Abstract

Abstract. This study assesses the impact of different sea ice thickness distribution (ITD) discretizations on the sea ice concentration (SIC) variability in ocean stand-alone NEMO3.6–LIM3 simulations. Three ITD discretizations with different numbers of sea ice thickness categories and boundaries are evaluated against three different satellite products (hereafter referred to as “data”). Typical model and data interannual SIC variability is characterized by K-means clustering both in the Arctic and Antarctica between 1979 and 2014. We focus on two seasons, winter (January–March) and summer (August–October), in which correlation coefficients across clusters in individual months are largest. In the Arctic, clusters are computed before and after detrending the series with a second-degree polynomial to separate interannual from longer-term variability. The analysis shows that, before detrending, winter clusters reflect the SIC response to large-scale atmospheric variability at both poles, while summer clusters capture the negative and positive trends in Arctic and Antarctic SIC, respectively. After detrending, Arctic clusters reflect the SIC response to interannual atmospheric variability predominantly. The cluster analysis is complemented with a model–data comparison of the sea ice extent and SIC anomaly patterns. The single-category discretization shows the worst model–data agreement in the Arctic summer before detrending, related to a misrepresentation of the long-term melting trend. Similarly, increasing the number of thin categories reduces model–data agreement in the Arctic, due to a poor representation of the summer melting trend and an overly large winter sea ice volume associated with a net increase in basal ice growth. In contrast, more thin categories improve model realism in Antarctica, and more thick ones improve it in central Arctic regions with very thick ice. In all the analyses we nonetheless identify no optimal discretization. Our results thus suggest that no clear benefit in the representation of SIC variability is obtained from increasing the number of sea ice thickness categories beyond the current standard with five categories in NEMO3.6–LIM3.

Highlights

  • Analysis of recent observations has allowed identification of different drivers of sea ice variability

  • In the first set, the categories are set by the default ice thickness distribution (ITD) discretization of LIM, which varies both the position and the resolution of the thickness categories according to the number of categories following a predefined formula that sets the finest resolution to the thinnest ice (Eq 2 in Massonnet et al, 2019)

  • We intend to focus on the comparison between simulated and observed sea ice concentration (SIC) variability in two seasons centered around winter and summer, when maximum and minimum sea ice areas occur, respectively

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Analysis of recent observations has allowed identification of different drivers of sea ice variability. Interannual changes in ocean heat transport to high latitude can contribute to anomalous episodes of Arctic sea ice melting in both the Atlantic. The accelerating thinning in Arctic sea ice (Comiso et al, 2008; Serreze and Stroeve, 2015) might be modulated by lower-frequency variability in modes such as the NAO (e.g., Delworth et al, 2016) or Atlantic multidecadal variability (e.g., Day et al, 2012; Drinkwater et al, 2014; Miles et al, 2014). Capturing the complex range of variability in sea ice, together with the potential impacts on the lower-latitude climate (e.g., Screen, 2013), demands a realistic representation of sea ice in climate models

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.