Articles | Volume 9, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1125-2016
Development and technical paper
 | 
24 Mar 2016
Development and technical paper |  | 24 Mar 2016

The location of the thermodynamic atmosphere–ice interface in fully coupled models – a case study using JULES and CICE

Alex E. West, Alison J. McLaren, Helene T. Hewitt, and Martin J. Best

Related authors

The sea ice component of GC5: coupling SI3 to HadGEM3 using conductive fluxes
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
CMIP6 models overestimate sea ice melt, growth & conduction relative to ice mass balance buoy estimates
Alex Edward West and Edward William Blockley
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-121,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-121, 2024
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
Understanding model spread in sea ice volume by attribution of model differences in seasonal ice growth and melt
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
Using Arctic ice mass balance buoys for evaluation of modelled ice energy fluxes
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
Induced surface fluxes: a new framework for attributing Arctic sea ice volume balance biases to specific model errors
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

Related subject area

Cryosphere
SnowQM 1.0: a fast R package for bias-correcting spatial fields of snow water equivalent using quantile mapping
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
Simulation of snow albedo and solar irradiance profile with the Two-streAm Radiative TransfEr in Snow (TARTES) v2.0 model
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
Evaluation of MITgcm-based ocean reanalyses for the Southern Ocean
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
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
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
A three-stage model pipeline predicting regional avalanche danger in Switzerland (RAvaFcast v1.0.0): a decision-support tool for operational avalanche forecasting
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

Cited articles

Best, M. J., Beljaars, A., Polcher, J., and Viterbo, P.: A Proposed Structure for Coupling Tiled Surfaces with the Planetary Boundary Layer, J. Hydrometerorol., 5, 1271–1278, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-382.1, 2004.
Best, M. J., Cox, P. M., and Warrilow, D. M.: Determining the optimal soil temperature scheme for atmospheric modelling applications, Bound. Lay. Meteorol., 114, 111–142, 2005.
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R .L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011.
Bitz, C. M. and Lipscomb, W. H.: An energy-conserving thermodynamic model of sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 15669–15677, 1999.
Gordon, C., Cooper, C., Senior, C. A., Banks, H., Gregory, J. M., Johns, T. C., Mitchell, J. F. B., and Wood, R. A.: The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments, Clim. Dynam., 16, 147–168, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820050010, 2000.
Download
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.