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

CMIP7 Data Request: Ocean and Sea Ice Priorities and Opportunities
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
On the control of the position of the winter sea ice edge by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
Hugues Goosse, Stephy Libera, Alberto C. Naveira Garabato, Benjamin Richaud, Alessandro Silvano, and Martin Vancoppenolle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1837,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1837, 2025
Short summary
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
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
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
Short summary

Related subject area

Cryosphere
Computationally efficient subglacial drainage modelling using Gaussian process emulators: GlaDS-GP v1.0
Tim Hill, Derek Bingham, Gwenn E. Flowers, and Matthew J. Hoffman
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4045–4074, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4045-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4045-2025, 2025
Short summary
Anisotropic metric-based mesh adaptation for ice flow modelling in Firedrake
Davor Dundovic, Joseph G. Wallwork, Stephan C. Kramer, Fabien Gillet-Chaulet, Regine Hock, and Matthew D. Piggott
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4023–4044, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4023-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4023-2025, 2025
Short summary
Description and validation of the ice-sheet model Nix v1.0
Daniel Moreno-Parada, Alexander Robinson, Marisa Montoya, and Jorge Alvarez-Solas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3895–3919, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3895-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3895-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Utrecht Finite Volume Ice-Sheet Model (UFEMISM) version 2.0 – Part 1: Description and idealised experiments
Constantijn J. Berends, Victor Azizi, Jorge A. Bernales, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3635–3659, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3635-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3635-2025, 2025
Short summary
A Flexible Snow Model (FSM 2.1.1) including a forest canopy
Richard Essery, Giulia Mazzotti, Sarah Barr, Tobias Jonas, Tristan Quaife, and Nick Rutter
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3583–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025, 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