Articles | Volume 19, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3259-2025
© Author(s) 2025. 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-19-3259-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
26 Aug 2025
Research article |
| 26 Aug 2025
| 26 Aug 2025
Seasonality and scenario dependence of rapid Arctic sea ice loss events in CMIP6 simulations
Annelies Sticker
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Earth and Life Institute, Earth and Climate, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
François Massonnet
Earth and Life Institute, Earth and Climate, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Thierry Fichefet
Earth and Life Institute, Earth and Climate, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Patricia DeRepentigny
Earth and Life Institute, Earth and Climate, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Alexandra Jahn
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
David Docquier
Dynamical Meteorology and Climatology Unit, Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Brussels, Belgium
Christopher Wyburn-Powell
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Daphne Quint
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Erica Shivers
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Makayla Ortiz
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
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.
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, Nicola Bodini, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1269–1301, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1269-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1269-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind farms along the US East Coast can have limited effects on local weather. To study these effects, we include wind farms near Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and we test different amounts of turbulence in our model. We analyze changes in wind, temperature, and turbulence. Simulated effects on surface temperature and turbulence change depending on how much turbulence is added to the model. The extent of the wind farm wake depends on how deep the atmospheric boundary layer is.
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
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The earth system model variables needed for studies of the ocean and sea ice are prioritized and requested.
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.
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 117–142, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind farms will be built along the East Coast of the United States. Low-level jets (LLJs) – layers of fast winds at low altitudes – also occur here. LLJs provide wind resources and also influence moisture and pollution transport, so it is important to understand how they might change. We develop and validate an automated tool to detect LLJs and compare 1 year of simulations with and without wind farms. Here, we describe LLJ characteristics and how they change with wind farms.
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.
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.
Bjorn Stevens, Stefan Adami, Tariq Ali, Hartwig Anzt, Zafer Aslan, Sabine Attinger, Jaana Bäck, Johanna Baehr, Peter Bauer, Natacha Bernier, Bob Bishop, Hendryk Bockelmann, Sandrine Bony, Guy Brasseur, David N. Bresch, Sean Breyer, Gilbert Brunet, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Junji Cao, Christelle Castet, Yafang Cheng, Ayantika Dey Choudhury, Deborah Coen, Susanne Crewell, Atish Dabholkar, Qing Dai, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Dale Durran, Ayoub El Gaidi, Charlie Ewen, Eleftheria Exarchou, Veronika Eyring, Florencia Falkinhoff, David Farrell, Piers M. Forster, Ariane Frassoni, Claudia Frauen, Oliver Fuhrer, Shahzad Gani, Edwin Gerber, Debra Goldfarb, Jens Grieger, Nicolas Gruber, Wilco Hazeleger, Rolf Herken, Chris Hewitt, Torsten Hoefler, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Daniela Jacob, Alexandra Jahn, Christian Jakob, Thomas Jung, Christopher Kadow, In-Sik Kang, Sarah Kang, Karthik Kashinath, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Daniel Klocke, Uta Kloenne, Milan Klöwer, Chihiro Kodama, Stefan Kollet, Tobias Kölling, Jenni Kontkanen, Steve Kopp, Michal Koran, Markku Kulmala, Hanna Lappalainen, Fakhria Latifi, Bryan Lawrence, June Yi Lee, Quentin Lejeun, Christian Lessig, Chao Li, Thomas Lippert, Jürg Luterbacher, Pekka Manninen, Jochem Marotzke, Satoshi Matsouoka, Charlotte Merchant, Peter Messmer, Gero Michel, Kristel Michielsen, Tomoki Miyakawa, Jens Müller, Ramsha Munir, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Ousmane Ndiaye, Carlos Nobre, Achim Oberg, Riko Oki, Tuba Özkan-Haller, Tim Palmer, Stan Posey, Andreas Prein, Odessa Primus, Mike Pritchard, Julie Pullen, Dian Putrasahan, Johannes Quaas, Krishnan Raghavan, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Markus Rapp, Florian Rauser, Markus Reichstein, Aromar Revi, Sonakshi Saluja, Masaki Satoh, Vera Schemann, Sebastian Schemm, Christina Schnadt Poberaj, Thomas Schulthess, Cath Senior, Jagadish Shukla, Manmeet Singh, Julia Slingo, Adam Sobel, Silvina Solman, Jenna Spitzer, Philip Stier, Thomas Stocker, Sarah Strock, Hang Su, Petteri Taalas, John Taylor, Susann Tegtmeier, Georg Teutsch, Adrian Tompkins, Uwe Ulbrich, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Chien-Ming Wu, Hao Xu, Najibullah Zaki, Laure Zanna, Tianjun Zhou, and Florian Ziemen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2113–2122, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To manage Earth in the Anthropocene, new tools, new institutions, and new forms of international cooperation will be required. Earth Virtualization Engines is proposed as an international federation of centers of excellence to empower all people to respond to the immense and urgent challenges posed by climate change.
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.
Gifford H. Miller, Simon L. Pendleton, Alexandra Jahn, Yafang Zhong, John T. Andrews, Scott J. Lehman, Jason P. Briner, Jonathan H. Raberg, Helga Bueltmann, Martha Raynolds, Áslaug Geirsdóttir, and John R. Southon
Clim. Past, 19, 2341–2360, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-19-2341-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-19-2341-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Receding Arctic ice caps reveal moss killed by earlier ice expansions; 186 moss kill dates from 71 ice caps cluster at 250–450, 850–1000 and 1240–1500 CE and continued expanding 1500–1880 CE, as recorded by regions of sparse vegetation cover, when ice caps covered > 11 000 km2 but < 100 km2 at present. The 1880 CE state approached conditions expected during the start of an ice age; climate models suggest this was only reversed by anthropogenic alterations to the planetary energy balance.
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.
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.
Koffi Worou, Thierry Fichefet, and Hugues Goosse
Weather Clim. Dynam., 4, 511–530, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-511-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-4-511-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Atlantic equatorial mode (AEM) of variability is partly responsible for the year-to-year rainfall variability over the Guinea coast. We used the current climate models to explore the present-day and future links between the AEM and the extreme rainfall indices over the Guinea coast. Under future global warming, the total variability of the extreme rainfall indices increases over the Guinea coast. However, the future impact of the AEM on extreme rainfall events decreases over the region.
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.
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.
Guillian Van Achter, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, and Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro
The Cryosphere, 16, 4745–4761, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4745-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4745-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the changes in ocean–ice interactions in the Totten Glacier area between the last decades (1995–2014) and the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) under warmer climate conditions. By the end of the 21st century, the sea ice is strongly reduced, and the ocean circulation close to the coast is accelerated. Our research highlights the importance of including representations of fast ice to simulate realistic ice shelf melt rate increase in East Antarctica under warming conditions.
Abigail Smith, Alexandra Jahn, Clara Burgard, and Dirk Notz
The Cryosphere, 16, 3235–3248, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-3235-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-3235-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The timing of Arctic sea ice melt each year is an important metric for assessing how sea ice in climate models compares to satellite observations. Here, we utilize a new tool for creating more direct comparisons between climate model projections and satellite observations of Arctic sea ice, such that the melt onset dates are defined the same way. This tool allows us to identify climate model biases more clearly and gain more information about what the satellites are observing.
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.
Koffi Worou, Hugues Goosse, Thierry Fichefet, and Fred Kucharski
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 231–249, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-231-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-231-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Over the Guinea Coast, the increased rainfall associated with warm phases of the Atlantic Niño is reasonably well simulated by 24 climate models out of 31, for the present-day conditions. In a warmer climate, general circulation models project a gradual decrease with time of the rainfall magnitude associated with the Atlantic Niño for the 2015–2039, 2040–2069 and 2070–2099 periods. There is a higher confidence in these changes over the equatorial Atlantic than over the Guinea Coast.
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.
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.
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.
Christoph Kittel, Charles Amory, Cécile Agosta, Nicolas C. Jourdain, Stefan Hofer, Alison Delhasse, Sébastien Doutreloup, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Charlotte Lang, Thierry Fichefet, and Xavier Fettweis
The Cryosphere, 15, 1215–1236, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-1215-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-1215-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The future surface mass balance (SMB) of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) will influence the ice dynamics and the contribution of the ice sheet to the sea level rise. We investigate the AIS sensitivity to different warmings using physical and statistical downscaling of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. Our results highlight a contrasting effect between the grounded ice sheet (where the SMB is projected to increase) and ice shelves (where the future SMB depends on the emission scenario).
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.
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.
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.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, and François Massonnet
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4773–4787, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4773-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4773-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models need to capture sea ice complexity to represent it realistically. Here we assess how distributing sea ice in discrete thickness categories impacts how sea ice variability is simulated in the NEMO3.6–LIM3 model. Simulations and satellite observations are compared by using k-means clustering of sea ice concentration in winter and summer between 1979 and 2014 at both poles. Little improvements in the modeled sea ice lead us to recommend using the standard number of five categories.
Abigail Smith, Alexandra Jahn, and Muyin Wang
The Cryosphere, 14, 2977–2997, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2977-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2977-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The annual cycle of Arctic sea ice can be used to gain more information about how climate model simulations of sea ice compare to observations. In some models, the September sea ice area agrees with observations for the wrong reasons because biases in the timing of seasonal transitions compensate for other unrealistic sea ice characteristics. This research was done to provide new process-based metrics of Arctic sea ice using satellite observations, the CESM Large Ensemble, and CMIP6 models.
Cited articles
Arrigo, K. and van Dijken, G.: Secular trends in Arctic Ocean net primary production, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, C09011, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007151, 2011. a
Baxter, I., Ding, Q., Schweiger, A., L'Heureux, M., Baxter, S., Wang, T., Zhang, Q., Harnos, K., Markle, B., Topal, D., and Lu, J.: How Tropical Pacific Surface Cooling Contributed to Accelerated Sea Ice Melt from 2007 to 2012 as Ice Is Thinned by Anthropogenic Forcing, J. Climate, 32, 8583–8602, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0783.1, 2019. a
Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Ø., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., 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. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8040, 2019a. a
Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Ø., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., 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. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8250, 2019b. a
Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Ø., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., 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. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8321, 2019c. a
Bianco, E., Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., Materia, S., Ruggieri, P., Iovino, D., and Masina, S.: CMIP6 Models Underestimate Arctic Sea Ice Loss during the Early Twentieth-Century Warming, despite Simulating Large Low-Frequency Sea Ice Variability, J. Climate, 37, 6305–6321, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0647.1, 2024. a
Boucher, O., Denvil, S., Levavasseur, G., Cozic, A., Caubel, A., Foujols, M.-A., Meurdesoif, Y., Cadule, P., Devilliers, M., Ghattas, J., Lebas, N., Lurton, T., Mellul, L., Musat, I., Mignot, J., and Cheruy, F.: IPSL IPSL-CM6A-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5195, 2018. a
Boucher, O., Denvil, S., Levavasseur, G., Cozic, A., Caubel, A., Foujols, M.-A., Meurdesoif, Y., Cadule, P., Devilliers, M., Dupont, E., and Lurton, T.: IPSL IPSL-CM6A-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5262, 2019a. a
Boucher, O., Denvil, S., Levavasseur, G., Cozic, A., Caubel, A., Foujols, M.-A., Meurdesoif, Y., Cadule, P., Devilliers, M., Dupont, E., and Lurton, T.: IPSL IPSL-CM6A-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5271, 2019b. a
Cao, J.: NUIST NESMv3 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8780, 2019a. a
Cao, J.: NUIST NESMv3 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8790, 2019b. a
Cao, J. and Wang, B.: NUIST NESMv3 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8769, 2019. a
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, https://doi.org/10.5067/8GQ8LZQVL0VL, 1996. a
Crawford, A., Stroeve, J., Smith, A., and Jahn, A.: Arctic open-water periods are projected to lengthen dramatically by 2100, Communications Earth and Environment, 2, 109, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00183-x, 2021. a
Dakos, V., Scheffer, M., Van Nes, E. H., Brovkin, V., Petoukhov, V., and Held, H.: Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 14308–14312, 2008. a
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7627, 2019a. a
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7746, 2019b. a
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7768, 2019c. a
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2-WACCM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10071, 2019d. a
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2-WACCM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10100, 2019e. a
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2-WACCM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10115, 2019f. a
Delhaye, S., Msadek, R., Fichefet, T., Massonnet, F., and Terray, L.: Consistent but more intense atmospheric circulation response to Arctic sea ice loss in CMIP6 experiments compared to PAMIP experiments, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, 2023. a
Deser, C., Lehner, F., Rodgers, K., Ault, T., Delworth, T., DiNezio, P., Fiore, A., Frankignoul, C., Fyfe, J., Horton, D., Kay, J., Knutti, R., Lovenduski, N., Marotzke, J., McKinnon, K., Minobe, S., Randerson, J., Screen, J., Simpson, I., and Ting, M.: Insights from Earth system model initial-condition large ensembles and future prospects, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 277–286, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0731-2, 2020. a
Dix, M., Bi, D., Dobrohotoff, P., Fiedler, R., Harman, I., Law, R., Mackallah, C., Marsland, S., O'Farrell, S., Rashid, H., Srbinovsky, J., Sullivan, A., Trenham, C., Vohralik, P., Watterson, I., Williams, G., Woodhouse, M., Bodman, R., Dias, F. B., Domingues, C. M., Hannah, N., Heerdegen, A., Savita, A., Wales, S., Allen, C., Druken, K., Evans, B., Richards, C., Ridzwan, S. M., Roberts, D., Smillie, J., Snow, K., Ward, M., and Yang, R.: CSIRO-ARCCSS ACCESS-CM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4271, 2019a. a
Dix, M., Bi, D., Dobrohotoff, P., Fiedler, R., Harman, I., Law, R., Mackallah, C., Marsland, S., O'Farrell, S., Rashid, H., Srbinovsky, J., Sullivan, A., Trenham, C., Vohralik, P., Watterson, I., Williams, G., Woodhouse, M., Bodman, R., Dias, F. B., Domingues, C. M., Hannah, N., Heerdegen, A., Savita, A., Wales, S., Allen, C., Druken, K., Evans, B., Richards, C., Ridzwan, S. M., Roberts, D., Smillie, J., Snow, K., Ward, M., and Yang, R.: CSIRO-ARCCSS ACCESS-CM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4319, 2019b. a
Dix, M., Bi, D., Dobrohotoff, P., Fiedler, R., Harman, I., Law, R., Mackallah, C., Marsland, S., O'Farrell, S., Rashid, H., Srbinovsky, J., Sullivan, A., Trenham, C., Vohralik, P., Watterson, I., Williams, G., Woodhouse, M., Bodman, R., Dias, F. B., Domingues, C. M., Hannah, N., Heerdegen, A., Savita, A., Wales, S., Allen, C., Druken, K., Evans, B., Richards, C., Ridzwan, S. M., Roberts, D., Smillie, J., Snow, K., Ward, M., and Yang, R.: CSIRO-ARCCSS ACCESS-CM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4332, 2019c. a
EC-Earth-Consortium: EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4700, 2019a. a
EC-Earth-Consortium: EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4874, 2019b. a
EC-Earth-Consortium: EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4912, 2019c. a
EC-Earth-Consortium: EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3-Veg model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4706, 2019d. a
EC-Earth-Consortium: EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3-Veg model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4876, 2019e. a
EC-Earth-Consortium: EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3-Veg model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4914, 2019f. a
Fetterer, F., Knowles, K., Meier, W., Savoie, M., and Windnagel, A.: Sea Ice Index, Version 3 [monthly values from 1979 to 2023], https://doi.org/10.7265/N5K072F8, 2017. a, b, c, d
Frank, M.: Driving Mechanisms of Very Rapid Sea Ice Loss Events, PhD thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, https://hdl.handle.net/11244/340422 (last access: 11 August 2025), 2024. a
Good, P.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10849, 2020a. a
Good, P.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10901, 2020b. a
Good, P., Sellar, A., Tang, Y., Rumbold, S., Ellis, R., Kelley, D., and Kuhlbrodt, T.: MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6333, 2019a. a
Good, P., Sellar, A., Tang, Y., Rumbold, S., Ellis, R., Kelley, D., and Kuhlbrodt, T.: MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6405, 2019b. a
Goosse, H., Arzel, O., Bitz, C. M., de Montety, A., and Vancoppenolle, M.: Increased variability of the Arctic summer ice extent in a warmer climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L23702, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040546, 2009. a, b
Hajima, T., Abe, M., Arakawa, O., Suzuki, T., Komuro, Y., Ogura, T., Ogochi, K., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Ohgaito, R., Ito, A., Yamazaki, D., Ito, A., Takata, K., Watanabe, S., Kawamiya, M., and Tachiiri, K.: MIROC MIROC-ES2L model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5602, 2019. a
Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M., and Tremblay, B.: Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L23503, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028024, 2006. a, b, c
Jackson, L.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10850, 2020a. a
Jackson, L.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10902, 2020b. a
Jahn, A., Holland, M. M., and Kay, J. E.: Projections of an ice-free Arctic Ocean, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 5, 164–176, 2024. a
John, J. G., Blanton, C., McHugh, C., Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Vahlenkamp, H., Wilson, C., Zadeh, N. T., Dunne, J. P., Dussin, R., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J. P., Lin, P., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Ploshay, J., Shevliakova, E., Silvers, L., Stock, C., Winton, M., and Zeng, Y.: NOAA-GFDL GFDL-ESM4 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8684, 2018a. a
John, J. G., Blanton, C., McHugh, C., Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Vahlenkamp, H., Wilson, C., Zadeh, N. T., Dunne, J. P., Dussin, R., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J. P., Lin, P., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Ploshay, J., Shevliakova, E., Silvers, L., Stock, C., Winton, M., and Zeng, Y.: NOAA-GFDL GFDL-ESM4 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8706, 2018b. a
Jungclaus, J., Bittner, M., Wieners, K.-H., Wachsmann, F., Schupfner, M., Legutke, S., Giorgetta, M., Reick, C., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Esch, M., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S., Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters-von Gehlen, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K., Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6594, 2019. a
Kay, J., Holland, M., and Jahn, A.: Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L15708, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048008, 2011. a
Krasting, J. P., John, J. G., Blanton, C., McHugh, C., Nikonov, S., Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Zadeh, N. T., Balaji, V., Durachta, J., Dupuis, C., Menzel, R., Robinson, T., Underwood, S., Vahlenkamp, H., Dunne, K. A., Gauthier, P. P., Ginoux, P., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R., Harrison, M., Hurlin, W., Malyshev, S., Naik, V., Paulot, F., Paynter, D. J., Ploshay, J., Reichl, B. G., Schwarzkopf, D. M., Seman, C. J., Silvers, L., Wyman, B., Zeng, Y., Adcroft, A., Dunne, J. P., Dussin, R., Guo, H., He, J., Held, I. M., Horowitz, L. W., Lin, P., Milly, P., Shevliakova, E., Stock, C., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A. T., Xie, Y., and Zhao, M.: NOAA-GFDL GFDL-ESM4 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8597, 2018. a
Landrum, L. and Holland, M.: Extremes become routine in an emerging new Arctic, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0892-z, 2020. a
Lawrence, D. M., Slater, A. G., Tomas, R. A., Holland, M. M., and Deser, C.: Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11506, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033985, 2008. a, b, c, d
Lee, W.-L. and Liang, H.-C.: AS-RCEC TaiESM1.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.9755, 2020a. a
Lee, W.-L. and Liang, H.-C.: AS-RCEC TaiESM1.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.9806, 2020b. a
Lee, W.-L. and Liang, H.-C.: AS-RCEC TaiESM1.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.9823, 2020c. a
Lin, X., Massonnet, F., Fichefet, T., and Vancoppenolle, M.: SITool (v1.0) – a new evaluation tool for large-scale sea ice simulations: application to CMIP6 OMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6331–6354, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6331-2021, 2021. a
McGraw, M. C., Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., Clancy, R. P., and Bitz, C. M.: Understanding the Forecast Skill of Rapid Arctic Sea Ice Loss on Subseasonal Time Scales, J. Climate, 35, 1179–1196, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0301.1, 2022. a
Meredith, M., Sommerkorn, M., Cassotta, S., Derksen, C., Ekaykin, A., Hollowed, A., Kofinas, G., Mackintosh, A., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Muelbert, M., Ottersen, G., Pritchard, H., and Schuur, E.: Polar Regions, in: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, edited by: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B., and Weyer, N. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 203–320, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.005, 2019. a, b
Notz, D.: Sea-ice extent and its trend provide limited metrics of model performance, The Cryosphere, 8, 229–243, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-229-2014, 2014. a
Olonscheck, D., Suarez-Gutierrez, L., Milinski, S., Beobide-Arsuaga, G., Baehr, J., Fröb, F., Ilyina, T., Kadow, C., Krieger, D., Li, H., Marotzke, J., Plésiat, E., Schupfner, M., Wachsmann, F., Wallberg, L., Wieners, K.-H., and Brune, S.: The New Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble With CMIP6 Forcing and High-Frequency Model Output, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2023MS003790, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS003790, 2023. a
Onarheim, I. H., Eldevik, T., Smedsrud, L. H., and Stroeve, J. C.: Seasonal and Regional Manifestation of Arctic Sea Ice Loss, J. Climate, 31, 4917–4932, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0427.1, 2018. a
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016. a
Paquin, J.-P., Döscher, R., Koenigk, T., and Sushama, L.: Causes and consequences of mid-21st-century rapid ice loss events simulated by the Rossby centre regional atmosphere-ocean model, Tellus A, 65, 19110, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v65i0.19110, 2013. a, b, c
Polar Science Center: PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis version 2.1, Polar Science Center [data set], http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/, last access: 11 August 2025. a
Ridley, J., Menary, M., Kuhlbrodt, T., Andrews, M., and Andrews, T.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6109, 2019a. a
Ridley, J., Menary, M., Kuhlbrodt, T., Andrews, M., and Andrews, T.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6112, 2019b. a
Rieke, O., Årthun, M., and Dörr, J. S.: Rapid sea ice changes in the future Barents Sea, The Cryosphere, 17, 1445–1456, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1445-2023, 2023. a, b, c, d
Rong, X.: CAMS CAMS-CSM1.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.11046, 2019a. a
Rong, X.: CAMS CAMS-CSM1.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.11052, 2019b. a
Rong, X.: CAMS CAMS_CSM1.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.9754, 2019c. a
Rosenblum, E. and Eisenman, I.: Sea Ice Trends in Climate Models Only Accurate in Runs with Biased Global Warming, J. Climate, 30, 6265–6278, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0455.1, 2017. a
Schupfner, M., Wieners, K.-H., Wachsmann, F., Steger, C., Bittner, M., Jungclaus, J., Früh, B., Pankatz, K., Giorgetta, M., Reick, C., Legutke, S., Esch, M., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S., Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters-von Gehlen, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K., Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: DKRZ MPI-ESM1.2-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4397, 2019a. a
Schupfner, M., Wieners, K.-H., Wachsmann, F., Steger, C., Bittner, M., Jungclaus, J., Früh, B., Pankatz, K., Giorgetta, M., Reick, C., Legutke, S., Esch, M., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S., Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters-von Gehlen, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K., Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: DKRZ MPI-ESM1.2-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4403, 2019b. a
Schweiger, A., Lindsay, R., Zhang, J., Steele, M., Stern, H., and Kwok, R.: Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, C00D06, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007084, 2011. a, b, c
Screen, J., Deser, C., and Sun, L.: Projected changes in regional climate extremes arising from Arctic sea ice loss, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 084006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084006, 2015. a
Seferian, R.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4068, 2018. a
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., 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. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-LM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8036, 2019a. a
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., 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. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-LM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8248, 2019b. a
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., 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. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-LM model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8319, 2019c. a
Senftleben, D., Lauer, A., and Karpechko, A.: Constraining Uncertainties in CMIP5 Projections of September Arctic Sea Ice Extent with Observations, J. Climate, 33, 1487–1503, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0075.1, 2020. a
Serreze, M. C. and Barry, R. G.: Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis, Global Planet. Change, 77, 85–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.03.004, 2011. a
Serreze, M. C., Barrett, A. P., Stroeve, J. C., Kindig, D. N., and Holland, M. M.: The emergence of surface-based Arctic amplification, The Cryosphere, 3, 11–19, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-3-11-2009, 2009. a
Shen, Z., Duan, A., Li, D., and Li, J.: Assessment and Ranking of Climate Models in Arctic Sea Ice Cover Simulation: From CMIP5 to CMIP6, J. Climate, 34, 3609–3627, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0294.1, 2021. a
Shiogama, H., Abe, M., and Tatebe, H.: MIROC MIROC6 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5743, 2019a. a
Shiogama, H., Abe, M., and Tatebe, H.: MIROC MIROC6 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5771, 2019b. a
Shiogama, H., Tatebe, H., Hayashi, M., Abe, M., Arai, M., Koyama, H., Imada, Y., Kosaka, Y., Ogura, T., and Watanabe, M.: MIROC6 Large Ensemble (MIROC6-LE): experimental design and initial analyses, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1107–1124, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1107-2023, 2023. a
Shu, Q., Wang, Q., Song, Z., Qiao, F., Zhao, J., Chu, M., and Li, X.: Assessment of Sea Ice Extent in CMIP6 With Comparison to Observations and CMIP5, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087965, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087965, 2020. a
SIMIP Community: Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086749, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086749, 2020. a
Stroeve, J. and Meier, W. N.: Sea Ice Trends and Climatologies from SMMR and SSM/I-SSMIS, NSIDC-0192, Version 3, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/IJ0T7HFHB9Y6, 2018. a
Stroeve, J. and Notz, D.: Insights on past and future sea-ice evolution from combining observations and models, Global Planet. Change, 135, 119–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.10.011, 2015. a, b
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. a
Swart, N. C., Fyfe, J. C., Hawkins, E., Kay, J. E., and Jahn, A.: Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea-ice trends, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 86–89, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2483, 2015. a, b
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., Winter, B., and Sigmond, M.: CCCma CanESM5 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.3610, 2019a. a
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., Winter, B., and Sigmond, M.: CCCma CanESM5 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.3683, 2019b. a
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., Winter, B., and Sigmond, M.: CCCma CanESM5 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.3696, 2019c. a
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, 2019d. a
Tachiiri, K., Abe, M., Hajima, T., Arakawa, O., Suzuki, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Ohgaito, R., Ito, A., Yamazaki, D., Ito, A., Takata, K., Watanabe, S., and Kawamiya, M.: MIROC MIROC-ES2L model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5742, 2019a. a
Tachiiri, K., Abe, M., Hajima, T., Arakawa, O., Suzuki, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Ohgaito, R., Ito, A., Yamazaki, D., Ito, A., Takata, K., Watanabe, S., and Kawamiya, M.: MIROC MIROC-ES2L model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5770, 2019b. a
Tang, Y., Rumbold, S., Ellis, R., Kelley, D., Mulcahy, J., Sellar, A., Walton, J., and Jones, C.: MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6113, 2019. a
Tatebe, H. and Watanabe, M.: MIROC MIROC6 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5603, 2018. a
Tatebe, H., Ogura, T., Nitta, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Takemura, T., Sudo, K., Sekiguchi, M., Abe, M., Saito, F., Chikira, M., Watanabe, S., Mori, M., Hirota, N., Kawatani, Y., Mochizuki, T., Yoshimura, K., Takata, K., O'ishi, R., Yamazaki, D., Suzuki, T., Kurogi, M., Kataoka, T., Watanabe, M., and Kimoto, M.: Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2727–2765, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019, 2019. a
Taylor, P. C., Cai, M., Hu, A., Meehl, J., Washington, W., and Zhang, G. J.: A Decomposition of Feedback Contributions to Polar Warming Amplification, J. Climate, 26, 7023–7043, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00696.1, 2013. a
Voldoire, A.: CMIP6 simulations of the CNRM-CERFACS based on CNRM-CM6-1 model for CMIP experiment historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4066, 2018. a
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4067, 2019a. a
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4225, 2019b. a
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4184, 2019c. a
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4224, 2019d. a
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4186, 2019e. a
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4226, 2019f. a
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4185, 2020. a
Wang, Z., Walsh, J., Szymborski, S., and Peng, M.: Rapid Arctic Sea Ice Loss on the Synoptic Time Scale and Related Atmospheric Circulation Anomalies, J. Climate, 33, 1597–1617, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0528.1, 2020. a
Wassmann, P., Duarte, C. M., Agusti, S., and Sejr, M. K.: Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem, Global Change Biol., 17, 1235–1249, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02311.x, 2011. a
Watts, M., Maslowski, W., Lee, Y. J., Kinney, J. C., and Osinski, R.: A Spatial Evaluation of Arctic Sea Ice and Regional Limitations in CMIP6 Historical Simulations, J. Climate, 34, 6399–6420, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0491.1, 2021. a, b
WCRP: CMIP6, WCRP [data set], https://esgf-node.ipsl.upmc.fr/search/cmip6-ipsl/, last access: 11 August 2025. a
Wieners, K.-H., Giorgetta, M., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C., Esch, M., Bittner, M., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S., Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters-von Gehlen, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K., Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6690, 2019a. a
Wieners, K.-H., Giorgetta, M., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C., Esch, M., Bittner, M., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S., Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters-von Gehlen, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K., Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6705, 2019b. a
Wieners, K.-H., Giorgetta, M., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C., Esch, M., Bittner, M., Legutke, S., Schupfner, M., Wachsmann, F., Gayler, V., Haak, H., de Vrese, P., Raddatz, T., Mauritsen, T., von Storch, J.-S., Behrens, J., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Hagemann, S., Hohenegger, C., Jahns, T., Kloster, S., Kinne, S., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Müller, W., Nabel, J., Notz, D., Peters-von Gehlen, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K., Stevens, B., Voigt, A., and Roeckner, E.: MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6595, 2019c. a
Wu, T., Chu, M., Dong, M., Fang, Y., Jie, W., Li, J., Li, W., Liu, Q., Shi, X., Xin, X., Yan, J., Zhang, F., Zhang, J., Zhang, L., and Zhang, Y.: BCC BCC-CSM2MR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2948, 2018. a
Wyser, K., Koenigk, T., Fladrich, U., Fuentes-Franco, R., Karami, M. P., and Kruschke, T.: The SMHI Large Ensemble (SMHI-LENS) with EC-Earth3.3.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4781–4796, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4781-2021, 2021. a
Xin, X., Wu, T., Shi, X., Zhang, F., Li, J., Chu, M., Liu, Q., Yan, J., Ma, Q., and Wei, M.: BCC BCC-CSM2MR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.3028, 2019a. a
Xin, X., Wu, T., Shi, X., Zhang, F., Li, J., Chu, M., Liu, Q., Yan, J., Ma, Q., and Wei, M.: BCC BCC-CSM2MR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.3050, 2019b. a
Yukimoto, S., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Ishii, M., Obata, A., and Adachi, Y.: MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6842, 2019a. a
Yukimoto, S., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Ishii, M., Obata, A., and Adachi, Y.: MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6909, 2019b. a
Yukimoto, S., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Ishii, M., Obata, A., and Adachi, Y.: MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6929, 2019c. a
Zhang, J. and Rothrock, D. A.: Modeling Global Sea Ice with a Thickness and Enthalpy Distribution Model in Generalized Curvilinear Coordinates, Mon. Weather Rev., 131, 845–861, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2003)131<0845:MGSIWA>2.0.CO;2, 2003. a
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M., Lenton, A., Law, R., Bodman, R., Dix, M., Wang, Y., Dobrohotoff, P., Srbinovsky, J., Stevens, L., Vohralik, P., Mackallah, C., Sullivan, A., O'Farrell, S., and Druken, K.: CSIRO ACCESS-ESM1.5 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4272, 2019a. a
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M., Lenton, A., Law, R., Bodman, R., Dix, M., Wang, Y., Dobrohotoff, P., Srbinovsky, J., Stevens, L., Vohralik, P., Mackallah, C., Sullivan, A., O'Farrell, S., and Druken, K.: CSIRO ACCESS-ESM1.5 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP126, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4320, 2019b. a
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M., Lenton, A., Law, R., Bodman, R., Dix, M., Wang, Y., Dobrohotoff, P., Srbinovsky, J., Stevens, L., Vohralik, P., Mackallah, C., Sullivan, A., O'Farrell, S., and Druken, K.: CSIRO ACCESS-ESM1.5 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP SSP585, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4333, 2019c. a
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M., Law, R., Lenton, A., Bodman, R., Dix, M., Stevens, L., Wang, Y., and Srbinovsky, J.: The Australian Earth System Model: ACCESS-ESM1.5, Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science, 70, 193–214, https://doi.org/10.1071/ES19035, 2020. a
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.
Our study analyzes rapid ice loss events (RILEs) in the Arctic, which are significant reductions...
