An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models

被引:59
|
作者
Keen, Ann [1 ]
Blockley, Ed [1 ]
Bailey, David A. [2 ]
Debernard, Jens Boldingh [3 ]
Bushuk, Mitchell [4 ]
Delhaye, Steve [5 ]
Docquier, David [6 ]
Feltham, Daniel [7 ]
Massonnet, Francois [5 ]
O'Farrell, Siobhan [8 ]
Ponsoni, Leandro [5 ]
Rodriguez, Jose M. [9 ]
Schroeder, David [7 ]
Swart, Neil [10 ]
Toyoda, Takahiro [11 ]
Tsujino, Hiroyuki [11 ]
Vancoppenolle, Martin [12 ,13 ]
Wyser, Klaus [6 ]
机构
[1] Met Off Hadley Ctr, Exeter, Devon, England
[2] Natl Ctr Atmospher Res NCAR, Boulder, CO USA
[3] Norwegian Meteorol Inst, Oslo, Norway
[4] Geophys Fluid Dynam Lab, Princeton, NJ USA
[5] Catholic Univ Louvain, Georges Lemaitre Ctr Earth & Climate Res TECLIM, Earth & Life Inst, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium
[6] Swedish Meteorol & Hydrol Inst SMHI, Rossby Ctr, Norrkoping, Sweden
[7] Univ Reading, Ctr Polar Observat & Modelling CPOM, Reading, Berks, England
[8] CSIRO, Oceans & Atmosphere, Aspendale, Vic, Australia
[9] Agencia Estatal Meteorol AEMET, Madrid, Spain
[10] Canadian Ctr Climate Modelling & Anal, Environm & Climate Change Canada ECCC, Victoria, BC, Canada
[11] Japan Meteorol Agcy, Meteorol Res Inst, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
[12] Lab Oceanog & Climat, Paris, France
[13] Inst Pierre Simon Laplace LOCEAN IPSL, Paris, France
来源
CRYOSPHERE | 2021年 / 15卷 / 02期
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会; 欧盟地平线“2020”; 澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
EARTH SYSTEM MODEL; THICKNESS DISTRIBUTION; THERMODYNAMIC MODEL; GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE; VERSION; RHEOLOGY; REPRESENTATION; SIMULATIONS; HIERARCHY; JULES;
D O I
10.5194/tc-15-951-2021
中图分类号
P9 [自然地理学];
学科分类号
0705 ; 070501 ;
摘要
We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice for 15 models submitted to the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), using new diagnostics that have not been available for previous model intercomparisons. These diagnostics allow us to look beyond the standard metrics of ice cover and thickness to compare the processes of sea ice growth and loss in climate models in a more detailed way than has previously been possible. For the 1960-1989 multi-model mean, the dominant processes causing annual ice growth are basal growth and frazil ice formation, which both occur during the winter. The main processes by which ice is lost are basal melting, top melting and advection of ice out of the Arctic. The first two processes occur in summer, while the latter process is present all year. The sea ice budgets for individual models are strikingly similar overall in terms of the major processes causing ice growth and loss and in terms of the time of year during which each process is important. However, there are also some key dif- ferences between the models, and we have found a number of relationships between model formulation and components of the ice budget that hold for all or most of the CMIP6 models considered here. The relative amounts of frazil and basal ice formation vary between the models, and the amount of frazil ice formation is strongly dependent on the value chosen for the minimum frazil ice thickness. There are also differences in the relative amounts of top and basal melting, potentially dependent on how much shortwave radiation can penetrate through the sea ice into the ocean. For models with prognostic melt ponds, the choice of scheme may affect the amount of basal growth, basal melt and top melt, and the choice of thermodynamic scheme is important in determining the amount of basal growth and top melt. As the ice cover and mass decline during the 21st century, we see a shift in the timing of the top and basal melting in the multi-model mean, with more melt occurring earlier in the year and less melt later in the summer. The amount of basal growth reduces in the autumn, but it increases in the winter due to thinner sea ice over the course of the 21st century. Overall, extra ice loss in May-June and reduced ice growth in October-November are partially offset by reduced ice melt in August and increased ice growth in January-ebruary. For the individual models, changes in the budget components vary considerably in terms of magnitude and timing of change. However, when the evolving budget terms are considered as a function of the changing ice state itself, behaviours common to all the models emerge, suggesting that the sea ice components of the models are fundamentally responding in a broadly consistent way to the warming climate. It is possible that this similarity in the model budgets may represent a lack of diversity in the model physics of the CMIP6 models considered here. The development of new observational datasets for validating the budget terms would help to clarify this.
引用
收藏
页码:951 / 982
页数:32
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] An Intercomparison of Snow Mass Budget over Arctic Sea Ice Simulated by CMIP6 Models
    Chen, Shengzhe
    Liu, Jiping
    Song, Mirong
    Inoue, Jun
    Ding, Yifan
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2024, 37 (06) : 2119 - 2139
  • [2] Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6
    Notz, Dirk
    Doerr, Jakob
    Bailey, David A.
    Blockley, Ed
    Bushuk, Mitchell
    Debernard, Jens Boldingh
    Dekker, Evelien
    DeRepentigny, Patricia
    Docquier, David
    Fuckar, Neven S.
    Fyfe, John C.
    Jahn, Alexandra
    Holland, Marika
    Hunke, Elizabeth
    Iovino, Doroteaciro
    Khosravi, Narges
    Madec, Gurvan
    Massonnet, Francois
    O'Farrell, Siobhan
    Petty, Alek
    Rana, Arun
    Roach, Lettie
    Rosenblum, Erica
    Rousset, Clement
    Semmler, Tido
    Stroeve, Julienne
    Toyoda, Takahiro
    Tremblay, Bruno
    Tsujino, Hiroyuki
    Vancoppenolle, Martin
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (10)
  • [3] Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China
    LI Jiaqi
    WANG Xiaochun
    WANG Ziqi
    ZHAO Liqing
    WANG Jin
    Advances in Polar Science, 2022, 33 (03) : 220 - 234
  • [4] Capacity of a set of CMIP6 models to simulate Arctic sea ice drift
    Zhang, Xinfang
    Haapala, Jari
    Uotila, Petteri
    ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, 2024,
  • [5] An Assessment of the Antarctic Sea Ice Mass Budget Simulation in CMIP6 Historical Experiment
    Li, Sirui
    Huang, Gang
    Li, Xichen
    Liu, Jiping
    Fan, Guangzhou
    FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE, 2021, 9
  • [6] Multi-Aspect Assessment of CMIP6 Models for Arctic Sea Ice Simulation
    Long, Mengyuan
    Zhang, Lujun
    Hu, Siyu
    Qian, Shimeng
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (04) : 1515 - 1529
  • [7] Inter-comparison and evaluation of Arctic sea ice type products
    Ye, Yufang
    Luo, Yanbing
    Sun, Yan
    Shokr, Mohammed
    Aaboe, Signe
    Girard-Ardhuin, Fanny
    Hui, Fengming
    Cheng, Xiao
    Chen, Zhuoqi
    CRYOSPHERE, 2023, 17 (01): : 279 - 308
  • [8] Assessment of Arctic sea ice and surface climate conditions in nine CMIP6 climate models
    Henke, Martin
    Cassalho, Felicio
    Miesse, Tyler
    Ferreira, Celso M.
    Zhang, Jinlun
    Ravens, Thomas M.
    ARCTIC ANTARCTIC AND ALPINE RESEARCH, 2023, 55 (01)
  • [9] Assessment and Ranking of Climate Models in Arctic Sea Ice Cover Simulation: From CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Shen, Zili
    Duan, Anmin
    Li, Dongliang
    Li, Jinxiao
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (09) : 3609 - 3627
  • [10] Assessment of Snow Depth over Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6 Models Using Satellite Data
    Chen, Shengzhe
    Liu, Jiping
    Ding, Yifan
    Zhang, Yuanyuan
    Cheng, Xiao
    Hu, Yongyun
    ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 2021, 38 (02) : 168 - 186