann, R., Storkey, D., Thorpe, L., Watterson, I. G., Walters, D. N., West, A., Wood, R. A., Woollings, T., and Xavier, P. K.: The Met Office Global Coupled model 3.0 and 3.1
(GC3.0 and GC3.1) configurations, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 10, 357–380, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001115, 2017.
Winton, M.: A reformulated three‐layer sea ice model, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 17, 525–531, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2000)017<0525:ARTLSI>2.0.CO;2, 2000.
Yukimoto, S., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S.,
Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yabu, S., Yoshimura, H.,
Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Obata, A., Adachi, Y., and Ishii, M.: The
Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model version 2.0,
MRI-ESM2.0: Description and basic evaluation of the physical component, J.
Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 97, 931–965, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2019-051,
2019.
Zhang, J. and Rothrock, D. A.: Modelling global sea ice with a thickness and
enthalpy distribution model in generalized curvilinear coordinates, Mon.
Weather Rev., 131, 681–697, 2003.
Zhao, M., Golaz, J.‐C., Held, I. M., Guo, H., Balaji, V., Benson, R., Chen, J. H., Chen, X., Donner, L. J., Dunne, J. P., Dunne, K., Durachta, J., Fan, S. M., Freidenreich, S. M., Garner, S. T., Ginoux, P., Harris, L. M., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J. P., Langenhorst, A. R., Liang, Z., Lin, P., Lin, S. J., Malyshev, S. L., Mason, E., Milly, P. C. D., Ming, Y., Naik, V., Paulot, F., Paynter, D., Phillipps, P., Radhakrishnan, A., Ramaswamy, V., Robinson, T., Schwarzkopf, D., Seman, C. J., Shevliakova, E., Shen, Z., Shin, H., Silvers, L. G., Wilson, J. R., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A. T., Wyman, B., and Xiang, B.: The GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM4.0/LM4.0: 1. Simulation
characteristics with prescribed SSTs, J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 10, 691–734, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001208,
2018.
Short summary
We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in a number of the latest climate models. New output has been defined that allows us to compare the processes of sea ice growth and loss in a more detailed way than has previously been possible. We find that that the models are strikingly similar in terms of the major processes causing the annual growth and loss of Arctic sea ice and that the budget terms respond in a broadly consistent way as the climate warms during the 21st century.
We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in a number of the latest climate models. New...
