Understanding the influence of ocean waves on Arctic sea ice simulation: a modeling study with an atmosphere–ocean–wave–sea ice coupled model

Yang, Chao-Yuan; Liu, Jiping; Chen, Dake

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-1215-2024

Articles | Volume 18, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-1215-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-1215-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 3

Research article

|

12 Mar 2024

Research article |

| 12 Mar 2024

Understanding the influence of ocean waves on Arctic sea ice simulation: a modeling study with an atmosphere–ocean–wave–sea ice coupled model

Chao-Yuan Yang, Jiping Liu, and Dake Chen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Mar 2024)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 05 Jun 2023)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on tc-2023-79', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jun 2023
With the reduction of Arctic sea ice, the expansion of summer sea ice marginal ice zone, and the enhanced moveability of sea ice, understanding influence of ocean waves on Arctic sea ice simulation and the role of floe size on the wave-ice interactions and ice-ocean heat exchange is becoming more important for both research communities from the Arctic sea ice numerical simulation and other related disciplines. This manuscript by Yang et al. investigates the impacts of ocean waves on Arctic sea ice simulation based on a newly-developed atmosphere-ocean-wave-sea ice coupled model. Especially, the contrasting behaviors of floe size, the responses of sea ice to different lateral melting rate formulations, and the sensitivity of sea ice to the simulated wave parameters have been investigated in detail. This is a work worth publishing. However, there are still some confusions that need further revision and clarification. Therefore, I recommend that this paper be considered for publication after minor revisions.
The major point of concern is the simulation effect of oceanic mixed layer. This paper discusses the reshaping process of sea waves on the size of floating ice, as well as the impact of the latter on ice-ocean heat exchange. Then I think the simulation effect of the ocean mixed layer must be discussed, so I suggest adding 1-2 illustrations to compare the simulation results of the depth and heat content of the mixed layer under different mode settings, and discuss on their influence on ice-ocean heat flux.
Other special comments:
Line 56 “the ice-floe melting rate is a result of the interaction between floe size and ocean circulation”: Why the floe size interacts with the ocean circulation is not clear here, what scale of ocean circulation is, and why it affects the ice-ocean heat flux and ice melt rate?

Line 62 “Previous studies showed that intense storms like “Great Arctic Cyclone” of 2012 (Simmonds and Rudeva, 2012) and strong summer cyclone in 2016 contribute to the anomalously low sea ice extent in 2012 and 2016”: This can only be said to be a partial contribution, as even without great cyclones, there will be an extremely low Arctic sea ice extent in the summer of 2012.

Line 96 “a full representation of sea ice responses under the interactions across atmosphere, ocean, wave, and sea ice”: Actually, waves are a part of the ocean.

frazil ice formation: the frazil ice is very discrete, how does it affect the air-ocean heat flux?

The floe welding parameter: How to consider the seasonal changes in the welding coefficient of sea ice, especially during the freeze-thaw transition season, whether it will be affected by ice temperature and thickness? If the seasonal variation of welding coefficient is considered, how will it affect the simulation results？
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-79-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Chao-Yuan Yang, 08 Oct 2023
  
  Dear Reviewers,
  Thank you very much for your positive and helpful comments. We have attached a letter in the supplement, which includes our responses to both reviewers.
  Sincerely,
  Chao-Yuan Yang
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-79-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on tc-2023-79', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer’s comment of the manuscript “Understanding influence of ocean waves on Arctic sea ice simulation: A modeling study with an atmosphere-ocean-wave-sea ice coupled mode” (tc-2023-79)
This study quantifies the effect of ocean waves on sea ice simulation in the arctic based on a coupled model framework built by the authors. Authors focus on the floe size and thickness distribution (FSTD) with the effect of the ocean waves embedded. This study demonstrates that involving wave-related process can have an impact on sea ice, proving the importance of oceanic wave on sea ice modeling in the coupled model.
Overall, the model development work in this study has a significant value on the coupled modeling system. The result in this study offers more insights on the interaction between the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice in the arctic. The whole manuscript is well-written in general, and I recommend an acceptance after some minor revisions.
Major points:
In this study, the authors divide the model domain into 3 sub-regions, while it lacks conclusions that related to geographically-specified features. I understand that the model development in this study has a good application for all these three regions, and it can distinguish the different wave-sea ice interactions in these regions. But authors should elaborate more on how the regional features derives the conclusion that are widely-applicable for the pan-arctic.

Minor points
Line 238: Please specify that if the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice model are using the same model grid.
Line 248: The model configuration of a higher model top is kind of confusing to me. Does it only matter on the atmospheric circulation modeling? Or it has some effect on the better coupling between the atmosphere and ocean/sea ice?
Figure 9 make sure the naming of sub-figures correctly follows the rule of TC.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-79-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Chao-Yuan Yang, 08 Oct 2023
  
  Dear Reviewers,
  Thank you very much for your positive and helpful comments. We have attached a letter in the supplement, which includes our responses to both reviewers.
  Sincerely,
  Chao-Yuan Yang
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-79-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (27 Nov 2023) by Xichen Li

AR by Chao-Yuan Yang on behalf of the Authors (29 Nov 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 Dec 2023) by Xichen Li

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (04 Jan 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (04 Jan 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review on “Understanding influence of ocean waves on Arctic sea ice simulation: A modeling study with an atmosphere-ocean-wave-sea ice coupled model” by Yang et al.,
The authors have made detailed revisions according to the previous-round review comments, and the manuscript has basically reached the state of being ready for publication. Here, I mainly raise some specific comments on unclear expressions and editorial issues:
1)The spelling rules for the author's name in English are not consistent for all authors. I understand that Chaoyue is the the first name as Jiping and Dake.
2)Line 24 and other text: Sea-ice: I don't think it's necessary to use hyphens.
3)Line 54: The increased surface wind speed: So far, there is no study indicating an increasing trend in the near surface wind field over the Arctic Ocean (e.g., Zhang et al., 2022 as you cited)
4)Line 58: Sea ice with mostly smaller floes has larger surface areas, particularly lateral surfaces.-- This expression makes me very vague. It would be better change to: The ice pack, with the same concentration, has larger surface area for the ice floes with smaller sizes, particularly lateral surfaces.
5)Line 97-99: The coupled effects of ocean waves and sea ice include; the amplitude of ocean waves decays as the waves travel under the ice cover due to the combination of scattering and dissipation-- These two sentences appear incomplete and incoherent. It would be better change to: The coupled effects of ocean waves and sea ice also include the decay of amplitude of ocean waves as they travel under the ice cover due to the combination of scattering and dissipation.
6)Line 337-342: In the equation (2), the user-defined coefficients for the wave attenuation are set as c2 = 1.06 × 10−3 and c4 = 2.3 × 10−2 (case 1), which follow the polynomial of Meylan et al. (2014, hereafter M14) from the observations with 10-25m floe in diameter in the Antarctic, and c2 = 2.84 × 10−4 and c4 = 1.53 × 10−2 (case 2), which follow the polynomial of Rogers et al. (2018, hereafter R18) based on the observations for pancake and frazil ice in the Arctic. --These parameters are all derived from the areas close to the ice edge. How applicable are they to the regions with higher ice concentration?
7)Line 410 the larger total ice surface area due to smaller floe size increases the efficiency of Exp-PFSD extracting energy from the ocean-- This process should generate positive feedback, That is to say, the lateral melting of sea ice would reduce the sea ice area, and then increase the absorption of heat (shortwave radiation) by the upper ocean, promoting sea ice melting, including at the ice bottom. Therefore, my question here is whether the numerical model can capture this feedback, that is, although some of the heat content is consumed by sea ice melting, it will also promote the ocean to absorb heat from the atmospheric in the warm melting season.
8)Line 414 “Energy loss from the ocean through air-sea heat flux that further cools the upper ocean”-- As with the previous question, in summer, the increase in ocean area does not necessarily mean the loss of heat.
9)Line 478 “), and more melting potential in December 2017 in the LK region”: I have a question here. In December, shouldn't the LK region be covered fully by sea ice? Will sea ice melting occur in the early winter season here?
10)Line 502 “Combined with the warmer upper ocean in Exp-PFSD after January 2020 in the ATL region” ——In spring 2020, the sea ice transported from the Arctic Ocean to the Greenland and Barents seas should have increased due to abnormal atmospheric circulation (Zhang et al., 2023). Can the impact of the increased sea ice outflow from the central Arctic Ocean on the local mass budget of sea ice and heat fluxes be captured in numerical models?
Zhang, F., et al., 2023: The impacts of anomalies in atmospheric circulations on Arctic sea ice outflow and sea ice conditions in the Barents and Greenland seas: case study in 2020, The Cryosphere, 17, 4609–4628, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-4609-2023.
11)Figure 1: Is the terminology of the subregions appropriate as it includes not only the peripheral seas but also the central Arctic Ocean, extending to 85N? For example, the LK region includes most of the basin areas located north of the LK Seas, and the same applies to other subregions.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (20 Jan 2024) by Xichen Li

AR by Chao-Yuan Yang on behalf of the Authors (27 Jan 2024) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We present a new atmosphere–ocean–wave–sea ice coupled model to study the influences of ocean waves on Arctic sea ice simulation. Our results show (1) smaller ice-floe size with wave breaking increases ice melt, (2) the responses in the atmosphere and ocean to smaller floe size partially reduce the effect of the enhanced ice melt, (3) the limited oceanic energy is a strong constraint for ice melt enhancement, and (4) ocean waves can indirectly affect sea ice through the atmosphere and the ocean.