Articles | Volume 13, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4773-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4773-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
05 Oct 2020
Model evaluation paper |
| 05 Oct 2020
| 05 Oct 2020
Impact of the ice thickness distribution discretization on the sea ice concentration variability in the NEMO3.6–LIM3 global ocean–sea ice model
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain
Pablo Ortega
Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain
François Massonnet
Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and
Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Related authors
Eneko Martin-Martinez, Amanda Frigola, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Daria Kuznetsova, Saskia Loosveldt-Tomas, Margarida Samsó Cabré, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, and Pablo Ortega
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1343–1364, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1343-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1343-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the impact of model resolution on different processes in the North Atlantic using three different resolutions of the same climate model. The higher resolutions allow for the explicit simulation of smaller-scale processes. We found differences across resolutions in how denser waters are formed and transported southward, impacting the large-scale circulation of the Atlantic Ocean.
Florian Sauerland, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Sylvain Marchi, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, François Klein, François Massonnet, Bianca Mezzina, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Charles Pelletier, Deborah Verfaillie, Lars Zipf, and Nicole van Lipzig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
We simulated the Antarctic climate from 1985 to 2014. Our model is driven using the ERA-5 reanalysis for one simulation and the EC-Earth global climate model for three others. Most of the simulated trends, such as sea ice extent and precipitation over land, have opposite signs for the two drivers, but agree between the three EC-Earth driven simulations. We conclude that these opposing trends must be due to the different drivers, and that the climate over land is less predictable than over sea.
Amanda Frigola, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Margarida Samsó, Saskia Loosvelt-Tomas, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Daria Kuznetsova, Xia Lin, and Pablo Ortega
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-547, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-547, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We examine the performance of coupled climate models at unprecedented resolutions, capable of resolving ocean eddies in extensive areas of the North Atlantic. Eddy-resolving models present more realistic density profiles and stronger deep water convection in the subpolar North Atlantic. The strength and structure of the Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Current, and subpolar gyre are also improved at high resolution, and so is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the high-resolution model version of the EC-Earth global climate model to contribute to HighResMIP. The combined model resolution is about 10–15 km in both the ocean and atmosphere, which makes it one of the finest ever used to complete historical and scenario simulations. This model is compared with two lower-resolution versions, with a 100 km and a 25 km grid. The three models are compared with observations to study the improvements thanks to the increased resolution.
Guillian Van Achter, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, and Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro
The Cryosphere, 16, 4745–4761, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4745-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4745-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the changes in ocean–ice interactions in the Totten Glacier area between the last decades (1995–2014) and the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) under warmer climate conditions. By the end of the 21st century, the sea ice is strongly reduced, and the ocean circulation close to the coast is accelerated. Our research highlights the importance of including representations of fast ice to simulate realistic ice shelf melt rate increase in East Antarctica under warming conditions.
Sam White, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Davide Zanchettin, Heli Huhtamaa, Dagomar Degroot, Markus Stoffel, and Christophe Corona
Clim. Past, 18, 739–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-739-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-739-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines whether the 1600 Huaynaputina volcano eruption triggered persistent cooling in the North Atlantic. It compares previous paleoclimate simulations with new climate reconstructions from natural proxies and historical documents and finds that the reconstructions are consistent with, but do not support, an eruption trigger for persistent cooling. The study also analyzes societal impacts of climatic change in ca. 1600 and the use of historical observations in model–data comparison.
Ralf Döscher, Mario Acosta, Andrea Alessandri, Peter Anthoni, Thomas Arsouze, Tommi Bergman, Raffaele Bernardello, Souhail Boussetta, Louis-Philippe Caron, Glenn Carver, Miguel Castrillo, Franco Catalano, Ivana Cvijanovic, Paolo Davini, Evelien Dekker, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, David Docquier, Pablo Echevarria, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Matthias Gröger, Jost v. Hardenberg, Jenny Hieronymus, M. Pasha Karami, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Torben Koenigk, Risto Makkonen, François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Paul A. Miller, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Lars Nieradzik, Twan van Noije, Paul Nolan, Declan O'Donnell, Pirkka Ollinaho, Gijs van den Oord, Pablo Ortega, Oriol Tintó Prims, Arthur Ramos, Thomas Reerink, Clement Rousset, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Philippe Le Sager, Torben Schmith, Roland Schrödner, Federico Serva, Valentina Sicardi, Marianne Sloth Madsen, Benjamin Smith, Tian Tian, Etienne Tourigny, Petteri Uotila, Martin Vancoppenolle, Shiyu Wang, David Wårlind, Ulrika Willén, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, and Qiong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system model EC-Earth3 is documented here. Key performance metrics show physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new ESM components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.
Charles Pelletier, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, Samuel Helsen, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Christoph Kittel, François Klein, Sébastien Le clec'h, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Pierre Mathiot, Ehsan Moravveji, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Niels Souverijns, Guillian Van Achter, Sam Vanden Broucke, Alexander Vanhulle, Deborah Verfaillie, and Lars Zipf
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 553–594, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present PARASO, a circumpolar model for simulating the Antarctic climate. PARASO features five distinct models, each covering different Earth system subcomponents (ice sheet, atmosphere, land, sea ice, ocean). In this technical article, we describe how this tool has been developed, with a focus on the
coupling interfacesrepresenting the feedbacks between the distinct models used for contribution. PARASO is stable and ready to use but is still characterized by significant biases.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Louis-Philippe Caron, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Oliver Gutjahr, Marie-Pierre Moine, Dian Putrasahan, Christopher D. Roberts, Malcolm J. Roberts, Retish Senan, Laurent Terray, Etienne Tourigny, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 269–289, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models do not fully reproduce observations: they show differences (biases) in regional temperature, precipitation, or cloud cover. Reducing model biases is important to increase our confidence in their ability to reproduce present and future climate changes. Model realism is set by its resolution: the finer it is, the more physical processes and interactions it can resolve. We here show that increasing resolution of up to ~ 25 km can help reduce model biases but not remove them entirely.
Roberto Bilbao, Simon Wild, Pablo Ortega, Juan Acosta-Navarro, Thomas Arsouze, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Louis-Philippe Caron, Miguel Castrillo, Rubén Cruz-García, Ivana Cvijanovic, Francisco Javier Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Emanuel Dutra, Pablo Echevarría, An-Chi Ho, Saskia Loosveldt-Tomas, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Núria Pérez-Zanon, Arthur Ramos, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Valentina Sicardi, Etienne Tourigny, and Javier Vegas-Regidor
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 173–196, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-173-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-173-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents and evaluates a set of retrospective decadal predictions with the EC-Earth3 climate model. These experiments successfully predict past changes in surface air temperature but show poor predictive capacity in the subpolar North Atlantic, a well-known source region of decadal climate variability. The poor predictive capacity is linked to an initial shock affecting the Atlantic Ocean circulation, ultimately due to a suboptimal representation of the Labrador Sea density.
Annelies Sticker, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, Patricia DeRepentigny, Alexandra Jahn, David Docquier, Christopher Wyburn-Powell, Daphne Quint, Erica Shivers, and Makayla Ortiz
The Cryosphere, 19, 3259–3277, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3259-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3259-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study analyzes rapid ice loss events (RILEs) in the Arctic, which are significant reductions in sea ice extent. RILEs are expected throughout the year, varying in frequency and duration with the seasons. Our research gives a year-round analysis of their characteristics in climate models and suggests that summer RILEs could begin before the middle of the century. Understanding these events is crucial as they can have profound impacts on the Arctic environment.
Cécile Osy, Sophie Opfergelt, Arsène Druel, and François Massonnet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3680, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Short summary
The refreezing period of the active layer (the layer on top of the permafrost that freezes and thaws each year) is changing, with a delay of about five days over a large area in Siberia from 1950 to 2020 in the ERA5-Land reanalysis data. We investigate the drivers of this delay, and find that 2 m air temperature is the main driver of these changes at the large scale, which contrasts with field results in which snow cover is the main driver of changes in refreezing dynamics.
Eneko Martin-Martinez, Amanda Frigola, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Daria Kuznetsova, Saskia Loosveldt-Tomas, Margarida Samsó Cabré, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, and Pablo Ortega
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1343–1364, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1343-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1343-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the impact of model resolution on different processes in the North Atlantic using three different resolutions of the same climate model. The higher resolutions allow for the explicit simulation of smaller-scale processes. We found differences across resolutions in how denser waters are formed and transported southward, impacting the large-scale circulation of the Atlantic Ocean.
Florian Sauerland, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Sylvain Marchi, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, François Klein, François Massonnet, Bianca Mezzina, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Charles Pelletier, Deborah Verfaillie, Lars Zipf, and Nicole van Lipzig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2889, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
We simulated the Antarctic climate from 1985 to 2014. Our model is driven using the ERA-5 reanalysis for one simulation and the EC-Earth global climate model for three others. Most of the simulated trends, such as sea ice extent and precipitation over land, have opposite signs for the two drivers, but agree between the three EC-Earth driven simulations. We conclude that these opposing trends must be due to the different drivers, and that the climate over land is less predictable than over sea.
Baylor Fox-Kemper, Patricia DeRepentigny, Anne Marie Treguier, Christian Stepanek, Eleanor O’Rourke, Chloe Mackallah, Alberto Meucci, Yevgeny Aksenov, Paul J. Durack, Nicole Feldl, Vanessa Hernaman, Céline Heuzé, Doroteaciro Iovino, Gaurav Madan, André L. Marquez, François Massonnet, Jenny Mecking, Dhrubajyoti Samanta, Patrick C. Taylor, Wan-Ling Tseng, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3083, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The earth system model variables needed for studies of the ocean and sea ice are prioritized and requested.
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
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice covers in the Arctic and Antarctic experienced intense reduction during specific recent years. Using an ocean-sea ice model, we found similarities between hemispheres and years to explain the ice reduction, such as ice melt (or lack of growth) at the ice-ocean interface. Differences between years and regions are also evident, such as increased ice transport or snow precipitation. This highlights the importance of heat stored by the ocean to explain ice melt in a warming climate.
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
Short summary
An obstacle in studying climate extremes is the lack of robust statistics. We use a rare event algorithm to gather robust statistics on extreme Arctic sea ice lows with probabilities below 0.1 % and to study drivers of events with amplitudes larger than observed in 2012. The work highlights that the most extreme sea ice reductions result from the combined effects of preconditioning and weather variability, emphasizing the need for thoughtful ensemble design when turning to real applications.
Amanda Frigola, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Margarida Samsó, Saskia Loosvelt-Tomas, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Daria Kuznetsova, Xia Lin, and Pablo Ortega
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-547, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-547, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We examine the performance of coupled climate models at unprecedented resolutions, capable of resolving ocean eddies in extensive areas of the North Atlantic. Eddy-resolving models present more realistic density profiles and stronger deep water convection in the subpolar North Atlantic. The strength and structure of the Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Current, and subpolar gyre are also improved at high resolution, and so is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the high-resolution model version of the EC-Earth global climate model to contribute to HighResMIP. The combined model resolution is about 10–15 km in both the ocean and atmosphere, which makes it one of the finest ever used to complete historical and scenario simulations. This model is compared with two lower-resolution versions, with a 100 km and a 25 km grid. The three models are compared with observations to study the improvements thanks to the increased resolution.
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
Short summary
We study the parameters of the turbulent-kinetic-energy mixed-layer-penetration scheme in the NEMO model with regard to sea-ice-covered regions of the Arctic Ocean. This evaluation reveals the impact of these parameters on mixed-layer depth, sea surface temperature and salinity, and ocean stratification. Our findings demonstrate significant impacts on sea ice thickness and sea ice concentration, emphasizing the need for accurately representing ocean mixing to understand Arctic climate dynamics.
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
Short summary
We analyze years with extraordinarily low sea ice extent in Antarctica during summer, until the striking record in 2022. We highlight common aspects among these events, such as the fact that the exceptional melting usually occurs in two key regions and that it is related to winds with a similar direction. We also investigate whether the summer conditions are preceded by an unusual state of the sea ice during the previous winter, as well as the physical processes involved.
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
Short summary
The climate impact of Arctic sea ice loss may depend on the region of sea ice loss and the methodology used to study this impact. This study uses two approaches across seven climate models to investigate the winter atmospheric circulation response to regional sea ice loss. Our findings indicate a consistent atmospheric circulation response to pan-Arctic sea ice loss in most models and across both approaches. In contrast, more uncertainty emerges in the responses linked to regional sea ice loss.
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
Short summary
We explored the relationship of Arctic September minimum sea ice extent with mid-summer melt pond area fraction, under the present-day climate. We confirm through the advanced numerical modelling, with an explicit melt pond scheme in the global climate model, EC-EARTH3, that melt pond fraction in mid-summer (June–July, not May) shows a strong relationship with the Arctic September sea ice extent. Satellite-based inferences validated our findings of this association.
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
Short summary
This study provides clues on how improved atmospheric reanalysis products influence sea ice simulations in ocean–sea ice models. The summer ice concentration simulation in both hemispheres can be improved with changed surface heat fluxes. The winter Antarctic ice concentration and the Arctic drift speed near the ice edge and the ice velocity direction simulations are improved with changed wind stress. The radiation fluxes and winds in atmospheric reanalyses are crucial for sea ice simulations.
Hugues Goosse, Sofia Allende Contador, Cecilia M. Bitz, Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Clare Eayrs, Thierry Fichefet, Kenza Himmich, Pierre-Vincent Huot, François Klein, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Bianca Mezzina, Charles Pelletier, Lettie Roach, Martin Vancoppenolle, and Nicole P. M. van Lipzig
The Cryosphere, 17, 407–425, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-407-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-407-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Using idealized sensitivity experiments with a regional atmosphere–ocean–sea ice model, we show that sea ice advance is constrained by initial conditions in March and the retreat season is influenced by the magnitude of several physical processes, in particular by the ice–albedo feedback and ice transport. Atmospheric feedbacks amplify the response of the winter ice extent to perturbations, while some negative feedbacks related to heat conduction fluxes act on the ice volume.
Guillian Van Achter, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, and Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro
The Cryosphere, 16, 4745–4761, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4745-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4745-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the changes in ocean–ice interactions in the Totten Glacier area between the last decades (1995–2014) and the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) under warmer climate conditions. By the end of the 21st century, the sea ice is strongly reduced, and the ocean circulation close to the coast is accelerated. Our research highlights the importance of including representations of fast ice to simulate realistic ice shelf melt rate increase in East Antarctica under warming conditions.
Steve Delhaye, Thierry Fichefet, François Massonnet, David Docquier, Rym Msadek, Svenya Chripko, Christopher Roberts, Sarah Keeley, and Retish Senan
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 555–573, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-555-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-555-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
It is unclear how the atmosphere will respond to a retreat of summer Arctic sea ice. Much attention has been paid so far to weather extremes at mid-latitude and in winter. Here we focus on the changes in extremes in surface air temperature and precipitation over the Arctic regions in summer during and following abrupt sea ice retreats. We find that Arctic sea ice loss clearly shifts the extremes in surface air temperature and precipitation over terrestrial regions surrounding the Arctic Ocean.
Sam White, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Davide Zanchettin, Heli Huhtamaa, Dagomar Degroot, Markus Stoffel, and Christophe Corona
Clim. Past, 18, 739–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-739-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-739-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines whether the 1600 Huaynaputina volcano eruption triggered persistent cooling in the North Atlantic. It compares previous paleoclimate simulations with new climate reconstructions from natural proxies and historical documents and finds that the reconstructions are consistent with, but do not support, an eruption trigger for persistent cooling. The study also analyzes societal impacts of climatic change in ca. 1600 and the use of historical observations in model–data comparison.
Ralf Döscher, Mario Acosta, Andrea Alessandri, Peter Anthoni, Thomas Arsouze, Tommi Bergman, Raffaele Bernardello, Souhail Boussetta, Louis-Philippe Caron, Glenn Carver, Miguel Castrillo, Franco Catalano, Ivana Cvijanovic, Paolo Davini, Evelien Dekker, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, David Docquier, Pablo Echevarria, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Matthias Gröger, Jost v. Hardenberg, Jenny Hieronymus, M. Pasha Karami, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Torben Koenigk, Risto Makkonen, François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Paul A. Miller, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Lars Nieradzik, Twan van Noije, Paul Nolan, Declan O'Donnell, Pirkka Ollinaho, Gijs van den Oord, Pablo Ortega, Oriol Tintó Prims, Arthur Ramos, Thomas Reerink, Clement Rousset, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Philippe Le Sager, Torben Schmith, Roland Schrödner, Federico Serva, Valentina Sicardi, Marianne Sloth Madsen, Benjamin Smith, Tian Tian, Etienne Tourigny, Petteri Uotila, Martin Vancoppenolle, Shiyu Wang, David Wårlind, Ulrika Willén, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, and Qiong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system model EC-Earth3 is documented here. Key performance metrics show physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new ESM components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.
Charles Pelletier, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, Samuel Helsen, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Christoph Kittel, François Klein, Sébastien Le clec'h, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Pierre Mathiot, Ehsan Moravveji, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Niels Souverijns, Guillian Van Achter, Sam Vanden Broucke, Alexander Vanhulle, Deborah Verfaillie, and Lars Zipf
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 553–594, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present PARASO, a circumpolar model for simulating the Antarctic climate. PARASO features five distinct models, each covering different Earth system subcomponents (ice sheet, atmosphere, land, sea ice, ocean). In this technical article, we describe how this tool has been developed, with a focus on the
coupling interfacesrepresenting the feedbacks between the distinct models used for contribution. PARASO is stable and ready to use but is still characterized by significant biases.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Louis-Philippe Caron, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Oliver Gutjahr, Marie-Pierre Moine, Dian Putrasahan, Christopher D. Roberts, Malcolm J. Roberts, Retish Senan, Laurent Terray, Etienne Tourigny, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 269–289, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models do not fully reproduce observations: they show differences (biases) in regional temperature, precipitation, or cloud cover. Reducing model biases is important to increase our confidence in their ability to reproduce present and future climate changes. Model realism is set by its resolution: the finer it is, the more physical processes and interactions it can resolve. We here show that increasing resolution of up to ~ 25 km can help reduce model biases but not remove them entirely.
Xia Lin, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6331–6354, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6331-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6331-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study introduces a new Sea Ice Evaluation Tool (SITool) to evaluate the model skills on the bipolar sea ice simulations by providing performance metrics and diagnostics. SITool is applied to evaluate the CMIP6 OMIP simulations. By changing the atmospheric forcing from CORE-II to JRA55-do data, many aspects of sea ice simulations are improved. SITool will be useful for helping teams managing various versions of a sea ice model or tracking the time evolution of model performance.
Tian Tian, Shuting Yang, Mehdi Pasha Karami, François Massonnet, Tim Kruschke, and Torben Koenigk
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4283–4305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4283-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4283-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Three decadal prediction experiments with EC-Earth3 are performed to investigate the impact of ocean, sea ice concentration and thickness initialization, respectively. We find that the persistence of perennial thick ice in the central Arctic can affect the sea ice predictability in its adjacent waters via advection process or wind, despite those regions being seasonally ice free during two recent decades. This has implications for the coming decades as the thinning of Arctic sea ice continues.
Ann Keen, Ed Blockley, David A. Bailey, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Mitchell Bushuk, Steve Delhaye, David Docquier, Daniel Feltham, François Massonnet, Siobhan O'Farrell, Leandro Ponsoni, José M. Rodriguez, David Schroeder, Neil Swart, Takahiro Toyoda, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Martin Vancoppenolle, and Klaus Wyser
The Cryosphere, 15, 951–982, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in a number of the latest climate models. New output has been defined that allows us to compare the processes of sea ice growth and loss in a more detailed way than has previously been possible. We find that that the models are strikingly similar in terms of the major processes causing the annual growth and loss of Arctic sea ice and that the budget terms respond in a broadly consistent way as the climate warms during the 21st century.
Roberto Bilbao, Simon Wild, Pablo Ortega, Juan Acosta-Navarro, Thomas Arsouze, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Louis-Philippe Caron, Miguel Castrillo, Rubén Cruz-García, Ivana Cvijanovic, Francisco Javier Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Emanuel Dutra, Pablo Echevarría, An-Chi Ho, Saskia Loosveldt-Tomas, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Núria Pérez-Zanon, Arthur Ramos, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Valentina Sicardi, Etienne Tourigny, and Javier Vegas-Regidor
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 173–196, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-173-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-173-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents and evaluates a set of retrospective decadal predictions with the EC-Earth3 climate model. These experiments successfully predict past changes in surface air temperature but show poor predictive capacity in the subpolar North Atlantic, a well-known source region of decadal climate variability. The poor predictive capacity is linked to an initial shock affecting the Atlantic Ocean circulation, ultimately due to a suboptimal representation of the Labrador Sea density.
Qian Shi, Qinghua Yang, Longjiang Mu, Jinfei Wang, François Massonnet, and Matthew R. Mazloff
The Cryosphere, 15, 31–47, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-31-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-31-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The ice thickness from four state-of-the-art reanalyses (GECCO2, SOSE, NEMO-EnKF and GIOMAS) are evaluated against that from remote sensing and in situ observations in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Most of the reanalyses can reproduce ice thickness in the central and eastern Weddell Sea but failed to capture the thick and deformed ice in the western Weddell Sea. These results demonstrate the possibilities and limitations of using current sea-ice reanalysis in Antarctic climate research.
Guillian Van Achter, Leandro Ponsoni, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Vincent Legat
The Cryosphere, 14, 3479–3486, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3479-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3479-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We document the spatio-temporal internal variability of Arctic sea ice thickness and its changes under anthropogenic forcing, which is key to understanding, and eventually predicting, the evolution of sea ice in response to climate change.
The patterns of sea ice thickness variability remain more or less stable during pre-industrial, historical and future periods, despite non-stationarity on short timescales. These patterns start to change once Arctic summer ice-free events occur, after 2050.
Cited articles
Adcroft, A., Anderson, W., Balaji, V., Blanton, C., Bushuk, M., Dufour, C.
O., Dunne, J. P., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R., Harrison, M. J., and Held,
I. M.: The GFDL global ocean and sea ice model OM4.0: Model description and
simulation features, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11,
3167–3211, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001726, 2019.
Anderberg, M. R.: Cluster analysis for applications: probability and
mathematical statistics: a series of monographs and textbooks, vol. 19,
Academic Press, London, 2014.
Bader, J., Mesquita, M. D., Hodges, K. I., Keenlyside, N., Østerhus, S.,
and Miles, M.: A review on Northern Hemisphere sea-ice, storminess and the
North Atlantic Oscillation: Observations and projected changes, Atmos. Res., 101, 809–834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.04.007,
2011
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, 1–19,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3972-7, 2018.
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.-Oceans, 106, 2441–2463,
https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC000113, 2001.
Blackport, R., Screen, J. A., van der Wiel, K., and Bintanja, R.: Minimal
influence of reduced Arctic sea ice on coincident cold winters in
mid-latitudes, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 697–704,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0551-4, 2019.
Brodeau, L., Barnier, B., Treguier, A. M., Penduff, T., and Gulev, S.: An
ERA40-based atmospheric forcing for global ocean circulation models, Ocean Model., 31, 88–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.10.005,
2010.
Cavalieri, D. J., Parkinson, C. L., Gloersen, P., and Zwally, H. J.: Sea
ice concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS passive microwave
data, version 1, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO, USA, 1996.
Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., and Niknafs, A.: NbClust: An R
Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a Data Set,
J. Stat. Softw., 61, 1–36,
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v061.i06, 2014.
Close, S., Houssais, M. N., and Herbaut, C.: The Arctic winter sea ice
quadrupole revisited, J. Climate, 30, 3157–3167,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0506.1, 2017.
Coggins, J. H., McDonald, A. J., and Jolly, B.: Synoptic climatology of the
Ross Ice Shelf and Ross Sea region of Antarctica: k-means clustering and
validation, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 2330–2348,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3842, 2014.
Comiso, J. C., Parkinson, C. L., Gersten, R., and Stock, L.: Accelerated
decline in the Arctic sea ice cover, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L01703,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031972, 2008.
Dai, A. and Trenberth, K. E.: Estimates of freshwater discharge from
continents: Latitudinal and seasonal variations, J. Hydrometeorol., 3, 660–687,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2002)003<0660:EOFDFC>2.0.CO;2,
2002.
Day, J. J., Hargreaves, J. C., Annan, J. D., and Abe-Ouchi, A.: Sources of
multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent, Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 034011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034011, 2012.
Delworth, T. L., Zeng, F., Vecchi, G. A., Yang, X., Zhang, L., and Zhang,
R.: The North Atlantic Oscillation as a driver of rapid climate change in
the Northern Hemisphere, Nat. Geosci., 9, 509–512,
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2738, 2016.
Depoorter, M. A., Bamber, J. L., Griggs, J. A., Lenaerts, J. T. M.,
Ligtenberg, S. R., Van den Broeke, M. R., and Moholdt, G.: Calving fluxes
and basal melt rates of Antarctic ice shelves, Nature, 502, 89–92,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12567, 2013.
Drinkwater, K. F., Miles, M., Medhaug, I., Otterå, O. H., Kristiansen,
T., Sundby, S., and Gao, Y.: The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation: Its
manifestations and impacts with special emphasis on the Atlantic region
north of 60 N, J. Marine Syst., 133, 117–130,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.11.001, 2014.
Dussin, R., Barnier, B., Brodeau, L., and Molines, J.-M.: The making of the DRAKKAR Forcing Set DFS5, Drakkar/myocean report 01-04-16, Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Géophysique de l’Environnement, Université de Grenoble, Grenoble, France, available at: https://www.drakkar-ocean.eu/forcing-the-ocean (last access: 19 August 2019), 2016
EUMETSAT Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility: Global sea ice
concentration reprocessing dataset 1978–2015 (v1.2), Norwegian and Danish
Meteorological Institutes, available at: https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/8bbde1a8a0ce4a86904a3d7b2b917955 (last access: 23 September 2015), 2015.
Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., Johnson, N. C., Massonnet, F., and
Doblas-Reyes, F. J.: Clusters of interannual sea ice variability in the
northern hemisphere, Clim. Dynam., 47, 1527–1543,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2917-2, 2016.
Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., Johnson, N. C., and Doblas-Reyes, F. J.:
Dynamical prediction of Arctic sea ice modes of variability, Clim. Dynam., 52, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4318-9, 2018.
Goessling, H. F., Tietsche, S., Day, J. J., Hawkins, E., and Jung, T.:
Predictability of the Arctic sea ice edge, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
43, 1642–1650, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067232, 2016.
Graversen, R. G., Mauritsen, T., Drijfhout, S., Tjernström, M., and
Mårtensson, S.: Warm winds from the Pacific caused extensive Arctic
sea-ice melt in summer 2007, Clim. Dynam., 36, 2103–2112,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0809-z, 2011.
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J.: The elements of statistical
learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, Springer Series in
Statistics, Springer New York, NY, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7,
2009.
Hibler, W. D: Ice dynamics, in: The Geophysics of Sea Ice,
Springer, Boston, MA, 577–640, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-5352-0_10, 1986.
Hobbs, W. R. and Raphael, M. N.: The Pacific zonal asymmetry and its
influence on Southern Hemisphere sea ice variability, Antarctic Sci.,
22, 559–571, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102010000283, 2010.
Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M., Hunke, E. C., Lipscomb, W. H., and Schramm, J.
L.: Influence of the sea ice thickness distribution on polar climate in
CCSM3, J. Climate, 19, 2398–2414,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3751.1, 2006.
Holland, P. R. and Kwok, R.: Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift,
Nat. Geosci., 5, 872–875, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1627, 2012.
Hunke, E. C.: Sea ice volume and age: Sensitivity to physical
parameterizations and thickness resolution in the CICE sea ice model, Ocean Model., 82, 45–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.08.001, 2014.
Hunke, E. C., Lipscomb, W. H., Turner, A. K., Jeffery, N., and Elliott, S.:
CICE: the Los Alamos Sea Ice Model, Documentation and Software User's
Manual, version 5.0., Technical Report LA-CC-06-012, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 2013.
Hurrell, J. W., and Deser, C.: North Atlantic climate variability: the role
of the North Atlantic Oscillation, J. Marine Syst., 79,
231–244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2009.11.002, 2010
Ingvaldsen, R. B., Asplin, L., and Loeng, H.: The seasonal cycle in the
Atlantic transport to the Barents Sea during the years 1997–2001,
Cont. Shelf Res., 24, 1015–1032,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2004.02.011, 2004a.
Ingvaldsen, R. B., Asplin, L., and Loeng, H.: Velocity field of the western
entrance to the Barents Sea, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
109, C03021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001811, 2004b.
Kohyama, T. and Hartmann, D. L.: Antarctic sea ice response to weather and
climate modes of variability, J. Climate, 29, 721–741,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0301.1, 2016.
Large, W. G., and Yeager, S. G. Diurnal to decadal global forcing for ocean
and sea-ice models: the data sets and flux climatologies, NCAR Technical
Note, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 11, 324–336, 2004.
Laxon, S. W., Giles, K. A., Ridout, A. L., Wingham, D. J., Willatt, R., Cullen, R., Kwok, R., Schweiger, A., Zhang, J., Haas, C., and Hendricks, S.: CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 732–737, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50193, 2013.
Lipscomb, W. H.: Remapping the thickness distribution in sea ice models,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 106, 13989–14000,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC000518, 2001.
Lynch, A. H., Serreze, M. C., Cassano, E. N., Crawford, A. D., and Stroeve,
J.: Linkages between Arctic summer circulation regimes and regional sea ice
anomalies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121,
7868–7880, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025164, 2016.
Madec, G.: NEMO ocean engine, Note du Pole de modélisation, Institut
Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL), France, No. 27, ISSN 1288–1619, 2008.
Manubens, N., Caron, L. P., Hunter, A., Bellprat, O., Exarchou, E.,
Fučkar, N. S., Garcia-Serrano, J., Massonnet, F., Ménégoz, M.,
Sicardi, V., and Batté, L.: An R package for climate forecast
verification, Environ. Modell. Softw., 103, 29–42, 2018.
Massonnet, F.: fmassonn/paper-itd-seaice: Accepted paper (Version 1.2.0), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3345604, 2019.
Massonnet, F., Fichefet, T., Goosse, H., Vancoppenolle, M., Mathiot, P., and König Beatty, C.: On the influence of model physics on simulations of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, Cryosphere, 5, 687–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-5-687-2011, 2011.
Massonnet, F., Barthélemy, A., Worou, K., Fichefet, T., Vancoppenolle, M., Rousset, C., and Moreno-Chamarro, E.: On the discretization of the ice thickness distribution in the NEMO3.6-LIM3 global ocean–sea ice model, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3745–3758, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3745-2019, 2019.
Maykut, G. A. and Untersteiner, N.: Some results from a time-dependent
thermodynamic model of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 76,
1550–1575, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC076i006p01550, 1971.
Merino, N., Le Sommer, J., Durand, G., Jourdain, N. C., Madec, G., Mathiot,
P., and Tournadre, J.: Antarctic icebergs melt over the Southern Ocean:
Climatology and impact on sea ice, Ocean Model., 104, 99–110,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2016.05.001, 2016.
Michelangeli, P. A., Vautard, R., and Legras, B.: Weather regimes:
Recurrence and quasi stationarity, J. Atmos. Sci.,
52, 1237–1256,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052<1237:WRRAQS>2.0.CO;2,
1995.
Miles, M. W., Divine, D. V., Furevik, T., Jansen, E., Moros, M., and
Ogilvie, A. E.: A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in
Arctic sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 463–469,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058084, 2014.
Moreno-Chamarro, E., Ortega, P., and Massonnet, F.: Impact of the ice thickness distribution discretization on the sea ice concentration variability in the NEMO3.6-LIM3 global ocean–sea ice model (Version 1.0) [Data set], Geoscientific Model Development, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3540757, 2019.
Ogi, M. and Wallace, J. M.: Summer minimum Arctic sea ice extent and the
associated summer atmospheric circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
34, L12705, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029897, 2007.
Olonscheck, D., Mauritsen, T., and Notz, D.: Arctic sea-ice variability is
primarily driven by atmospheric temperature fluctuations, Nat. Geosci.,
12, 430–434, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0363-1, 2019.
Renwick, J. A., Kohout, A., and Dean, S.: Atmospheric forcing of Antarctic
sea ice on intraseasonal time scales, J. Climate, 25,
5962–5975, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00423.1, 2012.
Rigor, I. G., Wallace, J. M., and Colony, R. L.: Response of sea ice to the
Arctic Oscillation, J. Climate, 15, 2648–2663,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<2648:ROSITT>2.0.CO;2,
2002.
Rigor, I. G. and Wallace, J. M.: Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice
and summer sea-ice extent. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L09401,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019492, 2004.
Rossow, W. B., Tselioudis, G., Polak, A., and Jakob, C.: Tropical climate
described as a distribution of weather states indicated by distinct
mesoscale cloud property mixtures. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L21812,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024584, 2005.
Rousset, C., Vancoppenolle, M., Madec, G., Fichefet, T., Flavoni, S., Barthélemy, A., Benshila, R., Chanut, J., Levy, C., Masson, S., and Vivier, F.: The Louvain-La-Neuve sea ice model LIM3.6: global and regional capabilities, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2991–3005, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2991-2015, 2015.
Schlichtholz, P.: Influence of oceanic heat variability on sea ice anomalies
in the Nordic Seas, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05705,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045894, 2011.
Screen, J. A.: Influence of Arctic sea ice on European summer precipitation,
Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044015,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044015, 2013.
Screen, J. A., Simmonds, I., and Keay, K.: Dramatic interannual changes of
perennial Arctic sea ice linked to abnormal summer storm activity, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, D15105,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015847, 2011.
Serreze, M. C. and Stroeve, J.: Arctic sea ice trends, variability and
implications for seasonal ice forecasting, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 373,
20140159, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0159, 2015.
Sonnewald, M., Wunsch, C., and Heimbach, P.: Unsupervised learning reveals geography of global ocean dynamical regions, Earth Space Sci., 6,
784–794, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EA000519, 2019.
Storch, H. and Zwiers, F.: Statistical analysis in climate research,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612336, 1999.
Thorndike, A. S., Rothrock, D. A., Maykut, G. A., and Colony, R.: The
thickness distribution of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 80,
4501–4513, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i033p04501, 1975.
Titchner, H. A. and Rayner, N. A.: The Met Office Hadley Centre sea ice
and sea surface temperature data set, version 2: 1. Sea ice concentrations,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos, 119, 2864–2889,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020316, 2014.
Ukita, J., Honda, M., Nakamura, H., Tachibana, Y., Cavalieri, D. J.,
Parkinson, C. L., Koide, H., and Yamamoto, K.: Northern Hemisphere sea ice
variability: Lag structure and its implications, Tellus A, 59, 261–272,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00223.x, 2007.
Ungermann, M., Tremblay, L. B., Martin, T., and Losch, M.: Impact of the
ice strength formulation on the performance of a sea ice thickness
distribution model in the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
122, 2090–2107, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012128, 2017.
Uotila, P., Iovino, D., Vancoppenolle, M., Lensu, M., and Rousset, C.: Comparing sea ice, hydrography and circulation between NEMO3.6 LIM3 and LIM2, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1009–1031, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1009-2017, 2017.
Venegas, S. A. and Mysak, L. A.: Is there a dominant timescale of natural
climate variability in the Arctic?, J. Climate, 13, 3412–3434,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<3412:ITADTO<E2.0.CO;2,
2000.
Wang, J., Zhang, J., Watanabe, E., Ikeda, M., Mizobata, K., Walsh, J. E.,
Bai, X., and Wu, B.: Is the Dipole Anomaly a major driver to record lows in
Arctic summer sea ice extent?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05706,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036706, 2009.
Wilks, D. S.: Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences, Vol. 100,
Academic Press, London, 2011.
Woodgate, R. A., Weingartner, T., and Lindsay, R.: The 2007 Bering Strait
oceanic heat flux and anomalous Arctic sea-ice retreat, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L01602, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041621, 2010.
Yuan, X. and Li, C.: Climate modes in southern high latitudes and their
impacts on Antarctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
113, C06S91, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC004067, 2008.
Zweng, M. M, Reagan, J. R., Antonov, J. I., Locarnini, R. A., Mishonov, A. V., Boyer, T. P., Garcia, H. E., Baranova, O. K., Johnson, D. R., Seidov, D., Biddle, M. M.: World Ocean Atlas 2013, Volume 2: Salinity, edited by: Levitus, S.,
Mishonov, A. (technical ed.), NOAA Atlas NESDIS 74, 39 pp., 2013.
Short summary
Climate models need to capture sea ice complexity to represent it realistically. Here we assess how distributing sea ice in discrete thickness categories impacts how sea ice variability is simulated in the NEMO3.6–LIM3 model. Simulations and satellite observations are compared by using k-means clustering of sea ice concentration in winter and summer between 1979 and 2014 at both poles. Little improvements in the modeled sea ice lead us to recommend using the standard number of five categories.
Climate models need to capture sea ice complexity to represent it realistically. Here we assess...
Special issue