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

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
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
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
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

Related subject area

Cryosphere
CMIP6 models overestimate sea ice melt, growth and conduction relative to ice mass balance buoy estimates
Alex E. West and Edward W. Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3041–3064, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Coupling framework (1.0) for the Úa (2023b) ice sheet model and the FESOM-1.4 z-coordinate ocean model in an Antarctic domain
Ole Richter, Ralph Timmermann, G. Hilmar Gudmundsson, and Jan De Rydt
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2945–2960, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2945-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2945-2025, 2025
Short summary
A gradient-boosted tree framework to model the ice thickness of the world's glaciers (IceBoost v1.1)
Niccolò Maffezzoli, Eric Rignot, Carlo Barbante, Troels Petersen, and Sebastiano Vascon
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2545–2568, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2545-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2545-2025, 2025
Short summary
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

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