Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-84
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2022-84
 
28 Apr 2022
28 Apr 2022
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal TC.

Arctic sea ice and snow from different ice models: A CICE–SI3 intercomparison study

Imke Sievers1,3, Andrea M. U. Gierisch1, Till A. S. Rasmussen1, Robinson Hordoir4,5, and Lars Stenseng2 Imke Sievers et al.
  • 1Danish Meteorological Institut, Lyngbyvej 100, Copenhagen East, Denmark
  • 2DTU Space, Danish Technical University, Elektrovej Bygning 327, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
  • 3Aalborg University, A. C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 4Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway
  • 5Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway

Abstract. Sea ice models fill many purposes. They are used in global climate models or for short term forecasts to plan shipping routes. No matter what their output is used for, understanding the cause for there variability is crucial.

In the this study two commonly used sea-ice models, CICE and SI3 were compared after running both models with similar boundary condition, on the same grid, with the same forcing and initialised with the same data, with the aim to understand how the two models differ from each other when forced equally. The set-up also allows linking certain model biases observed in both models to the external forcing. We found that the models compare well to sea ice concentration, sea ice thickness and snow thickness observations, with small regional differences, which could be linked to different model processes. The processes with the highest influence are the drag formulation, the albedo, and the treatment of snow. We find that the treatment of snow has a significant influence on the difference in sea ice thickness between the models, even though their forcing is equal.

Imke Sievers et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • CC1: 'Comment on tc-2022-84', Florent Garnier, 20 May 2022
  • RC1: 'Comment on tc-2022-84', Jean Sterlin, 27 May 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on tc-2022-84', Frederic Dupont, 27 May 2022
  • RC3: 'Comment on tc-2022-84', Martin Vancoppenolle, 28 May 2022
  • RC4: 'Comment on tc-2022-84', Anonymous Referee #4, 29 May 2022

Imke Sievers et al.

Imke Sievers et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 517 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
390 111 16 517 14 4 4
  • HTML: 390
  • PDF: 111
  • XML: 16
  • Total: 517
  • Supplement: 14
  • BibTeX: 4
  • EndNote: 4
Views and downloads (calculated since 28 Apr 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 28 Apr 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 490 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 490 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 03 Jul 2022
Download
Short summary
To predict Arctic sea ice models are used. Many ice models exists. They all are skill full, but give different results. Often this differences result from forcing as for example air temperature. Other differences result from the way the physical equations are solved in the model. In this study two commonly used models are compared under equal forcing, to find out how much the models differ under similar external forcing. The results are compared to observations and to eachother.