Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2021-353
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2021-353
22 Nov 2021
 | 22 Nov 2021
Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.

Seasonal Sea Ice Prediction with the CICE Model and Positive Impact of CryoSat-2 Ice Thickness Initialization

Shan Sun and Amy Solomon

Abstract. The Los Alamos sea ice model (CICE) is being tested in standalone mode for its suitability for seasonal time scale prediction. The prescribed atmospheric forcings to drive the model are from the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR). A built-in mixed layer ocean model in CICE is used. Initial conditions for the sea ice and the mixed layer ocean in the control experiments are also from CFSR. The simulated sea ice extent in the Arctic in control experiments is generally in good agreement with observations in the warm season at all lead times up to 12 months, suggesting that CICE is able to provide useful ice edge information for seasonal prediction. However, the ice thickness forecast has a positive bias stemming from the initial conditions and often persists for more than a season, limiting the model’s seasonal forecast skill. In addition, thicker ice has a lower melting rate in the warm season, both at the bottom and top, contributing to this positive bias. When this bias is removed by initializing the model using ice thickness data from satellite observations while keeping all other initial fields unchanged, both simulated ice edge and thickness improve. This indicates the important role of ice thickness initialization in sea ice seasonal prediction.

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Shan Sun and Amy Solomon

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on tc-2021-353', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jan 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on tc-2021-353', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Feb 2022
  • RC3: 'Comment on tc-2021-353', Anonymous Referee #3, 18 Feb 2022

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on tc-2021-353', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jan 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on tc-2021-353', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Feb 2022
  • RC3: 'Comment on tc-2021-353', Anonymous Referee #3, 18 Feb 2022
Shan Sun and Amy Solomon
Shan Sun and Amy Solomon

Viewed

Total article views: 960 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
670 247 43 960 33 33
  • HTML: 670
  • PDF: 247
  • XML: 43
  • Total: 960
  • BibTeX: 33
  • EndNote: 33
Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Nov 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Nov 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 925 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 925 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 21 May 2024
Download

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Short summary
We validate the standalone CICE sea ice model for application in the seasonal forecast, before it is used in the coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice model. We found the model did a better job in forecasting Arctic sea ice extent in the warm season than in the cold season at the seasonal time scale. A higher forecast skill is achieved when the model is initialized with ice thickness from satellite observations, indicating the importance of the ice thickness initialization.