Articles | Volume 16, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1395-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1395-2023
Model evaluation paper
 | 
02 Mar 2023
Model evaluation paper |  | 02 Mar 2023

Sensitivity of NEMO4.0-SI3 model parameters on sea ice budgets in the Southern Ocean

Yafei Nie, Chengkun Li, Martin Vancoppenolle, Bin Cheng, Fabio Boeira Dias, Xianqing Lv, and Petteri Uotila

Related authors

Brief communication: Intercomparison study reveals pathways for improving the representation of sea-ice biogeochemistry in models
Letizia Tedesco, Giulia Castellani, Pedro Duarte, Meibing Jin, Sebastien Moreau, Eric Mortenson, Benjamin Tobey Saenz, Nadja Steiner, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1107,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1107, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
How well do the regional atmospheric and oceanic models describe the Antarctic sea ice albedo?
Kristiina Verro, Cecilia Äijälä, Roberta Pirazzini, Ruzica Dadic, Damien Maure, Willem Jan van de Berg, Giacomo Traversa, Christiaan T. van Dalum, Petteri Uotila, Xavier Fettweis, Biagio Di Mauro, and Milla Johansson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-386,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-386, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Seasonal evolution of snow density and its impact on thermal regime of sea ice during the MOSAiC expedition
Yubing Cheng, Bin Cheng, Roberta Pirazzini, Amy R. Macfarlane, Timo Vihma, Wolfgang Dorn, Ruzica Dadic, Martin Schneebeli, Stefanie Arndt, and Annette Rinke
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1164,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1164, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Effects of Arctic sea-ice concentration on surface radiative fluxes in four atmospheric reanalyses
Tereza Uhlíková, Timo Vihma, Alexey Yu Karpechko, and Petteri Uotila
The Cryosphere, 19, 1031–1046, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-1031-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-1031-2025, 2025
Short summary
Reconstructing ice phenology of a lake with complex surface cover: a case study of Lake Ulansu during 1941–2023
Puzhen Huo, Peng Lu, Bin Cheng, Miao Yu, Qingkai Wang, Xuewei Li, and Zhijun Li
The Cryosphere, 19, 849–868, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-849-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-849-2025, 2025
Short summary

Related subject area

Cryosphere
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
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

Cited articles

Abernathey, R. P., Cerovecki, I., Holland, P. R., Newsom, E., Mazloff, M., and Talley, L. D.: Water-mass transformation by sea ice in the upper branch of the Southern Ocean overturning, Nat. Geosci., 9, 596–601, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2749, 2016. 
Baki, H., Chinta, S., Balaji, C., and Srinivasan, B.: Determining the sensitive parameters of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model for the simulation of tropical cyclones in the Bay of Bengal using global sensitivity analysis and machine learning, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2133–2155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2133-2022, 2022. 
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, 2018. 
Bitz, C. M. and Lipscomb, W. H.: An energy-conserving thermodynamic model of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 104, 15669–15677, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999jc900100, 1999. 
Brandt, R. E., Warren, S. G., Worby, A. P., and Grenfell, T. C.: Surface albedo of the Antarctic sea ice zone, J. Climate, 18, 3606–3622, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3489.1, 2005. 
Download
Short summary
State-of-the-art Earth system models simulate the observed sea ice extent relatively well, but this is often due to errors in the dynamic and other processes in the simulated sea ice changes cancelling each other out. We assessed the sensitivity of these processes simulated by the coupled ocean–sea ice model NEMO4.0-SI3 to 18 parameters. The performance of the model in simulating sea ice change processes was ultimately improved by adjusting the three identified key parameters.
Share