Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China

Nine coupled climate models from China participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) were evaluated in terms of their capability in ensemble historical Arctic sea ice simulation in the context of 56 CMIP6 models. We evaluated these nine models using satellite observation...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jiaqi, Li, Xiaochun, Wang, Ziqi, Wang, Liqing, Zhao, Jin, Wang
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Polar Research Institute of China - PRIC 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/
http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/1/A2203003.pdf
id ftarcticportal:oai:generic.eprints.org:2790
record_format openpolar
spelling ftarcticportal:oai:generic.eprints.org:2790 2023-12-17T10:17:42+01:00 Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China Jiaqi, Li Xiaochun, Wang Ziqi, Wang Liqing, Zhao Jin, Wang 2022-09 application/pdf http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/ http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/1/A2203003.pdf en eng Polar Research Institute of China - PRIC http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/1/A2203003.pdf Jiaqi, Li and Xiaochun, Wang and Ziqi, Wang and Liqing, Zhao and Jin, Wang (2022) Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China. Advances in Polar Science, 33 (3). pp. 220-234. Atmosphere Cryosphere Oceans Article PeerReviewed 2022 ftarcticportal 2023-11-22T23:54:40Z Nine coupled climate models from China participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) were evaluated in terms of their capability in ensemble historical Arctic sea ice simulation in the context of 56 CMIP6 models. We evaluated these nine models using satellite observations from 1980 to 2014. This evaluation was conducted comprehensively using 12 metrics covering different aspects of the seasonal cycle and long-term trend of sea ice extent (SIE) and sea ice concentration (SIC). The nine Chinese models tended to overestimate SIE, especially in March, and underestimate its long-term decline trend. There was less spread in model skill in reproducing the spatial pattern of March SIC than in reproducing the spatial pattern of September SIC. The error of March SIC simulation was distributed at the margins of sea ice cover, such as in the Nordic Seas, the Barents Sea, the Labrador Sea, the Bering Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. However, the error of September SIC was distributed both at the margins of sea ice cover and in the central part of the Arctic Basin. Five of these nine models had capabilities comparable with the majority of the CMIP6 models in reproducing the seasonal cycle and long-term trend of Arctic sea ice. Article in Journal/Newspaper Advances in Polar Science Arctic Arctic Basin Arctic Barents Sea Bering Sea Labrador Sea Nordic Seas Polar Science Polar Science Sea ice Arctic Portal Library Arctic Barents Sea Bering Sea Okhotsk
institution Open Polar
collection Arctic Portal Library
op_collection_id ftarcticportal
language English
topic Atmosphere
Cryosphere
Oceans
spellingShingle Atmosphere
Cryosphere
Oceans
Jiaqi, Li
Xiaochun, Wang
Ziqi, Wang
Liqing, Zhao
Jin, Wang
Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China
topic_facet Atmosphere
Cryosphere
Oceans
description Nine coupled climate models from China participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) were evaluated in terms of their capability in ensemble historical Arctic sea ice simulation in the context of 56 CMIP6 models. We evaluated these nine models using satellite observations from 1980 to 2014. This evaluation was conducted comprehensively using 12 metrics covering different aspects of the seasonal cycle and long-term trend of sea ice extent (SIE) and sea ice concentration (SIC). The nine Chinese models tended to overestimate SIE, especially in March, and underestimate its long-term decline trend. There was less spread in model skill in reproducing the spatial pattern of March SIC than in reproducing the spatial pattern of September SIC. The error of March SIC simulation was distributed at the margins of sea ice cover, such as in the Nordic Seas, the Barents Sea, the Labrador Sea, the Bering Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. However, the error of September SIC was distributed both at the margins of sea ice cover and in the central part of the Arctic Basin. Five of these nine models had capabilities comparable with the majority of the CMIP6 models in reproducing the seasonal cycle and long-term trend of Arctic sea ice.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Jiaqi, Li
Xiaochun, Wang
Ziqi, Wang
Liqing, Zhao
Jin, Wang
author_facet Jiaqi, Li
Xiaochun, Wang
Ziqi, Wang
Liqing, Zhao
Jin, Wang
author_sort Jiaqi, Li
title Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China
title_short Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China
title_full Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China
title_fullStr Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China
title_sort evaluation of arctic sea ice simulation of cmip6 models from china
publisher Polar Research Institute of China - PRIC
publishDate 2022
url http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/
http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/1/A2203003.pdf
geographic Arctic
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
Okhotsk
geographic_facet Arctic
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
Okhotsk
genre Advances in Polar Science
Arctic
Arctic Basin
Arctic
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
Labrador Sea
Nordic Seas
Polar Science
Polar Science
Sea ice
genre_facet Advances in Polar Science
Arctic
Arctic Basin
Arctic
Barents Sea
Bering Sea
Labrador Sea
Nordic Seas
Polar Science
Polar Science
Sea ice
op_relation http://library.arcticportal.org/2790/1/A2203003.pdf
Jiaqi, Li and Xiaochun, Wang and Ziqi, Wang and Liqing, Zhao and Jin, Wang (2022) Evaluation of Arctic sea ice simulation of CMIP6 models from China. Advances in Polar Science, 33 (3). pp. 220-234.
_version_ 1785584350618714112