Differences Between the CMIP5 and CMIP6 Antarctic Sea Ice Concentration Budgets

被引:3
|
作者
Nie, Yafei [1 ,2 ]
Lin, Xia [3 ,4 ]
Yang, Qinghua [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Jiping [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Dake [1 ,2 ]
Uotila, Petteri [5 ]
机构
[1] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Sch Atmospher Sci, Zhuhai, Peoples R China
[2] Southern Marine Sci & Engn Guangdong Lab Zhuhai, Zhuhai, Peoples R China
[3] Nanjing Univ Informat Sci & Technol, Sch Marine Sci, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Catholique Louvain UCLouvain, Earth & Life Inst, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium
[5] Univ Helsinki, Inst Atmospher & Earth Syst Res Phys, Fac Sci, Helsinki, Finland
基金
国家重点研发计划; 欧盟地平线“2020”; 芬兰科学院; 中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Antarctic; sea ice; budgets; CMIP6; IMPACT; EXTENT; MODELS; TRENDS; BIASES;
D O I
10.1029/2023GL105265
中图分类号
P [天文学、地球科学];
学科分类号
07 ;
摘要
Compared to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) climate models, the Antarctic sea ice area (SIA) has been improved in Phase 6 (CMIP6). However, the lack of knowledge about the reliability of sea ice dynamic and thermodynamic processes in the CMIP6 models still limits the accuracy of Antarctic sea ice projections. Here, by using a novel and systematic statistical metric, the performance of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models with near-realistic SIAs was assessed. We found improvements in CMIP6 models relative to CMIP5. Moreover, forcing the sea ice-ocean model with atmospheric reanalysis led to excessive ice convergence compared to the fully coupled ocean-sea ice-atmosphere model, although the SIA bias could be much smaller. This prevalent insufficient ice divergence in the models is highly correlated with the negative ice thickness bias, highlighting the importance of ice thickness in the correct simulation of sea ice dynamics. Current state-of-the-art climate models do not reproduce the total area of Antarctic sea ice and its trends as observed. This impedes the use of climate models to understand changes in Antarctic sea ice over the past decades and to project its future. Separating how much of the simulated sea ice change is due to freezing and melting, and how much is due to ice transport allows us to identify physical causes for model biases, which helps us to optimize models. We examined the climate models that have simulated near-realistic sea ice areas between 1991 and 2009 and found significant improvements in their simulation of sea ice processes in the latest generation of models compared to the previous generation, although there is still much room for further improvement. As sea ice thickness and velocity interact, a key limitation of the state-of-the-art Antarctic sea ice simulation may stem from the general underestimation of ice thickness. This could be a critical issue to be targeted on the way toward increasingly skillful climate projections. The Antarctic sea ice concentration (SIC) budgets in CMIP6 have improved from CMIP5The ice-ocean coupled models have more realistic SIC budgets than fully coupled models, except for the excessive velocity convergenceUnderestimation of velocity divergence in the model was found to be strongly associated with underestimation of sea ice thickness
引用
下载
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Assessment of Sea Ice Extent in CMIP6 With Comparison to Observations and CMIP5
    Shu, Qi
    Wang, Qiang
    Song, Zhenya
    Qiao, Fangli
    Zhao, Jiechen
    Chu, Min
    Li, Xinfang
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (09)
  • [2] Antarctic Sea Ice Area in CMIP6
    Roach, Lettie A.
    Doerr, Jakob
    Holmes, Caroline R.
    Massonnet, Francois
    Blockley, Edward W.
    Notz, Dirk
    Rackow, Thomas
    Raphael, Marilyn N.
    O'Farrell, Siobhan P.
    Bailey, David A.
    Bitz, Cecilia M.
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (09)
  • [3] Evaluation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave Simulated by CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Lu, Zhichao
    Zhao, Tianbao
    Zhou, Weican
    ATMOSPHERE, 2020, 11 (09)
  • [4] Comparison of trends in the Hadley circulation between CMIP6 and CMIP5
    Xia, Yan
    Hu, Yongyun
    Liu, Jiping
    SCIENCE BULLETIN, 2020, 65 (19) : 1667 - 1674
  • [5] Teleconnection and the Antarctic response to the Indian Ocean Dipole in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Sen, Arnab
    Deb, Pranab
    Matthews, Adrian J.
    Joshi, Manoj M.
    QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2024,
  • [6] Hydrological Projections under CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Wu, Yi
    Miao, Chiyuan
    Slater, Louise
    Fan, Xuewei
    Chai, Yuanfang
    Sorooshian, Soroosh
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2024, 105 (01) : E2374 - E2389
  • [7] CMIP5 SCIENTIFIC GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CMIP6
    Stouffer, R. J.
    Eyring, V.
    Meehl, G. A.
    Bony, S.
    Senior, C.
    Stevens, B.
    Taylor, K. E.
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2017, 98 (01) : 95 - +
  • [8] 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
  • [9] Improvements in the relationship between tropical precipitation and sea surface temperature from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Xianke Yang
    Ping Huang
    Climate Dynamics, 2023, 60 : 3319 - 3337
  • [10] Improvements in the relationship between tropical precipitation and sea surface temperature from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Yang, Xianke
    Huang, Ping
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2023, 60 (11-12) : 3319 - 3337