The sensitivity of landfast sea ice to atmospheric forcing in single-column model simulations: a case study at Zhongshan Station, Antarctica

• Main Authors: Gu, Fengguan, Yang, Qinghua, Kauker, Frank, Liu, Changwei, Hao, Guanghua, Yang, Chaoyuan, Liu, Jiping, Heil, Petra, Li, Xuewei, Han, Bo
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: 2021
• Subjects: Austral; Zhongshan; Zhongshan Station; Antarc*; Antarctica; Sea ice
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2021-134; https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-134/

Single-column sea ice models are used to focus on the thermodynamic evolution of the ice. Generally these models are forced by atmospheric reanalysis in absence of atmospheric in situ observations. Here we assess the sea ice thickness (SIT) simulated by a single-column model (ICEPACK) with in situ observations obtained off Zhongshan Station for the austral winter of 2016. In the reanalysis the surface air temperature is about 1 °C lower, the total precipitation is about 2 mm day −1 larger, and the surface wind speed is about 2 m s −1 higher compared to the in situ observations, respectively. Using sensitivity experiments we evaluate the simulation bias in sea ice thickness due to the uncertainty in the individual atmospheric forcing variables. We show that the unrealistic precipitation in the reanalysis leads to a bias of 14.5 cm in sea ice thickness and of 17.3 cm in snow depth. In addition, our data show that increasing snow depth works to gradually inhibits the growth of sea ice associated with thermal blanketing by the snow due to changing the vertical heat flux. Conversely, given suitable conditions, the sea ice thickness may grow suddenly when the snow load gives rise to flooding and leads to snow-ice formation. A potential mechanism to explain the different characteristics of the precipitation bias on snow and sea ice is discussed. The flooding process for landfast sea ice might cause different effect compared to pack ice, thus need to be reconsidered in ICEPACK. Meanwhile, the overestimation in surface wind speed in reanalysis is likely responsible for the underestimation in simulated snow depth, however this had little influence on the modelled ice thickness.