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. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-49,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-49, 2024
Preprint under review for GMD
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
Brief Communication: On the mid-summer melt pond fraction–September Arctic sea ice extent relationship in the EC-Earth3 climate model
Mukesh Gupta, Leandro Ponsoni, Jean Sterlin, François Massonnet, and Thierry Fichefet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1560,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1560, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Impact of atmospheric forcing uncertainties on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice simulations in CMIP6 OMIP models
Xia Lin, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Martin Vancoppenolle
The Cryosphere, 17, 1935–1965, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1935-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-1935-2023, 2023
Short summary
Atmospheric drivers of Antarctic sea ice extent summer minima
Bianca Mezzina, Hugues Goosse, François Klein, Antoine Barthélemy, and François Massonnet
The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-45,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-45, 2023
Revised manuscript under review for TC
Short summary

Related subject area

Cryosphere
A novel numerical implementation for the surface energy budget of melting snowpacks and glaciers
Kévin Fourteau, Julien Brondex, Fanny Brun, and Marie Dumont
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1903–1929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1903-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1903-2024, 2024
Short summary
SnowPappus v1.0, a blowing-snow model for large-scale applications of the Crocus snow scheme
Matthieu Baron, Ange Haddjeri, Matthieu Lafaysse, Louis Le Toumelin, Vincent Vionnet, and Mathieu Fructus
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1297–1326, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1297-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1297-2024, 2024
Short summary
A stochastic parameterization of ice sheet surface mass balance for the Stochastic Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level System Model (StISSM v1.0)
Lizz Ultee, Alexander A. Robel, and Stefano Castruccio
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1041–1057, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1041-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1041-2024, 2024
Short summary
Graphics-processing-unit-accelerated ice flow solver for unstructured meshes using the Shallow-Shelf Approximation (FastIceFlo v1.0.1)
Anjali Sandip, Ludovic Räss, and Mathieu Morlighem
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 899–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-899-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-899-2024, 2024
Short summary
A finite-element framework to explore the numerical solution of the coupled problem of heat conduction, water vapor diffusion, and settlement in dry snow (IvoriFEM v0.1.0)
Julien Brondex, Kévin Fourteau, Marie Dumont, Pascal Hagenmuller, Neige Calonne, François Tuzet, and Henning Löwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7075–7106, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7075-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7075-2023, 2023
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.