Articles | Volume 18, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3041-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
27 May 2025
Model evaluation paper |
| 27 May 2025
| 27 May 2025
CMIP6 models overestimate sea ice melt, growth and conduction relative to ice mass balance buoy estimates
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Edward W. Blockley
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Related authors
Ed Blockley, Emma Fiedler, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Alex West, Dan Copsey, Daniel Feltham, Tim Graham, David Livings, Clement Rousset, David Schroeder, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6799–6817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents the sea ice model component of the latest Met Office coupled model configuration, which will be used as the physical basis for UK contributions to CMIP7. Documentation of science options used in the configuration are given along with a brief model evaluation. This is the first UK configuration to use NEMO’s new SI3 sea ice model. We provide details on how SI3 was adapted to work with Met Office coupling methodology and documentation of coupling processes in the model.
Alex West, Edward Blockley, and Matthew Collins
The Cryosphere, 16, 4013–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we explore a method of examining model differences in ice volume by looking at the seasonal ice growth and melt. We use simple physical relationships to judge how model differences in key variables affect ice growth and melt and apply these to three case study models with ice volume ranging from very thin to very thick. Results suggest that differences in snow and melt pond cover in early summer are most important in causing the sea ice differences for these models.
Alex West, Mat Collins, and Ed Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4845–4868, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study calculates sea ice energy fluxes from data produced by ice mass balance buoys (devices measuring ice elevation and temperature). It is shown how the resulting dataset can be used to evaluate a coupled climate model (HadGEM2-ES), with biases in the energy fluxes seen to be consistent with biases in the sea ice state and surface radiation. This method has potential to improve sea ice model evaluation, so as to better understand spread in model simulations of sea ice state.
Alex West, Mat Collins, Ed Blockley, Jeff Ridley, and Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
The Cryosphere, 13, 2001–2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a framework for examining the causes of model errors in Arctic sea ice volume, using HadGEM2-ES as a case study. Simple models are used to estimate how much of the error in energy arriving at the ice surface is due to error in key Arctic climate variables. The method quantifies how each variable affects sea ice volume balance and shows that for HadGEM2-ES an annual mean low bias in ice thickness is likely due to errors in surface melt onset.
Jeff K. Ridley, Edward W. Blockley, Ann B. Keen, Jamie G. L. Rae, Alex E. West, and David Schroeder
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 713–723, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The sea ice component of the Met Office coupled climate model, HadGEM3-GC3.1, is presented and evaluated. We determine that the mean state of the sea ice is well reproduced for the Arctic; however, a warm sea surface temperature bias over the Southern Ocean results in a low Antarctic sea ice cover.
Alex E. West, Alison J. McLaren, Helene T. Hewitt, and Martin J. Best
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1125–1141, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two methods of coupling a sea ice model to an atmospheric model in a series of idealized one-dimensional experiments. The JULES method calculates surface variables in the atmosphere; the CICE method calculates surface variables in the sea ice. It is found that simulations of all variables are more accurate in the JULES method, likely because of the shorter time step of the atmosphere.
J. G. L. Rae, H. T. Hewitt, A. B. Keen, J. K. Ridley, A. E. West, C. M. Harris, E. C. Hunke, and D. N. Walters
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2221–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
The paper presents a new sea ice configuration, GSI6.0, in the Met Office coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice model. Differences in the sea ice from a previous configuration (GSI4.0) are explained in the context of a previously published sensitivity study. In summer, Arctic sea ice is thicker and more extensive than in GSI4.0, bringing it closer to the observationally derived data sets. In winter, the Arctic ice is thicker but less extensive than in GSI4.0.
K. D. Williams, C. M. Harris, A. Bodas-Salcedo, J. Camp, R. E. Comer, D. Copsey, D. Fereday, T. Graham, R. Hill, T. Hinton, P. Hyder, S. Ineson, G. Masato, S. F. Milton, M. J. Roberts, D. P. Rowell, C. Sanchez, A. Shelly, B. Sinha, D. N. Walters, A. West, T. Woollings, and P. K. Xavier
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1509–1524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, 2015
A. E. West, A. B. Keen, and H. T. Hewitt
The Cryosphere, 7, 555–567, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, 2013
Catherine Guiavarc'h, David Storkey, Adam T. Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alex Megann, Helene Hewitt, Michael J. Bell, Daley Calvert, Dan Copsey, Bablu Sinha, Sophia Moreton, Pierre Mathiot, and Bo An
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 377–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Ocean and Sea Ice configuration version 9 (GOSI9) is the new UK hierarchy of model configurations based on the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) and available at three resolutions. It will be used for various applications, e.g. weather forecasting and climate prediction. It improves upon the previous version by reducing global temperature and salinity biases and enhancing the representation of Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Davi Mignac, Jennifer Waters, Daniel J. Lea, Matthew J. Martin, James While, Anthony T. Weaver, Arthur Vidard, Catherine Guiavarc’h, Dave Storkey, David Ford, Edward W. Blockley, Jonathan Baker, Keith Haines, Martin R. Price, Michael J. Bell, and Richard Renshaw
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3143, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3143, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We describe major improvements of the Met Office's global ocean-sea ice forecasting system. The models and the way observations are used to improve the forecasts were changed, which led to a significant error reduction of 1-day forecasts. The new system performance in past conditions, where sub-surface observations are scarce, was improved with more consistent ocean heat content estimates. The new system will be of better use for climate studies and will provide improved forecasts for end users.
Laurent Bertino, Patrick Heimbach, Ed Blockley, and Einar Ólason
State Planet Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2024-24, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2024-24, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for SP
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts of sea ice are in high demand in the polar regions, they are also quickly improving and becoming more easily accessible to non-experts. We provide here a brief status of the short-term forecasting services – typically 10 days ahead – and an outlook of their upcoming developments.
Ed Blockley, Emma Fiedler, Jeff Ridley, Luke Roberts, Alex West, Dan Copsey, Daniel Feltham, Tim Graham, David Livings, Clement Rousset, David Schroeder, and Martin Vancoppenolle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6799–6817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6799-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper documents the sea ice model component of the latest Met Office coupled model configuration, which will be used as the physical basis for UK contributions to CMIP7. Documentation of science options used in the configuration are given along with a brief model evaluation. This is the first UK configuration to use NEMO’s new SI3 sea ice model. We provide details on how SI3 was adapted to work with Met Office coupling methodology and documentation of coupling processes in the model.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin G. Jones, Steven T. Rumbold, Till Kuhlbrodt, Andrea J. Dittus, Edward W. Blockley, Andrew Yool, Jeremy Walton, Catherine Hardacre, Timothy Andrews, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Marc Stringer, Lee de Mora, Phil Harris, Richard Hill, Doug Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Yongming Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1569–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1569-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Recent global climate models simulate historical global mean surface temperatures which are too cold, possibly to due to excessive aerosol cooling. This raises questions about the models' ability to simulate important climate processes and reduces confidence in future climate predictions. We present a new version of the UK Earth System Model, which has an improved aerosols simulation and a historical temperature record. Interestingly, the long-term response to CO2 remains largely unchanged.
Alex West, Edward Blockley, and Matthew Collins
The Cryosphere, 16, 4013–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we explore a method of examining model differences in ice volume by looking at the seasonal ice growth and melt. We use simple physical relationships to judge how model differences in key variables affect ice growth and melt and apply these to three case study models with ice volume ranging from very thin to very thick. Results suggest that differences in snow and melt pond cover in early summer are most important in causing the sea ice differences for these models.
Emma K. Fiedler, Matthew J. Martin, Ed Blockley, Davi Mignac, Nicolas Fournier, Andy Ridout, Andrew Shepherd, and Rachel Tilling
The Cryosphere, 16, 61–85, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-61-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-61-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice thickness (SIT) observations derived from CryoSat-2 satellite measurements have been successfully used to initialise an ocean and sea ice forecasting model (FOAM). Other centres have previously used gridded and averaged SIT observations for this purpose, but we demonstrate here for the first time that SIT measurements along the satellite orbit track can be used. Validation of the resulting modelled SIT demonstrates improvements in the model performance compared to a control.
Andrew Yool, Julien Palmiéri, Colin G. Jones, Lee de Mora, Till Kuhlbrodt, Ekatarina E. Popova, A. J. George Nurser, Joel Hirschi, Adam T. Blaker, Andrew C. Coward, Edward W. Blockley, and Alistair A. Sellar
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3437–3472, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean plays a key role in modulating the Earth’s climate. Understanding this role is critical when using models to project future climate change. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate their realism against the ocean's observed state. Here we validate UKESM1, a new Earth system model, focusing on the realism of its ocean physics and circulation, as well as its biological cycles and productivity. While we identify biases, generally the model performs well over a wide range of properties.
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.
Alex West, Mat Collins, and Ed Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4845–4868, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study calculates sea ice energy fluxes from data produced by ice mass balance buoys (devices measuring ice elevation and temperature). It is shown how the resulting dataset can be used to evaluate a coupled climate model (HadGEM2-ES), with biases in the energy fluxes seen to be consistent with biases in the sea ice state and surface radiation. This method has potential to improve sea ice model evaluation, so as to better understand spread in model simulations of sea ice state.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Alex Baker, Ed W. Blockley, Daley Calvert, Andrew Coward, Helene T. Hewitt, Laura C. Jackson, Till Kuhlbrodt, Pierre Mathiot, Christopher D. Roberts, Reinhard Schiemann, Jon Seddon, Benoît Vannière, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4999–5028, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4999-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4999-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the role that horizontal grid spacing plays in global coupled climate model simulations, together with examining the efficacy of a new design of simulation experiments that is being used by the community for multi-model comparison. We found that finer grid spacing in both atmosphere and ocean–sea ice models leads to a general reduction in bias compared to observations, and that once eddies in the ocean are resolved, several key climate processes are greatly improved.
Alex West, Mat Collins, Ed Blockley, Jeff Ridley, and Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo
The Cryosphere, 13, 2001–2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a framework for examining the causes of model errors in Arctic sea ice volume, using HadGEM2-ES as a case study. Simple models are used to estimate how much of the error in energy arriving at the ice surface is due to error in key Arctic climate variables. The method quantifies how each variable affects sea ice volume balance and shows that for HadGEM2-ES an annual mean low bias in ice thickness is likely due to errors in surface melt onset.
Edward W. Blockley and K. Andrew Peterson
The Cryosphere, 12, 3419–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3419-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3419-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Arctic sea-ice prediction on seasonal time scales is becoming increasingly more relevant to society but the predictive capability of forecasting systems is low. Several studies suggest initialization of sea-ice thickness (SIT) could improve the skill of seasonal prediction systems. Here for the first time we test the impact of SIT initialization in the Met Office's GloSea coupled prediction system using CryoSat-2 data. We show significant improvements to Arctic extent and ice edge location.
Jeff K. Ridley and Edward W. Blockley
The Cryosphere, 12, 3355–3360, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3355-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3355-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The climate change conference held in Paris in 2016 made a commitment to limiting global-mean warming since the pre-industrial era to well below 2 °C and to pursue efforts to limit the warming to 1.5 °C. Since global warming is already at 1 °C, the 1.5 °C can only be achieved at considerable cost. It is thus important to assess the risks associated with the higher target. This paper shows that the decline of Arctic sea ice, and associated impacts, can only be halted with the 1.5 °C target.
Ann Keen and Ed Blockley
The Cryosphere, 12, 2855–2868, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2855-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2855-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
As the climate warms during the 21st century, our model shows extra melting at the top and the base of the Arctic sea ice. The reducing ice cover affects the impact these processes have on the sea ice volume budget, where the largest individual change is a reduction in the amount of growth at the base of existing ice. Using different forcing scenarios we show that, for this model, changes in the volume budget depend on the evolving ice area but not on the speed at which the ice area declines.
David Storkey, Adam T. Blaker, Pierre Mathiot, Alex Megann, Yevgeny Aksenov, Edward W. Blockley, Daley Calvert, Tim Graham, Helene T. Hewitt, Patrick Hyder, Till Kuhlbrodt, Jamie G. L. Rae, and Bablu Sinha
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3187–3213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3187-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3187-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We document the latest version of the shared UK global configuration of the
NEMO ocean model. This configuration will be used as part of the climate
models for the UK contribution to the IPCC 6th Assessment Report.
30-year integrations forced with atmospheric forcing show that the new
configurations have an improved simulation in the Southern Ocean with the
near-surface temperatures and salinities and the sea ice all matching the
observations more closely.
Jeff K. Ridley, Edward W. Blockley, Ann B. Keen, Jamie G. L. Rae, Alex E. West, and David Schroeder
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 713–723, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The sea ice component of the Met Office coupled climate model, HadGEM3-GC3.1, is presented and evaluated. We determine that the mean state of the sea ice is well reproduced for the Arctic; however, a warm sea surface temperature bias over the Southern Ocean results in a low Antarctic sea ice cover.
Jamie G. L. Rae, Alexander D. Todd, Edward W. Blockley, and Jeff K. Ridley
The Cryosphere, 11, 3023–3034, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-3023-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-3023-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Several studies have highlighted links between Arctic summer storms and September sea ice extent in observations. Here we use model and reanalysis data to investigate the sensitivity of such links to the analytical methods used, in order to determine their robustness. The links were found to depend on the resolution of the model and dataset, the method used to identify storms and the time period used in the analysis. We therefore recommend caution when interpreting the results of such studies.
Alex E. West, Alison J. McLaren, Helene T. Hewitt, and Martin J. Best
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1125–1141, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two methods of coupling a sea ice model to an atmospheric model in a series of idealized one-dimensional experiments. The JULES method calculates surface variables in the atmosphere; the CICE method calculates surface variables in the sea ice. It is found that simulations of all variables are more accurate in the JULES method, likely because of the shorter time step of the atmosphere.
J. K. Ridley, R. A. Wood, A. B. Keen, E. Blockley, and J. A. Lowe
The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2016-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2016-28, 2016
Revised manuscript has not been submitted
Short summary
Short summary
The internal variability in model projections of Arctic sea ice extent is high. As a consequence an ensemble of projections from a single model can show considerable scatter in the range of dates for an "ice-free" Arctic. This paper investigates if the scatter can be reduced for a variety of definitions of "ice-free". Daily GCM data reveals that only a high emissions scenario results in the optimal definition of five conservative years in with ice extent is below one million square kilometer.
J. G. L. Rae, H. T. Hewitt, A. B. Keen, J. K. Ridley, A. E. West, C. M. Harris, E. C. Hunke, and D. N. Walters
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2221–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2221-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
The paper presents a new sea ice configuration, GSI6.0, in the Met Office coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice model. Differences in the sea ice from a previous configuration (GSI4.0) are explained in the context of a previously published sensitivity study. In summer, Arctic sea ice is thicker and more extensive than in GSI4.0, bringing it closer to the observationally derived data sets. In winter, the Arctic ice is thicker but less extensive than in GSI4.0.
K. D. Williams, C. M. Harris, A. Bodas-Salcedo, J. Camp, R. E. Comer, D. Copsey, D. Fereday, T. Graham, R. Hill, T. Hinton, P. Hyder, S. Ineson, G. Masato, S. F. Milton, M. J. Roberts, D. P. Rowell, C. Sanchez, A. Shelly, B. Sinha, D. N. Walters, A. West, T. Woollings, and P. K. Xavier
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1509–1524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1509-2015, 2015
E. W. Blockley, M. J. Martin, A. J. McLaren, A. G. Ryan, J. Waters, D. J. Lea, I. Mirouze, K. A. Peterson, A. Sellar, and D. Storkey
Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2613–2638, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2613-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2613-2014, 2014
A. E. West, A. B. Keen, and H. T. Hewitt
The Cryosphere, 7, 555–567, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-555-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Cryosphere
Coupling framework (1.0) for the Úa (2023b) ice sheet model and the FESOM-1.4 z-coordinate ocean model in an Antarctic domain
A gradient-boosted tree framework to model the ice thickness of the world's glaciers (IceBoost v1.1)
Towards deep-learning solutions for classification of automated snow height measurements (CleanSnow v1.0.2)
Quantitative sub-ice and marine tracing of Antarctic sediment provenance (TASP v1.0)
Tuning parameters of a sea ice model using machine learning
WRF-Chem simulations of snow nitrate and other physicochemical properties in northern China
Clustering simulated snow profiles to form avalanche forecast regions
SnowQM 1.0: a fast R package for bias-correcting spatial fields of snow water equivalent using quantile mapping
Simulation of snow albedo and solar irradiance profile with the Two-streAm Radiative TransfEr in Snow (TARTES) v2.0 model
Computationally efficient subglacial drainage modelling using Gaussian Process emulators: GlaDS-GP v1.0
Evaluation of MITgcm-based ocean reanalyses for the Southern Ocean
Improvements in the land surface configuration to better simulate seasonal snow cover in the European Alps with the CNRM-AROME (cycle 46) convection-permitting regional climate model
A three-stage model pipeline predicting regional avalanche danger in Switzerland (RAvaFcast v1.0.0): a decision-support tool for operational avalanche forecasting
A Flexible Snow Model (FSM 2.1.0) including a forest canopy
Anisotropic metric-based mesh adaptation for ice flow modelling in Firedrake
A global–land snow scheme (GLASS) v1.0 for the GFDL Earth System Model: formulation and evaluation at instrumented sites
Design and performance of ELSA v2.0: an isochronal model for ice-sheet layer tracing
Southern Ocean Ice Prediction System version 1.0 (SOIPS v1.0): description of the system and evaluation of synoptic-scale sea ice forecasts
Lagrangian tracking of sea ice in Community Ice CodE (CICE; version 5)
openAMUNDSEN v1.0: an open-source snow-hydrological model for mountain regions
OpenFOAM-avalanche 2312: depth-integrated models beyond dense-flow avalanches
Refactoring the elastic–viscous–plastic solver from the sea ice model CICE v6.5.1 for improved performance
A new 3D full-Stokes calving algorithm within Elmer/Ice (v9.0)
The Utrecht Finite Volume Ice-Sheet Model (UFEMISM version 2.0) – part 1: description and idealised experiments
A novel numerical implementation for the surface energy budget of melting snowpacks and glaciers
SnowPappus v1.0, a blowing-snow model for large-scale applications of the Crocus snow scheme
A stochastic parameterization of ice sheet surface mass balance for the Stochastic Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level System Model (StISSM v1.0)
Graphics-processing-unit-accelerated ice flow solver for unstructured meshes using the Shallow-Shelf Approximation (FastIceFlo v1.0.1)
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)
Description and validation of the ice sheet model Nix v1.0
AvaFrame com1DFA (v1.3): a thickness-integrated computational avalanche module – theory, numerics, and testing
Universal differential equations for glacier ice flow modelling
A new model for supraglacial hydrology evolution and drainage for the Greenland Ice Sheet (SHED v1.0)
Modeling sensitivities of thermally and hydraulically driven ice stream surge cycling
A parallel implementation of the confined–unconfined aquifer system model for subglacial hydrology: design, verification, and performance analysis (CUAS-MPI v0.1.0)
Automatic snow type classification of snow micropenetrometer profiles with machine learning algorithms
An empirical model to calculate snow depth from daily snow water equivalent: SWE2HS 1.0
A wind-driven snow redistribution module for Alpine3D v3.3.0: adaptations designed for downscaling ice sheet surface mass balance
The CryoGrid community model (version 1.0) – a multi-physics toolbox for climate-driven simulations in the terrestrial cryosphere
Glacier Energy and Mass Balance (GEMB): a model of firn processes for cryosphere research
Sensitivity of NEMO4.0-SI3 model parameters on sea ice budgets in the Southern Ocean
Introducing CRYOWRF v1.0: multiscale atmospheric flow simulations with advanced snow cover modelling
SUHMO: an adaptive mesh refinement SUbglacial Hydrology MOdel v1.0
Improving snow albedo modeling in the E3SM land model (version 2.0) and assessing its impacts on snow and surface fluxes over the Tibetan Plateau
The Multiple Snow Data Assimilation System (MuSA v1.0)
The Stochastic Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level System Model v1.0 (StISSM v1.0)
Improved representation of the contemporary Greenland ice sheet firn layer by IMAU-FDM v1.2G
Modeling the small-scale deposition of snow onto structured Arctic sea ice during a MOSAiC storm using snowBedFoam 1.0.
Benchmarking the vertically integrated ice-sheet model IMAU-ICE (version 2.0)
SnowClim v1.0: high-resolution snow model and data for the western United States
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
Short summary
The new coupled ice sheet–ocean model addresses challenges related to horizontal resolution through advanced mesh flexibility, enabled by the use of unstructured grids. We describe the new model, verify its functioning in an idealised setting and demonstrate its advantages in a global-ocean–Antarctic ice sheet domain. The results of this study comprise an important step towards improving predictions of the Antarctic contribution to sea level rise over centennial timescales.
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
Short summary
In this work we introduce IceBoost, a machine learning framework to model the ice thickness distribution of all the world's glaciers with greater accuracy than state-of-the-art methods. The model is trained on 3.7 million measurements globally available and provides skilful estimates across all regions. This advancement will help in better assessing future sea level changes and freshwater resources, with significance for both the scientific community and society at large.
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
Short summary
Accurately measuring snow height is key for modeling approaches in climate science, snow hydrology, and avalanche forecasting. Erroneous snow height measurements often occur when snow height is low or changes, for instance during snowfall in summer. We prepare a new benchmark dataset with annotated snow height data and demonstrate how to improve the measurement quality using modern deep-learning approaches. Our approach can be easily implemented in a data pipeline for snow modeling.
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
Short summary
Ice sheet models can help predict how Antarctica's ice sheets respond to environmental change, and such models benefit from comparison to geological data. Here, we use an ice sheet model output and other data to predict the erosion of debris and trace its transport to where it is deposited on the ocean floor. This allows the results of ice sheet modelling to be directly and quantitively compared to real-world data, helping to reduce uncertainty regarding Antarctic sea level contribution.
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
Short summary
We have developed a new method to improve the accuracy of sea ice models, which predict how ice moves and deforms due to wind and ocean currents. Traditional models use parameters that are often poorly defined. The new approach uses machine learning to fine-tune these parameters by comparing simulated ice drift with satellite data. The method identifies optimal settings for the model by analysing patterns in ice deformation. This results in more accurate simulations of sea ice drift forecasting.
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
Short summary
We employed the WRF-Chem model to parameterize atmospheric nitrate deposition in snow and evaluate its performance in simulating snow cover, snow depth, and concentrations of dust and nitrate using new observations from northern China. The results generally exhibit reasonable agreement with field observations in northern China, demonstrating the model's capability to simulate snow properties, including concentrations of reservoir species.
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
Short summary
We present a method for avalanche forecasters to analyze patterns in snowpack model simulations. It uses fuzzy clustering to group small regions into larger forecast areas based on snow characteristics, locations, and temporal history. Tested in the Columbia Mountains in two winter seasons, it closely matched real forecast regions regions and identified major avalanche hazard patterns. This approach simplifies complex model outputs, helping forecasters make informed decisions.
Adrien Michel, Johannes Aschauer, Tobias Jonas, Stefanie Gubler, Sven Kotlarski, and Christoph Marty
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8969–8988, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8969-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8969-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a method to correct snow cover maps (represented in terms of snow water equivalent) to match better-quality maps. The correction can then be extended backwards and forwards in time for periods when better-quality maps are not available. The method is fast and gives good results. It is then applied to obtain a climatology of the snow cover in Switzerland over the past 60 years at a resolution of 1 d and 1 km. This is the first time that such a dataset has been produced.
Ghislain Picard and Quentin Libois
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8927–8953, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8927-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8927-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Two-streAm Radiative TransfEr in Snow (TARTES) is a radiative transfer model to compute snow albedo in the solar domain and the profiles of light and energy absorption in a multi-layered snowpack whose physical properties are user defined. It uniquely considers snow grain shape flexibly, based on recent insights showing that snow does not behave as a collection of ice spheres but instead as a random medium. TARTES is user-friendly yet performs comparably to more complex models.
Tim Hill, Derek Bingham, Gwenn E. Flowers, and Matthew J. Hoffman
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.172736254.41350153/v2, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.172736254.41350153/v2, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Subglacial drainage models represent water flow beneath glaciers and ice sheets. Here, we train fast statistical models called Gaussian Process emulators to accelerate subglacial drainage modelling by ~1000 times. We use the fast emulator predictions to show that three of the model parameters are responsible for >90 % of the variance in model outputs. The fast GP emulators will enable future uncertainty quantification and calibration of these models.
Yoshihiro Nakayama, Alena Malyarenko, Hong Zhang, Ou Wang, Matthis Auger, Yafei Nie, Ian Fenty, Matthew Mazloff, Armin Köhl, and Dimitris Menemenlis
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8613–8638, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8613-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8613-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Global- and basin-scale ocean reanalyses are becoming easily accessible. However, such ocean reanalyses are optimized for their entire model domains and their ability to simulate the Southern Ocean requires evaluation. We conduct intercomparison analyses of Massachusetts Institute of Technology General Circulation Model (MITgcm)-based ocean reanalyses. They generally perform well for the open ocean, but open-ocean temporal variability and Antarctic continental shelves require improvements.
Diego Monteiro, Cécile Caillaud, Matthieu Lafaysse, Adrien Napoly, Mathieu Fructus, Antoinette Alias, and Samuel Morin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7645–7677, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7645-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7645-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Modeling snow cover in climate and weather forecasting models is a challenge even for high-resolution models. Recent simulations with CNRM-AROME have shown difficulties when representing snow in the European Alps. Using remote sensing data and in situ observations, we evaluate modifications of the land surface configuration in order to improve it. We propose a new surface configuration, enabling a more realistic simulation of snow cover, relevant for climate and weather forecasting applications.
Alessandro Maissen, Frank Techel, and Michele Volpi
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7569–7593, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
By harnessing AI models, this work enables processing large amounts of data, including weather conditions, snowpack characteristics, and historical avalanche data, to predict human-like avalanche forecasts in Switzerland. Our proposed model can significantly assist avalanche forecasters in their decision-making process, thereby facilitating more efficient and accurate predictions crucial for ensuring safety in Switzerland's avalanche-prone regions.
Richard Essery, Giulia Mazzotti, Sarah Barr, Tobias Jonas, Tristan Quaife, and Nick Rutter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2546, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2546, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
How forests influence accumulation and melt of snow on the ground is of long-standing interest, but uncertainty remains in how best to model forest snow processes. We developed the Flexible Snow Model version 2 to quantify these uncertainties. In a first model demonstration, how unloading of intercepted snow from the forest canopy is represented is responsible for the largest uncertainty. Global mapping of forest distribution is also likely to be a large source of uncertainty in existing models.
Davor Dundovic, Joseph G. Wallwork, Stephan C. Kramer, Fabien Gillet-Chaulet, Regine Hock, and Matthew D. Piggott
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2649, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2649, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate numerical studies of glaciers often require high-resolution simulations, which often prove too demanding even for modern computers. In this paper we develop a method that identifies whether different parts of a glacier require high or low resolution based on its physical features, such as its thickness and velocity. We show that by doing so we can achieve a more optimal simulation accuracy for the available computing resources compared to uniform resolution simulations.
Enrico Zorzetto, Sergey Malyshev, Paul Ginoux, and Elena Shevliakova
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7219–7244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7219-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7219-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We describe a new snow scheme developed for use in global climate models, which simulates the interactions of snowpack with vegetation, atmosphere, and soil. We test the new snow model over a set of sites where in situ observations are available. We find that when compared to a simpler snow model, this model improves predictions of seasonal snow and of soil temperature under the snowpack, important variables for simulating both the hydrological cycle and the global climate system.
Therese Rieckh, Andreas Born, Alexander Robinson, Robert Law, and Gerrit Gülle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6987–7000, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6987-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6987-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present the open-source model ELSA, which simulates the internal age structure of large ice sheets. It creates layers of snow accumulation at fixed times during the simulation, which are used to model the internal stratification of the ice sheet. Together with reconstructed isochrones from radiostratigraphy data, ELSA can be used to assess ice sheet models and to improve their parameterization. ELSA can be used coupled to an ice sheet model or forced with its output.
Fu Zhao, Xi Liang, Zhongxiang Tian, Ming Li, Na Liu, and Chengyan Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6867–6886, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6867-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6867-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we introduce a newly developed Antarctic sea ice forecasting system, namely the Southern Ocean Ice Prediction System (SOIPS). The system is based on a regional sea ice‒ocean‒ice shelf coupled model and can assimilate sea ice concentration observations. By assessing the system's performance in sea ice forecasts, we find that the system can provide reliable Antarctic sea ice forecasts for the next 7 d and has the potential to guide ship navigation in the Antarctic sea ice zone.
Chenhui Ning, Shiming Xu, Yan Zhang, Xuantong Wang, Zhihao Fan, and Jiping Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6847–6866, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6847-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6847-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice models are mainly based on non-moving structured grids, which is different from buoy measurements that follow the ice drift. To facilitate Lagrangian analysis, we introduce online tracking of sea ice in Community Ice CodE (CICE). We validate the sea ice tracking with buoys and evaluate the sea ice deformation in high-resolution simulations, which show multi-fractal characteristics. The source code is openly available and can be used in various scientific and operational applications.
Ulrich Strasser, Michael Warscher, Erwin Rottler, and Florian Hanzer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6775–6797, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6775-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6775-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
openAMUNDSEN is a fully distributed open-source snow-hydrological model for mountain catchments. It includes process representations of an empirical, semi-empirical, and physical nature. It uses temperature, precipitation, humidity, radiation, and wind speed as forcing data and is computationally efficient, of a modular nature, and easily extendible. The Python code is available on GitHub (https://github.com/openamundsen/openamundsen), including documentation (https://doc.openamundsen.org).
Matthias Rauter and Julia Kowalski
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6545–6569, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6545-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6545-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Snow avalanches can form large powder clouds that substantially exceed the velocity and reach of the dense core. Only a few complex models exist to simulate this phenomenon, and the respective hazard is hard to predict. This work provides a novel flow model that focuses on simple relations while still encapsulating the significant behaviour. The model is applied to reconstruct two catastrophic powder snow avalanche events in Austria.
Till Andreas Soya Rasmussen, Jacob Poulsen, Mads Hvid Ribergaard, Ruchira Sasanka, Anthony P. Craig, Elizabeth C. Hunke, and Stefan Rethmeier
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6529–6544, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6529-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6529-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models (ESMs) today strive for better quality based on improved resolutions and improved physics. A limiting factor is the supercomputers at hand and how best to utilize them. This study focuses on the refactorization of one part of a sea ice model (CICE), namely the dynamics. It shows that the performance can be significantly improved, which means that one can either run the same simulations much cheaper or advance the system according to what is needed.
Iain Wheel, Douglas I. Benn, Anna J. Crawford, Joe Todd, and Thomas Zwinger
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5759–5777, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5759-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Calving, the detachment of large icebergs from glaciers, is one of the largest uncertainties in future sea level rise projections. This process is poorly understood, and there is an absence of detailed models capable of simulating calving. A new 3D calving model has been developed to better understand calving at glaciers where detailed modelling was previously limited. Importantly, the new model is very flexible. By allowing for unrestricted calving geometries, it can be applied at any location.
Constantijn J. Berends, Victor Azizi, Jorge Bernales, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-5, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-5, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
Ice-sheet models are computer programs that can simulate how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will evolve in the future. The accuracy of these models depends on their resolution: how small the details are that the model can resolve. We have created a model with a variable resolution, which can resolve a lot of detail in areas where lots of changes happen in the ice, and less detail in areas where the ice does not move so much. This makes the model both accurate and fast.
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
Short summary
In this paper, we provide a novel numerical implementation for solving the energy exchanges at the surface of snow and ice. By combining the strong points of previous models, our solution leads to more accurate and robust simulations of the energy exchanges, surface temperature, and melt while preserving a reasonable computation time.
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
Short summary
Increasing the spatial resolution of numerical systems simulating snowpack evolution in mountain areas requires representing small-scale processes such as wind-induced snow transport. We present SnowPappus, a simple scheme coupled with the Crocus snow model to compute blowing-snow fluxes and redistribute snow among grid points at 250 m resolution. In terms of numerical cost, it is suitable for large-scale applications. We present point-scale evaluations of fluxes and snow transport occurrence.
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
Short summary
The surface mass balance (SMB) of an ice sheet describes the net gain or loss of mass from ice sheets (such as those in Greenland and Antarctica) through interaction with the atmosphere. We developed a statistical method to generate a wide range of SMB fields that reflect the best understanding of SMB processes. Efficiently sampling the variability of SMB will help us understand sources of uncertainty in ice sheet model projections.
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
Short summary
We solve momentum balance for unstructured meshes to predict ice flow for real glaciers using a pseudo-transient method on graphics processing units (GPUs) and compare it to a standard central processing unit (CPU) implementation. We justify the GPU implementation by applying the price-to-performance metric for up to million-grid-point spatial resolutions. This study represents a first step toward leveraging GPU processing power, enabling more accurate polar ice discharge predictions.
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
Short summary
Vapor diffusion is one of the main processes governing snowpack evolution, and it must be accounted for in models. Recent attempts to represent vapor diffusion in numerical models have faced several difficulties regarding computational cost and mass and energy conservation. Here, we develop our own finite-element software to explore numerical approaches and enable us to overcome these difficulties. We illustrate the capability of these approaches on established numerical benchmarks.
Daniel Moreno-Parada, Alexander Robinson, Marisa Montoya, and Jorge Alvarez-Solas
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2690, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2690, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce Nix, an ice-sheet model designed for understanding how large masses of ice behave. Nix as a computer program that simulates the movement and temperature changes in ice sheets. Nix helps us study how ice sheets respond to changes in the atmosphere and ocean. We found that how fast ice melts under the shelves and how heat is exchanged, play a role in determining the future of ice sheets. Nix is a useful tool for learning more about how climate change affects polar ice sheets.
Matthias Tonnel, Anna Wirbel, Felix Oesterle, and Jan-Thomas Fischer
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7013–7035, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7013-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7013-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Avaframe - the open avalanche framework - provides open-source tools to simulate and investigate snow avalanches. It is utilized for multiple purposes, the two main applications being hazard mapping and scientific research of snow processes. We present the theory, conversion to a computer model, and testing for one of the core modules used for simulations of a particular type of avalanche, the so-called dense-flow avalanches. Tests check and confirm the applicability of the utilized method.
Jordi Bolibar, Facundo Sapienza, Fabien Maussion, Redouane Lguensat, Bert Wouters, and Fernando Pérez
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6671–6687, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6671-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6671-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new modelling framework combining numerical methods with machine learning. Using this approach, we focused on understanding how ice moves within glaciers, and we successfully learnt a prescribed law describing ice movement for 17 glaciers worldwide as a proof of concept. Our framework has the potential to discover important laws governing glacier processes, aiding our understanding of glacier physics and their contribution to water resources and sea-level rise.
Prateek Gantayat, Alison F. Banwell, Amber A. Leeson, James M. Lea, Dorthe Petersen, Noel Gourmelen, and Xavier Fettweis
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5803–5823, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5803-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5803-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new supraglacial hydrology model for the Greenland Ice Sheet. This model simulates surface meltwater routing, meltwater drainage, supraglacial lake (SGL) overflow, and formation of lake ice. The model was able to reproduce 80 % of observed lake locations and provides a good match between the observed and modelled temporal evolution of SGLs.
Kevin Hank, Lev Tarasov, and Elisa Mantelli
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5627–5652, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5627-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5627-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Physically meaningful modeling of geophysical system instabilities is numerically challenging, given the potential effects of purely numerical artifacts. Here we explore the sensitivity of ice stream surge activation to numerical and physical model aspects. We find that surge characteristics exhibit a resolution dependency but converge at higher horizontal grid resolutions and are significantly affected by the incorporation of bed thermal and sub-glacial hydrology models.
Yannic Fischler, Thomas Kleiner, Christian Bischof, Jeremie Schmiedel, Roiy Sayag, Raban Emunds, Lennart Frederik Oestreich, and Angelika Humbert
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5305–5322, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5305-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5305-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Water underneath ice sheets affects the motion of glaciers. This study presents a newly developed code, CUAS-MPI, that simulates subglacial hydrology. It is designed for supercomputers and is hence a parallelized code. We measure the performance of this code for simulations of the entire Greenland Ice Sheet and find that the code works efficiently. Moreover, we validated the code to ensure the correctness of the solution. CUAS-MPI opens new possibilities for simulations of ice sheet hydrology.
Julia Kaltenborn, Amy R. Macfarlane, Viviane Clay, and Martin Schneebeli
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4521–4550, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4521-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4521-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Snow layer segmentation and snow grain classification are essential diagnostic tasks for cryospheric applications. A SnowMicroPen (SMP) can be used to that end; however, the manual classification of its profiles becomes infeasible for large datasets. Here, we evaluate how well machine learning models automate this task. Of the 14 models trained on the MOSAiC SMP dataset, the long short-term memory model performed the best. The findings presented here facilitate and accelerate SMP data analysis.
Johannes Aschauer, Adrien Michel, Tobias Jonas, and Christoph Marty
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4063–4081, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4063-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4063-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Snow water equivalent is the mass of water stored in a snowpack. Based on exponential settling functions, the empirical snow density model SWE2HS is presented to convert time series of daily snow water equivalent into snow depth. The model has been calibrated with data from Switzerland and validated with independent data from the European Alps. A reference implementation of SWE2HS is available as a Python package.
Eric Keenan, Nander Wever, Jan T. M. Lenaerts, and Brooke Medley
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3203–3219, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3203-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3203-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ice sheets gain mass via snowfall. However, snowfall is redistributed by the wind, resulting in accumulation differences of up to a factor of 5 over distances as short as 5 km. These differences complicate estimates of ice sheet contribution to sea level rise. For this reason, we have developed a new model for estimating wind-driven snow redistribution on ice sheets. We show that, over Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica, the model improves estimates of snow accumulation variability.
Sebastian Westermann, Thomas Ingeman-Nielsen, Johanna Scheer, Kristoffer Aalstad, Juditha Aga, Nitin Chaudhary, Bernd Etzelmüller, Simon Filhol, Andreas Kääb, Cas Renette, Louise Steffensen Schmidt, Thomas Vikhamar Schuler, Robin B. Zweigel, Léo Martin, Sarah Morard, Matan Ben-Asher, Michael Angelopoulos, Julia Boike, Brian Groenke, Frederieke Miesner, Jan Nitzbon, Paul Overduin, Simone M. Stuenzi, and Moritz Langer
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2607–2647, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2607-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2607-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The CryoGrid community model is a new tool for simulating ground temperatures and the water and ice balance in cold regions. It is a modular design, which makes it possible to test different schemes to simulate, for example, permafrost ground in an efficient way. The model contains tools to simulate frozen and unfrozen ground, snow, glaciers, and other massive ice bodies, as well as water bodies.
Alex S. Gardner, Nicole-Jeanne Schlegel, and Eric Larour
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2277–2302, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2277-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2277-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is the first description of the open-source Glacier Energy and Mass Balance (GEMB) model. GEMB models the ice sheet and glacier surface–atmospheric energy and mass exchange, as well as the firn state. The model is evaluated against the current state of the art and in situ observations and is shown to perform well.
Yafei Nie, Chengkun Li, Martin Vancoppenolle, Bin Cheng, Fabio Boeira Dias, Xianqing Lv, and Petteri Uotila
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1395–1425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1395-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1395-2023, 2023
Short summary
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.
Varun Sharma, Franziska Gerber, and Michael Lehning
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 719–749, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-719-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-719-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Most current generation climate and weather models have a relatively simplistic description of snow and snow–atmosphere interaction. One reason for this is the belief that including an advanced snow model would make the simulations too computationally demanding. In this study, we bring together two state-of-the-art models for atmosphere (WRF) and snow cover (SNOWPACK) and highlight both the feasibility and necessity of such coupled models to explore underexplored phenomena in the cryosphere.
Anne M. Felden, Daniel F. Martin, and Esmond G. Ng
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 407–425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-407-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-407-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate a novel subglacial hydrology model, SUHMO, based on an adaptive mesh refinement framework. We propose the addition of a pseudo-diffusion to recover the wall melting in channels. Computational performance analysis demonstrates the efficiency of adaptive mesh refinement on large-scale hydrologic problems. The adaptive mesh refinement approach will eventually enable better ice bed boundary conditions for ice sheet simulations at a reasonable computational cost.
Dalei Hao, Gautam Bisht, Karl Rittger, Edward Bair, Cenlin He, Huilin Huang, Cheng Dang, Timbo Stillinger, Yu Gu, Hailong Wang, Yun Qian, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 75–94, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-75-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-75-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Snow with the highest albedo of land surface plays a vital role in Earth’s surface energy budget and water cycle. This study accounts for the impacts of snow grain shape and mixing state of light-absorbing particles with snow on snow albedo in the E3SM land model. The findings advance our understanding of the role of snow grain shape and mixing state of LAP–snow in land surface processes and offer guidance for improving snow simulations and radiative forcing estimates in Earth system models.
Esteban Alonso-González, Kristoffer Aalstad, Mohamed Wassim Baba, Jesús Revuelto, Juan Ignacio López-Moreno, Joel Fiddes, Richard Essery, and Simon Gascoin
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9127–9155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9127-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9127-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Snow cover plays an important role in many processes, but its monitoring is a challenging task. The alternative is usually to simulate the snowpack, and to improve these simulations one of the most promising options is to fuse simulations with available observations (data assimilation). In this paper we present MuSA, a data assimilation tool which facilitates the implementation of snow monitoring initiatives, allowing the assimilation of a wide variety of remotely sensed snow cover information.
Vincent Verjans, Alexander A. Robel, Helene Seroussi, Lizz Ultee, and Andrew F. Thompson
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8269–8293, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8269-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8269-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the development of the first large-scale ice sheet model that accounts for stochasticity in a range of processes. Stochasticity allows the impacts of inherently uncertain processes on ice sheets to be represented. This includes climatic uncertainty, as the climate is inherently chaotic. Furthermore, stochastic capabilities also encompass poorly constrained glaciological processes that display strong variability at fine spatiotemporal scales. We present the model and test experiments.
Max Brils, Peter Kuipers Munneke, Willem Jan van de Berg, and Michiel van den Broeke
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7121–7138, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7121-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7121-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Firn covers the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) and can temporarily prevent mass loss. Here, we present the latest version of our firn model, IMAU-FDM, with an application to the GrIS. We improved the density of fallen snow, the firn densification rate and the firn's thermal conductivity. This leads to a higher air content and 10 m temperatures. Furthermore we investigate three case studies and find that the updated model shows greater variability and an increased sensitivity in surface elevation.
Océane Hames, Mahdi Jafari, David Nicholas Wagner, Ian Raphael, David Clemens-Sewall, Chris Polashenski, Matthew D. Shupe, Martin Schneebeli, and Michael Lehning
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6429–6449, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6429-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6429-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents an Eulerian–Lagrangian snow transport model implemented in the fluid dynamics software OpenFOAM, which we call snowBedFoam 1.0. We apply this model to reproduce snow deposition on a piece of ridged Arctic sea ice, which was produced during the MOSAiC expedition through scan measurements. The model appears to successfully reproduce the enhanced snow accumulation and deposition patterns, although some quantitative uncertainties were shown.
Constantijn J. Berends, Heiko Goelzer, Thomas J. Reerink, Lennert B. Stap, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5667–5688, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5667-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5667-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The rate at which marine ice sheets such as the West Antarctic ice sheet will retreat in a warming climate and ocean is still uncertain. Numerical ice-sheet models, which solve the physical equations that describe the way glaciers and ice sheets deform and flow, have been substantially improved in recent years. Here we present the results of several years of work on IMAU-ICE, an ice-sheet model of intermediate complexity, which can be used to study ice sheets of both the past and the future.
Abby C. Lute, John Abatzoglou, and Timothy Link
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5045–5071, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5045-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5045-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a snow model that can be used to quantify snowpack over large areas with a high degree of spatial detail. We ran the model over the western United States, creating a snow and climate dataset for three time periods. Compared to observations of snowpack, the model captured the key aspects of snow across time and space. The model and dataset will be useful in understanding historical and future changes in snowpack, with relevance to water resources, agriculture, and ecosystems.
Cited articles
Batrak, Y. and Müller, M.: On the warm bias in atmospheric reanalyses induced by the missing snow over Arctic sea-ice, Nat. Commun., 10, 4170, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11975-3, 2019.
Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Seland, Ø., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20191108, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.506, 2019.
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.
Boucher, O., Denvil, S., Levavasseur, G., Cozic, A., Caubel, A., Foujols, M., Meurdesoif, Y., Cadule, P., Devilliers, M., Ghattas, J., Lebas, N., Lurton, T., Mellul, L., Musat, I., Mignot, J., and Cheruy, F.: IPSL IPSL-CM6A-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20180803, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1534, 2018.
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y., Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bonnet, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P., Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Caubel, A., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A., Cugnet, D., D'Andrea, F., Davini, P., de Lavergne, C., Denvil, S., Deshayes, J., Devilliers, M., Ducharne, A., Dufresne, J., Dupont, E., Éthé, C., Fairhead, L., Falletti, L., Flavoni, S., Foujols, M., Gardoll, S., Gastineau, G., Ghattas, J., Grandpeix, J., Guenet, B., Guez, L. E., Guilyardi, E., Guimberteau, M., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A., Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Khodri, M., Krinner, G., Lebas, N., Levavasseur, G., Lévy, C., Li, L., Lott, F., Lurton, T., Luyssaert, S., Madec, G., Madeleine, J., Maignan, F., Marchand, M., Marti, O., Mellul, L., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Ottlé, C., Peylin, P., Planton, Y., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Rochetin, N., Rousset, C., Sepulchre, P., Sima, A., Swingedouw, D., Thiéblemont, R., Traore, A. K., Vancoppenolle, M., Vial, J., Vialard, J., Viovy, N., and Vuichard, N.: Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020.
Boucher, O., Denvil, S., Levavasseur, G., Cozic, A., Caubel, A., Foujols, M., Meurdesoif, Y., Balkanski, Y., Checa-Garcia, R., Hauglustaine, D., Bekki, S., and Marchand, M.: IPSL IPSL-CM6A-LR-INCA model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20210216, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.13582, 2021.
Cai, Q., Wang, J., Beletsky, D., Overland, J., Ikeda, M., and Wan, L.: Accelerated decline of summer Arctic sea ice during 1850–2017 and the amplified Arctic warming during the recent decades, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 034015, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abdb5f, 2021.
Chen, L., Wu, R., Shu, Q., Min, C., Yang, Q., and Han, B.: The Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Change in CMIP6's Historical Simulations, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 40, 2331–2343, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-022-1460-4, 2023.
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2-WACCM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20190917 (sidmassmelttop, sidmassmeltbot and sidmassgrowthbot); Version 20190227 (all other diagnostics), Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10024, 2019a.
Danabasoglu, G.: NCAR CESM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20190919 (sidmassmelttop, sidmassmeltbot and sidmassgrowthbot); Version 20190308 (all other diagnostics), Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2185, 2019b.
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E., Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020.
Dix, M., Bi, D., Dobrohotoff, P., Fiedler, R., Harman, I., Law, R., Mackallah, C., Marsland, S., O'Farrell, S., Rashid, H., Srbinovsky, J., Sullivan, A., Trenham, C., Vohralik, P., Watterson, I., Williams, G., Woodhouse, M., Bodman, R., Dias, F. B., Domingues, C. M., Hannah, N., Heerdegen, A., Savita, A., Wales, S., Allen, C., Druken, K., Evans, B., Richards, C., Ridzwan, S. M., Roberts, D., Smillie, J., Snow, K., Ward, M., and Yang, R.: CSIRO-ARCCSS ACCESS-CM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20200817, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2281, 2019.
Flocco, D., Schroeder, D., Feltham, D. L., and Hunke, E. C.: Impact of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice simulations from 1990 to 2007, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, C09032, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC008195, 2012.
GISTemp Team: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), version 4, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (last access: 26 February 2024), 2024.
Henke, M., Cassalho, F., Miesse, T., Ferreira, C. M., Zhang J., and Ravens, T. M.: Assessment of Arctic sea ice and surface climate conditions in nine CMIP6 climate models, Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res., 55, 2271592, https://doi.org/10.1080/15230430.2023.2271592, 2023.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5 hourly data on pressure levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.bd0915c6, 2023.
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, M. M., Bailey, D. A., Briegleb, B. P., Light, B., and Hunke, E.: Improved Sea Ice Shortwave Radiation Physics in CCSM4: The Impact of Melt Ponds and Aerosols on Arctic Sea Ice, J. Climate, 25, 1413–1430, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00078.1, 2012.
Huang, B., Yin, X., Menne, M. J., Vose, R., and Zhang, H.: NOAA Global Surface Temperature Dataset (NOAAGlobalTemp), Version 6.0.0 (gridded), NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set], https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/metadata/geoportal/rest/metadata/item/gov.noaa.ncdc%3AC01704/html, last access: 26 February 2024.
Hunke, E. C., Hebert, D. A., and Lecomte, O.: Level-ice melt ponds in the Los Alamos sea ice model, CICE, Ocean Model., 71, 26–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.008, 2013.
Keen, A. and Blockley, E.: Investigating future changes in the volume budget of the Arctic sea ice in a coupled climate model, The Cryosphere, 12, 2855–2868, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2855-2018, 2018.
Keen, A., Blockley, E., Bailey, D. A., Boldingh Debernard, J., Bushuk, M., Delhaye, S., Docquier, D., Feltham, D., Massonnet, F., O'Farrell, S., Ponsoni, L., Rodriguez, J. M., Schroeder, D., Swart, N., Toyoda, T., Tsujino, H., Vancoppenolle, M., and Wyser, K.: An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models, The Cryosphere, 15, 951–982, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021, 2021.
Koo, Y., Lei, R., Cheng, Y., Cheng, B., Xie, H., Hoppmann, M., Kurtz, N. T., Ackley, S. F., and Mestas-Nunez, A. M.: Estimation of thermodynamic and dynamic contributions to sea ice growth in the Central Arctic using ICESat-2 and MOSAiC SIMBA buoy data, Remote Sens. Environ., 267, 112730, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112730, 2021.
Kurtz, N. and Harbeck, J.: CryoSat-2 Level-4 Sea Ice Elevation, Freeboard, and Thickness, Version 1, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/96JO0KIFDAS8, 2017.
Kwok, R.: Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018), Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 105005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec, 2018.
Lei, R., Li, N., Heil, P., Cheng, B., Zhang, Z., and Sun, B.: Multiyear sea-ice thermal regimes and oceanic heat flux derived from an ice mass balance buoy in the Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 119, 537–547, https://doi.org/10.1002/2012JC008731, 2014.
Lenssen, N., Schmidt, G., Hansen, J., Menne, M., Persin, A., Ruedy, R., and Zyss, D.: Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 6307–6326, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029522, 2019.
Loeb, N. G., Wielicki, B. A., Doelling, D. R., Louis Smith, G., Keyes, D. F., Kato, S., Manalo-Smith, N., and Wong, T.: Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth's Top-ofAtmosphere Radiation Budget, J. Climate, 22, 748–766, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1, 2009.
Long, M., Zhang, L., Hu, S., and Qian, S.: Multi-Aspect Assessment of CMIP6 Models for Arctic Sea Ice Simulation, J. Climate, 34, 1515–1529, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0522.1, 2021.
Lovato, T. and Peano, D.: CMCC CMCC-CM2-SR5 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20200616, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1362, 2020.
Lovato, T., Peano, D., and Butenshön, M.: CMCC CMCC-ESM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20210114, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.13164, 2021.
Massonnet, F., Vancoppenolle, M., Goosse, H., Docquier, D., Fichefet, T., and Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E.: Arctic sea-ice change tied to its mean state through thermodynamic processes, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 599–603, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0204-z, 2018.
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.
McPhee, M. G.: Turbulent heat flux in the upper ocean under sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 5365–5379, https://doi.org/10.1029/92JC00239, 1992.
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., Winn, J. P., Hogan, E., Killick, R. E., Dunn, R. J. H., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. D., and Simpson, I. R., An updated assessment of near-surface temperature change from 1850: the HadCRUT5 data set, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2019JD032361, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032361, 2021.
Notz, D. and SIMIP Community: Arctic sea ice in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086749, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086749, 2020.
Notz, D., Jahn, A., Holland, M., Hunke, E., Massonnet, F., Stroeve, J., Tremblay, B., and Vancoppenolle, M.: The CMIP6 Sea-Ice Model Intercomparison Project (SIMIP): understanding sea ice through climate-model simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3427–3446, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3427-2016, 2016.
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.
Perovich, D., Richter-Menge, J., and Polashenski, C.: Observing and understanding climate change: Monitoring the mass balance, motion, and thickness of Arctic sea ice, The CRREL-Dartmouth Mass Balance Buoy Program, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth [data set], http://imb-crrel-dartmouth.org/results/, last access: 20 April 2020.
Plante, M., Lemieux, J.-F., Tremblay, L. B., Tivy, A., Angnatok, J., Roy, F., Smith, G., Dupont, F., and Turner, A. K.: Using Icepack to reproduce ice mass balance buoy observations in landfast ice: improvements from the mushy-layer thermodynamics, The Cryosphere, 18, 1685–1708, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-1685-2024, 2024.
Richter-Menge, J. A., Perovich, D. K., Elder, B. C., Claffey, K., Rigor, I., and Ortmeyer, M.: Ice mass balance buoys: A tool for measuring and attributing changes in the thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover, Ann. Glaciol., 44, 205–210, https://doi.org/10.3189/172756406781811727, 2006.
Ridley, J. K., Blockley, E. W., Keen, A. B., Rae, J. G. L., West, A. E., and Schroeder, D.: The sea ice model component of HadGEM3-GC3.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 713–723, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-713-2018, 2018a.
Ridley, J., Menary, M., Kuhlbrodt, T., Andrews, M., and Andrews, T.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20200330, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.419, 2018b.
Ridley, J., Menary, M., Kuhlbrodt, T., Andrews, M., and Andrews, T.: MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-MM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20191207, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.420, 2019.
Rohde, R. A. and Hausfather, Z.: The Berkeley Earth Land/Ocean Temperature Record, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3469–3479, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3469-2020, 2020.
Schweiger, A., Lindsay, R., Zhang, J., Steele, M., Stern, H., and Kwok, R.: Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume, J. Geophys. Res., 116, C00D06, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007084, 2011.
Seferian, R.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 LS3MIP. Version 20181206, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.9564, 2019.
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Oliviè, D. J. L., Toniazzo, T.,; Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O. A., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: NCC NorESM2-LM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20191108 (siflcondtop and siflcondbot); Version 20190815 (all other diagnostics), Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.502, 2019.
Shim, S., Lim, Y., Byun, Y., Seo, J., Kwon, S., and Kim, B.: NIMS-KMA UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20200611, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2245, 2020.
Steele, M., Zhang, J., and Ermold, W.: Mechanisms of summer Arctic Ocean warming, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 115, C11004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005849, 2010.
Stroeve, J. C. and Notz, D.: Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 103001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aade56, 2018.
Stroeve, J. C., Serreze, M. C., Holland, M. M., Kay, J. E., Maslanik, J., and Barrett, A. P.: The Arctic's rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: a research synthesis, Climatic Change, 110, 1005–1027, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0101-1, 2012.
Tang, Y., Rumbold, S., Ellis, R., Kelley, D., Mulcahy, J., Sellar, A., Walton, J., and Jones, C.: MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20200309, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1569, 2019.
Tilling, R. L., Ridout, A., and Shepherd, A.: Estimating Arctic sea ice thickness and volume using CryoSat-2 radar altimeter data, Adv. Space Res., 62, 1203–1225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2017.10.051, 2018.
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.
Turner, A. K. and Hunke, E. C.: Impacts of a mushy-layer thermodynamic approach in global sea-ice simulations using the CICE sea-ice model, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 120, 1253–1275, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010358, 2015.
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20180917, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1375, 2018.
Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 HighResMIP. Version 20191021, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1387, 2019.
Voldoire, A., Saint-Martin, D., Sénési, S., Decharme, B., Alias, A., Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Guérémy, J., Michou, M., Moine, M., Nabat, P., Roehrig, R., Salas y Mélia, D., Séférian, R., Valcke, S., Beau, I., Belamari, S., Berthet, S., Cassou, C., Cattiaux, J., Deshayes, J., Douville, H., Ethé, C., Franchistéguy, L., Geoffroy, O., Lévy, C., Madec, G., Meurdesoif, Y., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Sanchez-Gomez, E., Terray, L., and Waldman, R.: Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK experiments with CNRM-CM6-1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2177–2213, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683, 2019.
Walters, D., Baran, A. J., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulcahy, J., Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Tomassini, L., Van Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Willett, M., Browse, J., Bushell, A., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Essery, R., Gedney, N., Hardiman, S., Johnson, B., Johnson, C., Jones, A., Jones, C., Mann, G., Milton, S., Rumbold, H., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., Whitall, M., Williams, K., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1909–1963, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019, 2019.
West, A. E.: alex-west-met-office/IMBS_MO: Stage 1 IMB code – production version 1.1, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3975692, 2020a.
West, A. E.: alex-west-met-office/IMBS_Stage2_modeleval_MO: Stage 2 IMB code – production version, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3971736, 2020b.
West, A. E.: Arctic ice mass balance buoy data for use in calculating quantities to evaluate climate models, Version v1_april_2020, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3773811, 2020c.
West, A. E.: Monthly mean variables derived from Arctic Ice Mass Balance Buoy data, for evaluation of sea ice models, Version v1_april_2020, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3773997, 2020d.
West, A. E.: New methods of evaluating sea ice in climate models based on energy budgets, PhD thesis, University of Exeter, http://hdl.handle.net/10871/127762 (last access: 20 May 2024), 2021.
West, A. E.: Figure & analysis code for paper “CMIP6 models overestimate melt, growth & conduction relative to ice mass balance buoy estimates”, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12518762, 2024.
West, A., Collins, M., Blockley, E., Ridley, J., and Bodas-Salcedo, A.: Induced surface fluxes: a new framework for attributing Arctic sea ice volume balance biases to specific model errors, The Cryosphere, 13, 2001–2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2001-2019, 2019.
West, A., Collins, M., and Blockley, E.: Using Arctic ice mass balance buoys for evaluation of modelled ice energy fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4845–4868, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4845-2020, 2020.
West, A., Blockley, E., and Collins, M.: Understanding model spread in sea ice volume by attribution of model differences in seasonal ice growth and melt, The Cryosphere, 16, 4013–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4013-2022, 2022.
Winkelbauer, S., Mayer, M., and Haimberger, L.: Validation of key Arctic energy and water budget components in CMIP6, Clim. Dynam., 62, 3891–3926, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-024-07105-5, 2024.
Yukimoto, S., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Ishii, M., Obata, A., and Adachi, Y.: MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP. Version 20210311, Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.621, 2019.
Short summary
This study uses ice mass balance buoys – temperature- and height-measuring devices frozen into sea ice – to find how well climate models simulate (1) melt and growth of Arctic sea ice and (2) conduction of heat through Arctic sea ice. This may help understand why models produce varying amounts of sea ice in the present day. We find that models tend to show more melt, growth or conduction for a given ice thickness than the buoys, although the difference is smaller for models with more physically realistic thermodynamics.
This study uses ice mass balance buoys – temperature- and height-measuring devices frozen into...
