Sensitivity of Northern Hemisphere climate to ice—ocean interface heat flux parameterizations

• Published in: Geoscientific Model Development
• Main Authors: Shi, Xiaoxu, Notz, Dirk, Liu, Jiping, Yang, Hu, Lohmann, Gerrit
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Published: Copernicus GmbH 2021
• Subjects: Arctic; Arctic Ocean; aleutian low; North Atlantic; North Atlantic oscillation; Sea ice
• Online Access: https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/56574/; https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4891/2021/; https://hdl.handle.net/10013/epic.0455b55a-7a08-4de4-8230-6f6567acfef5

We investigate the impact of three different parameterizations of ice–ocean heat exchange on modeled sea ice thickness, sea ice concentration, and water masses. These three parameterizations are (1) an ice bath assumption with the ocean temperature fixed at the freezing temperature; (2) a two-equation turbulent heat flux parameterization with ice–ocean heat exchange depending linearly on the temperature difference between the underlying ocean and the ice–ocean interface, whose temperature is kept at the freezing point of the seawater; and (3) a three-equation turbulent heat flux approach in which the ice–ocean heat flux depends on the temperature difference between the underlying ocean and the ice–ocean interface, whose temperature is calculated based on the local salinity set by the ice ablation rate. Based on model simulations with the stand-alone sea ice model CICE, the ice–ocean model MPIOM, and the climate model COSMOS, we find that compared to the most complex parameterization (3), the approaches (1) and (2) result in thinner Arctic sea ice, cooler water beneath high-concentration ice and warmer water towards the ice edge, and a lower salinity in the Arctic Ocean mixed layer. In particular, parameterization (1) results in the smallest sea ice thickness among the three parameterizations, as in this parameterization all potential heat in the underlying ocean is used for the melting of the sea ice above. For the same reason, the upper ocean layer of the central Arctic is cooler when using parameterization (1) compared to (2) and (3). Finally, in the fully coupled climate model COSMOS, parameterizations (1) and (2) result in a fairly similar oceanic or atmospheric circulation. In contrast, the most realistic parameterization (3) leads to an enhanced Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), a more positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) mode and a weakened Aleutian Low.