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.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
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
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3405–3425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3405-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3405-2025, 2025
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 d forecasts. The new system performance in past conditions, where subsurface 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, 5-opsr, 14, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-5-opsr-14-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-5-opsr-14-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts of sea ice are in high demand in the polar regions, and 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 d ahead – and an outlook of their upcoming developments.
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.
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.
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...
