Articles | Volume 12, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3745-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3745-2019
Model evaluation paper
 | 
27 Aug 2019
Model evaluation paper |  | 27 Aug 2019

On the discretization of the ice thickness distribution in the NEMO3.6-LIM3 global ocean–sea ice model

François Massonnet, Antoine Barthélemy, Koffi Worou, Thierry Fichefet, Martin Vancoppenolle, Clément Rousset, and Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro

Related authors

Impact of ocean vertical-mixing parameterization on Arctic sea ice and upper-ocean properties using the NEMO-SI3 model
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
Ensemble design for seasonal climate predictions: Studying extreme Arctic sea ice lows with a rare event algorithm
Jerome Sauer, Francesco Ragone, François Massonnet, and Giuseppe Zappa
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3082,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3082, 2024
Short summary
The role of atmospheric conditions in the Antarctic sea ice extent summer minima
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
Seasonality and scenario dependence of rapid Arctic sea ice loss events in CMIP6 simulations
Annelies Sticker, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, Patricia DeRepentigny, Alexandra Jahn, David Docquier, Christopher Wyburn-Powell, Daphne Quint, Erica Shivers, and Makayla Ortiz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1873,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1873, 2024
Short summary
Consistent but more intense atmospheric circulation response to Arctic sea ice loss in CMIP6 experiments compared to PAMIP experiments
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

Related subject area

Cryosphere
Tuning parameters of a sea ice model using machine learning
Anton Korosov, Yue Ying, and Einar Ólason
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 885–904, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-885-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-885-2025, 2025
Short summary
WRF-Chem simulations of snow nitrate and other physicochemical properties in northern China
Xia Wang, Tao Che, Xueyin Ruan, Shanna Yue, Jing Wang, Chun Zhao, and Lei Geng
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 651–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-651-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-651-2025, 2025
Short summary
Clustering simulated snow profiles to form avalanche forecast regions
Simon Horton, Florian Herla, and Pascal Haegeli
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 193–209, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-193-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-193-2025, 2025
Short summary
SnowQM 1.0: a fast R package for bias-correcting spatial fields of snow water equivalent using quantile mapping
Adrien Michel, Johannes Aschauer, Tobias Jonas, Stefanie Gubler, Sven Kotlarski, and Christoph Marty
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8969–8988, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8969-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8969-2024, 2024
Short summary
Simulation of snow albedo and solar irradiance profile with the Two-streAm Radiative TransfEr in Snow (TARTES) v2.0 model
Ghislain Picard and Quentin Libois
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8927–8953, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8927-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8927-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Barthélemy, A., Goosse, H., Fichefet, T., and Lecomte, O.: On the sensitivity of Antarctic sea ice model biases to atmospheric forcing uncertainties, Clim. Dynam., 51, 1585–1603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3972-7, 2017. a, b, c
Bitz, C. M. and Lipscomb, W. H.: An energy-conserving thermodynamic model of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 15669–15677, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC900100, 1999. a
Bitz, C. M., Holland, M. M., Weaver, A. J., and Eby, M.: Simulating the ice-thickness distribution in a coupled climate model, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 2441–2463, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC000113, 2001. a, b, c, d
Bouillon, S., Fichefet, T., Legat, V., and Madec, G.: The elastic-viscous-plastic method revisited, Ocean Modell., 71, 2–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.05.013, 2013. a
Brodeau, L., Barnier, B., Treguier, A.-M., Penduff, T., and Gulev, S.: An ERA40-based atmospheric forcing for global ocean circulation models, Ocean Modell., 31, 88–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.10.005, 2010. a
Download
Short summary
Sea ice thickness varies considerably on spatial scales of several meters. However, contemporary climate models cannot resolve such scales yet. This is why sea ice models used in climate models include an ice thickness distribution (ITD) to account for this unresolved variability. Here, we explore with the ocean–sea ice model NEMO3.6-LIM3 the sensitivity of simulated mean Arctic and Antarctic sea ice states to the way the ITD is discretized.
Share