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
  • [41] Evaluating Diurnal Rainfall Signal Performance from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Lee, Yu-Chi
    Wang, Yi-Chi
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (18) : 7607 - 7623
  • [42] Revisiting the Influence of ENSO on the Arctic Stratosphere in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Hu, Jinggao
    Shen, Yifan
    Deng, Jiechun
    Jia, Yanpei
    Wang, Zixu
    Li, Anqi
    ATMOSPHERE, 2023, 14 (05)
  • [43] Uncertainty of ENSO-amplitude projections in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Beobide-Arsuaga, Goratz
    Bayr, Tobias
    Reintges, Annika
    Latif, Mojib
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2021, 56 (11-12) : 3875 - 3888
  • [44] CMIP5 and CMIP6: contrasting perspectives on Nigeria’s climate transformation
    Bashir Tanimu
    Mohammed Magdy Hamed
    Al-Amin Danladi Bello
    Sule Argungu Abdullahi
    Morufu A. Ajibike
    Zaher Mundher Yaseen
    Ahmed Abdiaziz Alasow
    Mohd Khairul Idlan bin Muhammad
    Shamsuddin Shahid
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2025, 156 (1)
  • [45] The Arctic Surface Climate in CMIP6: Status and Developments since CMIP5
    Davy, Richard
    Outten, Stephen
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2020, 33 (18) : 8047 - 8068
  • [46] Uncertainty of ENSO-amplitude projections in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Goratz Beobide-Arsuaga
    Tobias Bayr
    Annika Reintges
    Mojib Latif
    Climate Dynamics, 2021, 56 : 3875 - 3888
  • [47] Colombian climatology in CMIP5/CMIP6 models: Persistent biases and improvements
    Arias, Paola A.
    Ortega, Geusep
    Villegas, Laura D.
    Martinez, J. Alejandro
    REVISTA FACULTAD DE INGENIERIA-UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA, 2021, (100): : 75 - 96
  • [48] Analysing Urban Flooding Risk with CMIP5 and CMIP6 Climate Projections
    Oyelakin, Rafiu
    Yang, Wenyu
    Krebs, Peter
    WATER, 2024, 16 (03)
  • [49] Evaluation and comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating the runoff
    Guo, Hai
    Zhan, Chesheng
    Ning, Like
    Li, Zhonghe
    Hu, Shi
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 149 (3-4) : 1451 - 1470
  • [50] Evaluation and comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating the runoff
    Hai Guo
    Chesheng Zhan
    Like Ning
    Zhonghe Li
    Shi Hu
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2022, 149 : 1451 - 1470