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
A three-stage model pipeline predicting regional avalanche danger in Switzerland (RAvaFcast v1.0.0): a decision-support tool for operational avalanche forecasting
Alessandro Maissen, Frank Techel, and Michele Volpi
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7569–7593, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7569-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7569-2024, 2024
Short summary
A global–land snow scheme (GLASS) v1.0 for the GFDL Earth System Model: formulation and evaluation at instrumented sites
Enrico Zorzetto, Sergey Malyshev, Paul Ginoux, and Elena Shevliakova
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7219–7244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7219-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7219-2024, 2024
Short summary
Design and performance of ELSA v2.0: an isochronal model for ice-sheet layer tracing
Therese Rieckh, Andreas Born, Alexander Robinson, Robert Law, and Gerrit Gülle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6987–7000, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6987-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6987-2024, 2024
Short summary
Southern Ocean Ice Prediction System version 1.0 (SOIPS v1.0): description of the system and evaluation of synoptic-scale sea ice forecasts
Fu Zhao, Xi Liang, Zhongxiang Tian, Ming Li, Na Liu, and Chengyan Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6867–6886, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6867-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6867-2024, 2024
Short summary
Lagrangian tracking of sea ice in Community Ice CodE (CICE; version 5)
Chenhui Ning, Shiming Xu, Yan Zhang, Xuantong Wang, Zhihao Fan, and Jiping Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6847–6866, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6847-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6847-2024, 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.