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

Anatomy of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice lows in an ocean–sea ice model
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
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Ensemble design for seasonal climate predictions: studying extreme Arctic sea ice lows with a rare event algorithm
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
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
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

Related subject area

Cryosphere
CMIP6 models overestimate sea ice melt, growth and conduction relative to ice mass balance buoy estimates
Alex E. West and Edward W. Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3041–3064, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Coupling framework (1.0) for the Úa (2023b) ice sheet model and the FESOM-1.4 z-coordinate ocean model in an Antarctic domain
Ole Richter, Ralph Timmermann, G. Hilmar Gudmundsson, and Jan De Rydt
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2945–2960, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2945-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2945-2025, 2025
Short summary
A gradient-boosted tree framework to model the ice thickness of the world's glaciers (IceBoost v1.1)
Niccolò Maffezzoli, Eric Rignot, Carlo Barbante, Troels Petersen, and Sebastiano Vascon
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2545–2568, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2545-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2545-2025, 2025
Short summary
Towards deep-learning solutions for classification of automated snow height measurements (CleanSnow v1.0.2)
Jan Svoboda, Marc Ruesch, David Liechti, Corinne Jones, Michele Volpi, Michael Zehnder, and Jürg Schweizer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1829–1849, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1829-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1829-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantitative sub-ice and marine tracing of Antarctic sediment provenance (TASP v1.0)
James W. Marschalek, Edward Gasson, Tina van de Flierdt, Claus-Dieter Hillenbrand, Martin J. Siegert, and Liam Holder
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1673–1708, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1673-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1673-2025, 2025
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