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
  • [21] Assessment of the Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Biases in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Gao, Zhen
    Zhao, Shichang
    Liu, Qinyu
    Long, Shang-Min
    Sun, Shantong
    JOURNAL OF OCEAN UNIVERSITY OF CHINA, 2024, 23 (05) : 1135 - 1150
  • [22] Projections of Greenland climate change from CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Zhang, Qinglin
    Huai, Baojuan
    Ding, Minghu
    Sun, Weijun
    Liu, Weigang
    Yan, Jinpei
    Zhao, Shuhui
    Wang, Yetang
    Wang, Yuzhe
    Wang, Lei
    Che, Jiahang
    Dou, Jiahui
    Kang, Limin
    GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE, 2024, 232
  • [23] Differences in Radiative Forcing, Not Sensitivity, Explain Differences in Summertime Land Temperature Variance Change Between CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Chan, Duo
    Rigden, Angela
    Proctor, Jonathan
    Chan, Pak Wah
    Huybers, Peter
    EARTHS FUTURE, 2022, 10 (02)
  • [24] Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating climate extremes
    Chen, Huopo
    Sun, Jianqi
    Lin, Wenqing
    Xu, Huiwen
    SCIENCE BULLETIN, 2020, 65 (17) : 1415 - 1418
  • [25] Assessment of the Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Biases in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    GAO Zhen
    ZHAO Shichang
    LIU Qinyu
    LONG ShangMin
    SUN Shantong
    Journal of Ocean University of China, 2024, 23 (05) : 1135 - 1150
  • [26] Simulations of ENSO Phase-Locking in CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Chen, Han-Ching
    Jin, Fei-Fei
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (12) : 5135 - 5149
  • [27] On the spring stratospheric final warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Hu, Jinggao
    Liu, Zexuan
    Xu, Haiming
    Ren, Rongcai
    Jin, Dachao
    SCIENCE CHINA-EARTH SCIENCES, 2023, 66 (01) : 129 - 145
  • [28] Uncertainty in Projection of Climate Extremes: A Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Zhang, Shaobo
    Chen, Jie
    JOURNAL OF METEOROLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 35 (04) : 646 - 662
  • [29] On the spring stratospheric final warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Jinggao HU
    Zexuan LIU
    Haiming XU
    Rongcai REN
    Dachao JIN
    Science China Earth Sciences, 2023, 66 (01) : 129 - 145
  • [30] Climate Model Projections for Canada: A Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Sobie, S. R.
    Zwiers, F. W.
    Curry, C. L.
    ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN, 2021, 59 (4-5) : 269 - 284