Articles | Volume 16, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-16-4013-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
07 Oct 2022
Research article |
| 07 Oct 2022
| 07 Oct 2022
Understanding model spread in sea ice volume by attribution of model differences in seasonal ice growth and melt
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
Edward Blockley
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
Matthew Collins
College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University
of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter EX4 4PY, UK
Related authors
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
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1731, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1731, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents the sea ice model component of the latest Met Office coupled model configuration, which will be used for UK contributions to CMIP7. Documentation of physical 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 of how SI3 was adapted to work with Met Office coupling methodology, along with thorough documentation of coupling processes in the model.
Alex West, Mat Collins, and Ed Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4845–4868, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study calculates sea ice energy fluxes from data produced by ice mass balance buoys (devices measuring ice elevation and temperature). It is shown how the resulting dataset can be used to evaluate a coupled climate model (HadGEM2-ES), with biases in the energy fluxes seen to be consistent with biases in the sea ice state and surface radiation. This method has potential to improve sea ice model evaluation, so as to better understand spread in model simulations of sea ice state.
Alex West, Mat Collins, Ed Blockley, Jeff Ridley, and Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
The Cryosphere, 13, 2001–2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a framework for examining the causes of model errors in Arctic sea ice volume, using HadGEM2-ES as a case study. Simple models are used to estimate how much of the error in energy arriving at the ice surface is due to error in key Arctic climate variables. The method quantifies how each variable affects sea ice volume balance and shows that for HadGEM2-ES an annual mean low bias in ice thickness is likely due to errors in surface melt onset.
Jeff K. Ridley, Edward W. Blockley, Ann B. Keen, Jamie G. L. Rae, Alex E. West, and David Schroeder
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 713–723, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The sea ice component of the Met Office coupled climate model, HadGEM3-GC3.1, is presented and evaluated. We determine that the mean state of the sea ice is well reproduced for the Arctic; however, a warm sea surface temperature bias over the Southern Ocean results in a low Antarctic sea ice cover.
Alex E. West, Alison J. McLaren, Helene T. Hewitt, and Martin J. Best
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1125–1141, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two methods of coupling a sea ice model to an atmospheric model in a series of idealized one-dimensional experiments. The JULES method calculates surface variables in the atmosphere; the CICE method calculates surface variables in the sea ice. It is found that simulations of all variables are more accurate in the JULES method, likely because of the shorter time step of the atmosphere.
J. G. L. Rae, H. T. Hewitt, A. B. Keen, J. K. Ridley, A. E. West, C. M. Harris, E. C. Hunke, and D. N. Walters
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2221–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
The paper presents a new sea ice configuration, GSI6.0, in the Met Office coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice model. Differences in the sea ice from a previous configuration (GSI4.0) are explained in the context of a previously published sensitivity study. In summer, Arctic sea ice is thicker and more extensive than in GSI4.0, bringing it closer to the observationally derived data sets. In winter, the Arctic ice is thicker but less extensive than in GSI4.0.
K. D. Williams, C. M. Harris, A. Bodas-Salcedo, J. Camp, R. E. Comer, D. Copsey, D. Fereday, T. Graham, R. Hill, T. Hinton, P. Hyder, S. Ineson, G. Masato, S. F. Milton, M. J. Roberts, D. P. Rowell, C. Sanchez, A. Shelly, B. Sinha, D. N. Walters, A. West, T. Woollings, and P. K. Xavier
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1509–1524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, 2015
A. E. West, A. B. Keen, and H. T. Hewitt
The Cryosphere, 7, 555–567, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, 2013
Colin Gareth Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben Booth, Peter Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene Hewitt, Hazel Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm Roberts, Benjamin 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 J. Doblas-Reyes, Markus G. Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Froelicher, Neven Fuckar, Matthew Gidden, Helge Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, Jose Manuel Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason A. Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Melia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming ~6 years (i.e. to 2030). Advances in these areas will increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, as well as deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as the 7th IPCC Assessment Report and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake under the Paris Climate Agreement.
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
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1731, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1731, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents the sea ice model component of the latest Met Office coupled model configuration, which will be used for UK contributions to CMIP7. Documentation of physical 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 of how SI3 was adapted to work with Met Office coupling methodology, along with thorough documentation of coupling processes in the model.
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.
Emma K. Fiedler, Matthew J. Martin, Ed Blockley, Davi Mignac, Nicolas Fournier, Andy Ridout, Andrew Shepherd, and Rachel Tilling
The Cryosphere, 16, 61–85, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-61-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-61-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice thickness (SIT) observations derived from CryoSat-2 satellite measurements have been successfully used to initialise an ocean and sea ice forecasting model (FOAM). Other centres have previously used gridded and averaged SIT observations for this purpose, but we demonstrate here for the first time that SIT measurements along the satellite orbit track can be used. Validation of the resulting modelled SIT demonstrates improvements in the model performance compared to a control.
Emily A. Hill, Sebastian H. R. Rosier, G. Hilmar Gudmundsson, and Matthew Collins
The Cryosphere, 15, 4675–4702, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-4675-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-4675-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Using an ice flow model and uncertainty quantification methods, we provide probabilistic projections of future sea level rise from the Filchner–Ronne region of Antarctica. We find that it is most likely that this region will contribute negatively to sea level rise over the next 300 years, largely as a result of increased surface mass balance. We identify parameters controlling ice shelf melt and snowfall contribute most to uncertainties in projections.
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.
Qun Liu, Matthew Collins, Penelope Maher, Stephen I. Thomson, and Geoffrey K. Vallis
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2801–2826, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2801-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2801-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds play an vital role in Earth's energy budget, and even a small change in cloud fields can have a large impact on the climate system. They also bring lots of uncertainties to climate models. Here we implement a simple diagnostic cloud scheme in order to reproduce the general radiative properties of clouds. The scheme can capture some key features of the cloud fraction and cloud radiative properties and thus provide a useful tool to explore unsolved problems relating to clouds.
Ann Keen, Ed Blockley, David A. Bailey, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Mitchell Bushuk, Steve Delhaye, David Docquier, Daniel Feltham, François Massonnet, Siobhan O'Farrell, Leandro Ponsoni, José M. Rodriguez, David Schroeder, Neil Swart, Takahiro Toyoda, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Martin Vancoppenolle, and Klaus Wyser
The Cryosphere, 15, 951–982, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021, 2021
Short summary
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.
Alex West, Mat Collins, and Ed Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4845–4868, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study calculates sea ice energy fluxes from data produced by ice mass balance buoys (devices measuring ice elevation and temperature). It is shown how the resulting dataset can be used to evaluate a coupled climate model (HadGEM2-ES), with biases in the energy fluxes seen to be consistent with biases in the sea ice state and surface radiation. This method has potential to improve sea ice model evaluation, so as to better understand spread in model simulations of sea ice state.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Alex Baker, Ed W. Blockley, Daley Calvert, Andrew Coward, Helene T. Hewitt, Laura C. Jackson, Till Kuhlbrodt, Pierre Mathiot, Christopher D. Roberts, Reinhard Schiemann, Jon Seddon, Benoît Vannière, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4999–5028, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4999-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4999-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the role that horizontal grid spacing plays in global coupled climate model simulations, together with examining the efficacy of a new design of simulation experiments that is being used by the community for multi-model comparison. We found that finer grid spacing in both atmosphere and ocean–sea ice models leads to a general reduction in bias compared to observations, and that once eddies in the ocean are resolved, several key climate processes are greatly improved.
Alex West, Mat Collins, Ed Blockley, Jeff Ridley, and Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
The Cryosphere, 13, 2001–2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a framework for examining the causes of model errors in Arctic sea ice volume, using HadGEM2-ES as a case study. Simple models are used to estimate how much of the error in energy arriving at the ice surface is due to error in key Arctic climate variables. The method quantifies how each variable affects sea ice volume balance and shows that for HadGEM2-ES an annual mean low bias in ice thickness is likely due to errors in surface melt onset.
Edward W. Blockley and K. Andrew Peterson
The Cryosphere, 12, 3419–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3419-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3419-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Arctic sea-ice prediction on seasonal time scales is becoming increasingly more relevant to society but the predictive capability of forecasting systems is low. Several studies suggest initialization of sea-ice thickness (SIT) could improve the skill of seasonal prediction systems. Here for the first time we test the impact of SIT initialization in the Met Office's GloSea coupled prediction system using CryoSat-2 data. We show significant improvements to Arctic extent and ice edge location.
Jeff K. Ridley and Edward W. Blockley
The Cryosphere, 12, 3355–3360, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3355-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3355-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The climate change conference held in Paris in 2016 made a commitment to limiting global-mean warming since the pre-industrial era to well below 2 °C and to pursue efforts to limit the warming to 1.5 °C. Since global warming is already at 1 °C, the 1.5 °C can only be achieved at considerable cost. It is thus important to assess the risks associated with the higher target. This paper shows that the decline of Arctic sea ice, and associated impacts, can only be halted with the 1.5 °C target.
Ann Keen and Ed Blockley
The Cryosphere, 12, 2855–2868, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2855-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2855-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
As the climate warms during the 21st century, our model shows extra melting at the top and the base of the Arctic sea ice. The reducing ice cover affects the impact these processes have on the sea ice volume budget, where the largest individual change is a reduction in the amount of growth at the base of existing ice. Using different forcing scenarios we show that, for this model, changes in the volume budget depend on the evolving ice area but not on the speed at which the ice area declines.
David Storkey, Adam T. Blaker, Pierre Mathiot, Alex Megann, Yevgeny Aksenov, Edward W. Blockley, Daley Calvert, Tim Graham, Helene T. Hewitt, Patrick Hyder, Till Kuhlbrodt, Jamie G. L. Rae, and Bablu Sinha
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3187–3213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3187-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3187-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We document the latest version of the shared UK global configuration of the
NEMO ocean model. This configuration will be used as part of the climate
models for the UK contribution to the IPCC 6th Assessment Report.
30-year integrations forced with atmospheric forcing show that the new
configurations have an improved simulation in the Southern Ocean with the
near-surface temperatures and salinities and the sea ice all matching the
observations more closely.
Jeff K. Ridley, Edward W. Blockley, Ann B. Keen, Jamie G. L. Rae, Alex E. West, and David Schroeder
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 713–723, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The sea ice component of the Met Office coupled climate model, HadGEM3-GC3.1, is presented and evaluated. We determine that the mean state of the sea ice is well reproduced for the Arctic; however, a warm sea surface temperature bias over the Southern Ocean results in a low Antarctic sea ice cover.
Jamie G. L. Rae, Alexander D. Todd, Edward W. Blockley, and Jeff K. Ridley
The Cryosphere, 11, 3023–3034, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-3023-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-3023-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Several studies have highlighted links between Arctic summer storms and September sea ice extent in observations. Here we use model and reanalysis data to investigate the sensitivity of such links to the analytical methods used, in order to determine their robustness. The links were found to depend on the resolution of the model and dataset, the method used to identify storms and the time period used in the analysis. We therefore recommend caution when interpreting the results of such studies.
Jenny Pistoia, Nadia Pinardi, Paolo Oddo, Matthew Collins, Gerasimos Korres, and Yann Drillet
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1807–1819, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1807-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1807-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we developed a new multi-model super-ensemble method to estimate sea surface temperature, an important product of ocean analysis systems. We find that ensemble size, quality, type of members and the training period length are all important elements of the MMSE methodology and require careful calibration. We show that with a rather limited but overconfident data set (with a low bias of the starting ensemble members) the RMSE analysis can be improved.
Jonathan J. Day, Steffen Tietsche, Mat Collins, Helge F. Goessling, Virginie Guemas, Anabelle Guillory, William J. Hurlin, Masayoshi Ishii, Sarah P. E. Keeley, Daniela Matei, Rym Msadek, Michael Sigmond, Hiroaki Tatebe, and Ed Hawkins
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2255–2270, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2255-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2255-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Recent decades have seen significant developments in seasonal-to-interannual timescale climate prediction. However, until recently the potential of such systems to predict Arctic climate had not been assessed. This paper describes a multi-model predictability experiment which was run as part of the Arctic Predictability and Prediction On Seasonal to Interannual Timescales (APPOSITE) project. The main goal of APPOSITE was to quantify the timescales on which Arctic climate is predictable.
Alex E. West, Alison J. McLaren, Helene T. Hewitt, and Martin J. Best
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1125–1141, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two methods of coupling a sea ice model to an atmospheric model in a series of idealized one-dimensional experiments. The JULES method calculates surface variables in the atmosphere; the CICE method calculates surface variables in the sea ice. It is found that simulations of all variables are more accurate in the JULES method, likely because of the shorter time step of the atmosphere.
J. K. Ridley, R. A. Wood, A. B. Keen, E. Blockley, and J. A. Lowe
The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2016-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2016-28, 2016
Revised manuscript has not been submitted
Short summary
Short summary
The internal variability in model projections of Arctic sea ice extent is high. As a consequence an ensemble of projections from a single model can show considerable scatter in the range of dates for an "ice-free" Arctic. This paper investigates if the scatter can be reduced for a variety of definitions of "ice-free". Daily GCM data reveals that only a high emissions scenario results in the optimal definition of five conservative years in with ice extent is below one million square kilometer.
J. G. L. Rae, H. T. Hewitt, A. B. Keen, J. K. Ridley, A. E. West, C. M. Harris, E. C. Hunke, and D. N. Walters
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2221–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
The paper presents a new sea ice configuration, GSI6.0, in the Met Office coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice model. Differences in the sea ice from a previous configuration (GSI4.0) are explained in the context of a previously published sensitivity study. In summer, Arctic sea ice is thicker and more extensive than in GSI4.0, bringing it closer to the observationally derived data sets. In winter, the Arctic ice is thicker but less extensive than in GSI4.0.
K. D. Williams, C. M. Harris, A. Bodas-Salcedo, J. Camp, R. E. Comer, D. Copsey, D. Fereday, T. Graham, R. Hill, T. Hinton, P. Hyder, S. Ineson, G. Masato, S. F. Milton, M. J. Roberts, D. P. Rowell, C. Sanchez, A. Shelly, B. Sinha, D. N. Walters, A. West, T. Woollings, and P. K. Xavier
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1509–1524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, 2015
E. W. Blockley, M. J. Martin, A. J. McLaren, A. G. Ryan, J. Waters, D. J. Lea, I. Mirouze, K. A. Peterson, A. Sellar, and D. Storkey
Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2613–2638, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2613-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2613-2014, 2014
T. Russon, A. W. Tudhope, G. C. Hegerl, M. Collins, and J. Tindall
Clim. Past, 9, 1543–1557, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-1543-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-1543-2013, 2013
A. E. West, A. B. Keen, and H. T. Hewitt
The Cryosphere, 7, 555–567, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Discipline: Sea ice | Subject: Energy Balance Obs/Modelling
A sensor-agnostic albedo retrieval method for realistic sea ice surfaces: model and validation
On the statistical properties of sea-ice lead fraction and heat fluxes in the Arctic
New insights into radiative transfer within sea ice derived from autonomous optical propagation measurements
Sunlight, clouds, sea ice, albedo, and the radiative budget: the umbrella versus the blanket
Yingzhen Zhou, Wei Li, Nan Chen, Yongzhen Fan, and Knut Stamnes
The Cryosphere, 17, 1053–1087, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1053-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1053-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a method to compute albedo (percentage of the light reflected) of the cryosphere surface using observations from optical satellite sensors. This method can be applied to sea ice, snow-covered ice, melt pond, open ocean, and mixtures thereof. Evaluation of the albedo values calculated using this approach demonstrated excellent agreement with observations. In addition, we have included a statistical comparison of the proposed method's results with those derived from other approaches.
Einar Ólason, Pierre Rampal, and Véronique Dansereau
The Cryosphere, 15, 1053–1064, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-1053-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-1053-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse the fractal properties observed in the pattern of the long, narrow openings that form in Arctic sea ice known as leads. We use statistical tools to explore the fractal properties of the lead fraction observed in satellite data and show that our sea-ice model neXtSIM displays the same behaviour. Building on this result we then show that the pattern of heat loss from ocean to atmosphere in the model displays similar fractal properties, stemming from the fractal properties of the leads.
Christian Katlein, Lovro Valcic, Simon Lambert-Girard, and Mario Hoppmann
The Cryosphere, 15, 183–198, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-183-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-183-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
To improve autonomous investigations of sea ice optical properties, we designed a chain of multispectral light sensors, providing autonomous in-ice light measurements. Here we describe the system and the data acquired from a first prototype deployment. We show that sideward-looking planar irradiance sensors basically measure scalar irradiance and demonstrate the use of this sensor chain to derive light transmittance and inherent optical properties of sea ice.
Donald K. Perovich
The Cryosphere, 12, 2159–2165, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2159-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2159-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The balance of longwave and shortwave radiation plays a central role in the summer melt of Arctic sea ice. It is governed by clouds and surface albedo. The basic question is what causes more melting, sunny skies or cloudy skies. It depends on the albedo of the ice surface. For snow-covered or bare ice, sunny skies always result in less radiative heat input. In contrast, the open ocean always has, and melt ponds usually have, more radiative input under sunny skies than cloudy skies.
Cited articles
Anderson, M., Bliss, A., and Drobot, S.: Snow Melt Onset Over Arctic Sea Ice
from SMMR and SSM/I-SSMIS Brightness Temperatures, Version 3. Boulder,
Colorado USA, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active
Archive Center, https://doi.org/10.5067/22NFZL42RMUO (last access: October 2015),
2001, updated 2012.
Barker, H. W. and Li, Z.: Improved simulation of clear-sky radiative
transfer in the CCC-GCM, J. Climate, 8, 2213–2223, 1995.
Bitz, C. M.: Some Aspects of Uncertainty in Predicting Sea Ice Thinning, in:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and
Implications, edited by: DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M., and Tremblay, L.-B., American
Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.1029/180GM06, 2008.
Bitz, C. and Lipscomb, W. H.: An energy-conserving thermodynamic model of
sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 104, 15669–15677, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC900100, 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.
Cavalieri, D. J., Parkinson, C. L., Gloersen, P., and Zwally, H. J.: Sea Ice
Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Passive Microwave
Data, Version 1., Boulder, Colorado USA, NASA
National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center, https://doi.org/10.5067/8GQ8LZQVL0VL (last access: 2016), 1996, updated yearly.
Christensen, M. W., Behrangi, A., L'ecuyer, T. S., Wood, N. B., Lebsock, M.
D., and Stephens, G. L.: Arctic Observation and Reanalysis Integrated System,
A New Data Product for Validation and Climate Study, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, 907–916, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00273.1, 2016.
Collins, W. J., Bellouin, N., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Gedney, N., Halloran, P., Hinton, T., Hughes, J., Jones, C. D., Joshi, M., Liddicoat, S., Martin, G., O'Connor, F., Rae, J., Senior, C., Sitch, S., Totterdell, I., Wiltshire, A., and Woodward, S.: Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model – HadGEM2, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 1051–1075, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-1051-2011, 2011.
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Belsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., J., Haimberger, L., Healy,
S. B., Hersbach, H., Holm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler,
M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J.,
Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and
Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance
of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meoteor. Soc., 137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011.
DeWeaver, E. T., Hunke, E. C., and Holland, M. M., Sensitivity of Arctic Sea
Ice Thickness to Intermodel Variations in the Surface Energy Budget, AGU Geophysical Monograph 180: Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms and Implications,
77–91, https://doi.org/10.1029/180GM07, 2008.
Eisenman, I., Untersteiner, N., and Wettlaufer, J. S.: On the reliability of
simulated Arctic sea ice in global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L10501,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029914, 2007.
Flocco, D., Feltham, D. L., Bailey, E., and Schroeder, D.: The refreezing of
melt ponds on Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 120, 647–659, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010140,
2015.
Graham, R. M., Cohen, L., Petty, A. A., Boisvert, L. N., Rinke, A., Hudson,
S. R., Nicolaus, M., and Granskog, M. A.: Increasing frequency and duration
of Arctic winter warming events, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 6974–6983,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073395, 2017.
Holland, M. and Landrum, L.: Factors affecting projected Arctic surface
shortwave heating and albedo change in coupled climate models,
Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 373, 20140162, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0162, 2015.
Holland, M. M., Serreze, M. C., and Stroeve, J.: The sea ice mass
budget of the Arctic and its future change as simulated by coupled climate
models, Clim. Dynam., 34, 185–200, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0493-4, 2010.
Hunke, E. C. and Dukowicz, J. K.: An Elastic-Viscous-Plastic Model for Sea Ice Dynamics, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1849–1867, 1997.
Jin, Z., Qiao, Y., Wang, Y., Fang, Y., and Yi, W.: A new parameterization of
spectral and broadband ocean surface albedo, Opt. Expres, 19, 26429–26443,
https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.026429, 2011.
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.
Keen, A., Blockley, E., Bailey, D. A., Boldingh Debernard, J., Bushuk, M., Delhaye, S., Docquier, D., Feltham, D., Massonnet, F., O'Farrell, S., Ponsoni, L., Rodriguez, J. M., Schroeder, D., Swart, N., Toyoda, T., Tsujino, H., Vancoppenolle, M., and Wyser, K.: An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models, The Cryosphere, 15, 951–982, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021, 2021.
Kuhlbrodt, T., Jones, C. G., Sellar, A., Storkey, D., Blockley, Ed., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Graham, T., Ridley, J., Blaker, A., Calvert, D., Copsey, D., Ellis, R., Hewitt, H., Hyder, P., Ineson, S., Mulcahy, J., Siahaan, A., and Walton, J.: The low-resolution version of HadGEM3 GC3.1: Development and evaluation for global climate, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2865–2888, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001370, 2018.
Laxon, S., Peacock, N., and Smith, D.: High interannual variability of sea
ice thickness in the Arctic region, Nature, 425, 947–950, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02050,
2003.
Laxon, S. W., Giles, K. A., Ridout, A. L., Wingham, D. J., Willatt, R., Cullen, R., Kwok, R., Schweiger, A., Zhang, J., Haas, C., Hendricks, S., Krishfield, R., Kurtz, N., Farrell, S. and Davidson, M.: CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 732–737, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50193, 2013.
Lindsay, R. and Schweiger, A.: Arctic sea ice thickness loss determined using subsurface, aircraft, and satellite observations, The Cryosphere, 9, 269–283, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-269-2015, 2015.
Lindsay, R., Wensnahan, M., Schweiger, A., and Zhang, J.: Evaluation of Seven
Difference Atmospheric Reanalysis Products in the Arctic, J. Climate, 27, 2588–2606,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00014.1, 2014.
Lindsay, R. W.: Temporal variability of the energy balance of thick Arctic
pack ice, J. Climate, 11, 313–333, 1998.
Lipscomb, W. H. and Hunke, E. C.: Modelling sea ice transport using
incremental remapping, Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 1341–1354, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1341:MSITUI>2.0.CO;2, 2004.
Markus, T., Stroeve, J. C., and Miller, J.: Recent changes in Arctic sea ice
melt onset, freezeup, and melt season length, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 114, C12, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005436, 2009.
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.
McPhee, M. G., Kikuchi, T., Morison, J. H., and Stanton, T. P.: Ocean-to-ice
heat flux at the North Pole environmental observatory, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
30, 2274, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018580, 2003.
Morrison, H., de Boer, G., Feingold, G., Harrington, J., Shupe, M. D., and Sulia, K.: Resilience of persistent
Arctic mixed-phase clouds, Nat. Geosci., 5, 11–17,
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1332, 2012.
Notz, D.: How well must climate models agree with observations?, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 373, 2052,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0164, 2015.
Notz, D. and SIMIP Community: Arctic sea ice in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086749, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086749, 2020.
Perovich, D. K., Richter-Menge, J. A., Jones, K. F., and Light, B.: Sunlight,
water, and ice: Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2007,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034007, 2008.
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.
Rosenblum, E. and Eisenman, I.: Sea Ice Trends in Climate Models Only Accurate in Runs with Biased Global Warming, J. Climate, 30, 6265–6278, 2017.
Rothrock, D. A., Percival, D. B., and Wensnahan, M.: The decline in arctic
sea ice thickness: Separating the spatial, annual, and interannual
variability in a quarter century of submarine data, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C05003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004252, 2008.
Schweiger, A., Lindsay, R., Zhang, J., Steele, M., Stern, H., and Kwok, R.:
Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume, J. Geophys. Res., 116, C00D06,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007084, 2011.
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, 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., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the U.K. Earth System
Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739,
2019.
Semtner, A. J.: A Model for the Thermodynamic Growth of Sea Ice in Numerical
Investigations of Climate, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 6, 379–389, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485, 1976.
Shu, Q., Song, Z., and Qiao, F.: Assessment of sea ice simulations in the CMIP5 models, The Cryosphere, 9, 399–409, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-399-2015, 2015.
Stammerjohn, S., Massom, R., Rind, D., and Martinson, D.: Regions of rapid
sea ice change: An inter-hemispheric seasonal comparison, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 6, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL050874, 2012.
Steele, M., Zhang, J., and Ermold, W.: Mechanisms of summer Arctic Ocean
warming, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 115, C11004,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005849, 2010.
Stroeve, J. C., Holland, M. M., Meier, W. M., Scambos, T., and Serreze, M.
C.: Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, 9, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029703, 2007.
Stroeve, J. C., Kattsov, V, Barrett, A., Serreze, M., Pavlova, T., Holland,
M. M., and Meier, W. N.: Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3
and observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L16502, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052676, 2012.
Thorndike, A. S.: A toy model linking atmospheric thermal radiation and sea
ice growth, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 9401–9410, https://doi.org/10.1029/92JC00695, 1992.
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.
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.: Code associated with final revised paper: “Understanding model spread in sea ice volume by attribution of model differences in seasonal ice growth and melt” (1.0.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7058497, 2022.
West, A., Collins, M., Blockley, E., Ridley, J., and Bodas-Salcedo, A.: Induced surface fluxes: a new framework for attributing Arctic sea ice volume balance biases to specific model errors, The Cryosphere, 13, 2001–2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, 2019.
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.
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 & GC3.1) configurations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 357–380, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001115, 2017.
Zhang, Y., Rossow, W. B., Lacis, A. A., Oinas, V., and Mishchenko, M. I.:
Calculation of radiative fluxes from the surface to the top of the
atmosphere based on ISCCP and other data sets: Refinements to the radiative
transfer model and the input data, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D19105, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004457,
2004.
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.
In this study we explore a method of examining model differences in ice volume by looking at the...
