Impact of the ice thickness distribution discretization on the sea ice concentration variability in the NEMO3.6-LIM3 global ocean–sea ice model

• Main Authors: Moreno-Chamarro, Eduardo, Ortega, Pablo, Massonnet, François
• Format: Dataset
• Language: English
• Published: Zenodo 2019
• Subjects: Antarctic; Arctic; Moreno; Antarc*; Antarctica; Sea ice
• Online Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3540757; https://zenodo.org/record/3540757

Model output and observational data and scripts corresponding to the manuscript "Impact of the ice thickness distribution discretization on the sea ice concentration variability in the NEMO3.6-LIM3 global ocean–sea ice model" Abstract. This study assesses the impact of different sea ice thickness distribution (ITD) configurations on the sea ice concentration (SIC) variability in ocean-standalone NEMO3.6-LIM3 simulations. Three ITD configurations 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 in two seasons, January–March and August–October, which show the largest coherence across clusters in individual months. Analysis in the Arctic is done before and after detrending the series with a 2nd degree polynomial to separate interannual from longer-term variability. Before detrending, winter clusters capture SIC response to atmospheric variability at both poles and summer cluster a positive and negative trend in the Arctic and Antarctic SIC respectively. After detrending, Arctic clusters reflect SIC response to interannual atmospheric variability predominantly. Model–data cluster comparison suggests that no specific ITD configuration or category number increases realism of the simulated Arctic and Antarctic SIC variability in winter. In the Arctic summer, more thin-ice categories decrease model–data agreement without detrending but increase agreement after detrending. Overall, a single-category configuration agrees the worst with data. Direct model–data comparison of SIC anomaly fields shows that more thick-ice categories improve winter SIC variability realism in Central Arctic regions with very thick ice. By contrast, more thin-ice categories reduce model–data agreement in the Central Arctic in summer, due to an overly large simulated sea ice volume. In summary, whereas better resolving thin ice in NEMO3.6-LIM3 can hamper model realism in the Arctic but improve it in Antarctica, more thick-ice categories increase realism in the Arctic winter. And although the single-category configuration performs the worst overall, no optimal configuration is identified. Our results suggest that no clear benefit is obtained from increasing the number of sea ice thickness categories beyond the current usual standard of 5 categories in NEMO3.6-LIM3. : For additional information or any request, please email eduardo(dot)moreno(at)bsc(dot)es