scholarly journals Optimization of a Sea Ice Model Using Basinwide Observations of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness, Extent, and Velocity

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 1089-1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A. Miller ◽  
Seymour W. Laxon ◽  
Daniel L. Feltham ◽  
Douglas J. Cresswell
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Parameter Space ◽  
National Laboratory ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Strength Parameter ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Dimensional Parameter ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Basin Scale ◽  
Ice Model

Abstract A stand-alone sea ice model is tuned and validated using satellite-derived, basinwide observations of sea ice thickness, extent, and velocity from the years 1993 to 2001. This is the first time that basin-scale measurements of sea ice thickness have been used for this purpose. The model is based on the CICE sea ice model code developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, with some minor modifications, and forcing consists of 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40) and Polar Exchange at the Sea Surface (POLES) data. Three parameters are varied in the tuning process: Ca, the air–ice drag coefficient; P*, the ice strength parameter; and α, the broadband albedo of cold bare ice, with the aim being to determine the subset of this three-dimensional parameter space that gives the best simultaneous agreement with observations with this forcing set. It is found that observations of sea ice extent and velocity alone are not sufficient to unambiguously tune the model, and that sea ice thickness measurements are necessary to locate a unique subset of parameter space in which simultaneous agreement is achieved with all three observational datasets.

Using CloudSat snowfall rate observations to constrain and characterize the uncertainties of Arctic snow-on-sea-ice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Cabaj ◽  
Paul Kushner ◽  
Alek Petty ◽  
Stephen Howell ◽  
Christopher Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Arctic Ocean ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
The Arctic Ocean ◽  
Ice Model

<p><span>Snow on Arctic sea ice plays multiple—and sometimes contrasting—roles in several feedbacks between sea ice and the global climate </span><span>system.</span><span> For example, the presence of snow on sea ice may mitigate sea ice melt by</span><span> increasing the sea ice albedo </span><span>and enhancing the ice-albedo feedback. Conversely, snow can</span><span> in</span><span>hibit sea ice growth by insulating the ice from the atmosphere during the </span><span>sea ice </span><span>growth season. </span><span>In addition to its contribution to sea ice feedbacks, snow on sea ice also poses a challenge for sea ice observations. </span><span>In particular, </span><span>snow </span><span>contributes to uncertaint</span><span>ies</span><span> in retrievals of sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry </span><span>measurements, </span><span>such as those from ICESat-2</span><span>. </span><span>Snow-on-sea-ice models can</span><span> produce basin-wide snow depth estimates, but these models require snowfall input from reanalysis products. In-situ snowfall measurements are a</span><span>bsent</span><span> over most of the Arctic Ocean, so it can be difficult to determine which reanalysis </span><span>snowfall</span><span> product is b</span><span>est</span><span> suited to be used as</span><span> input for a snow-on-sea-ice model.</span></p><p><span>In the absence of in-situ snowfall rate measurements, </span><span>measurements from </span><span>satellite instruments can be used to quantify snowfall over the Arctic Ocean</span><span>. </span><span>The CloudSat satellite, which is equipped with a 94 GHz Cloud Profiling Radar instrument, measures vertical radar reflectivity profiles from which snowfall rate</span><span>s</span><span> can be retrieved. </span> <span>T</span><span>his instrument</span><span> provides the most extensive high-latitude snowfall rate observation dataset currently available. </span><span>CloudSat’s near-polar orbit enables it to make measurements at latitudes up to 82°N, with a 16-day repeat cycle, </span><span>over the time period from 2006-2016.</span></p><p><span>We present a calibration of reanalysis snowfall to CloudSat observations over the Arctic Ocean, which we then apply to reanalysis snowfall input for the NASA Eulerian Snow On Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM). This calibration reduces the spread in snow depths produced by NESOSIM w</span><span>hen</span><span> different reanalysis inputs </span><span>are used</span><span>. </span><span>In light of this calibration, we revise the NESOSIM parametrizations of wind-driven snow processes, and we characterize the uncertainties in NESOSIM-generated snow depths resulting from uncertainties in snowfall input. </span><span>We then extend this analysis further to estimate the resulting uncertainties in sea ice thickness retrieved from ICESat-2 when snow depth estimates from NESOSIM are used as input for the retrieval.</span></p>

scholarly journals A means-corrected estimate for the Arctic sea-ice volume in 1990–2019

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petteri Uotila ◽  
Joula Siponen ◽  
Eero Rinne ◽  
Steffen Tietsche
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Satellite Altimetry ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Volume ◽  
Basin Scale ◽  
Arctic Sea

<p>Decadal changes in sea-ice thickness are one of the most visible signs of climate variability and change. To gain a comprehensive understanding of mechanisms involved, long time series, preferably with good uncertainty estimates, are needed. Importantly, the development of accurate predictions of sea ice in the Arctic requires good observational products. To assist this, a new sea-ice thickness product by ESA Climate Change Initiative (CCI) is compared to a set of five ocean reanalysis (ECCO-V4r4, GLORYS12V1, ORAS5 and PIOMAS).</p><p>The CCI product is based on two satellite altimetry missions, CryoSat-2 and ENVISAT, which are combined to the longest continuous satellite altimetry time series of Arctic-wide sea-ice thickness, 2002–2017. The CCI product performs well in the validation of the reanalyses: overall root-mean-square difference (RMSD) between monthly sea-ice thickness from CCI and the reanalyses ranges from 0.4–1.2 m. The differences are a sum of reanalysis biases, such as incorrect physics or forcing, as well as uncertainties in satellite altimetry, such as the snow climatology used in the thickness retrieval.</p><p>The CCI and reanalysis basin-scale sea-ice volumes have a good match in terms of year-to-year variability and long-term trends but rather different monthly mean climatologies. These findings provide a rationale to construct a multi-decadal sea-ice volume time series for the Arctic Ocean and its sub-basins from 1990–2019 by adjusting the ocean reanalyses ensemble toward CCI observations. Such a time series, including its uncertainty estimate, provides new insights to the evolution of the Arctic sea-ice volume during the past 30 years.</p>

scholarly journals Improving the WRF model's simulation over sea ice surface through coupling with a complex thermodynamic sea ice model

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 10305-10337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Yao ◽  
J. Huang ◽  
Y. Luo ◽  
Z. Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Wrf Model ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Cold Bias ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ice Model ◽  
Snow And Ice

Abstract. Sea ice plays an important role in the air–ice–ocean interaction, but it is often represented simply in many regional atmospheric models. The Noah sea ice model, which has been widely used in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, exhibits cold bias in simulating the Arctic sea ice temperature when validated against the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) in situ observations. According to sensitivity tests, this bias is attributed not only to the simulation of snow depth and turbulent fluxes but also to the heat conduction within snow and ice. Compared with the Noah sea ice model, the high-resolution thermodynamic snow and ice model (HIGHTSI) has smaller bias in simulating the sea ice temperature. HIGHTSI is further coupled with the WRF model to evaluate the possible added value from better resolving the heat transport and solar penetration in sea ice from a complex thermodynamic sea ice model. The cold bias in simulating the surface temperature over sea ice in winter by the original Polar WRF is reduced when HIGHTSI rather than Noah is coupled with the WRF model, and this also leads to a better representation of surface upward longwave radiation and 2 m air temperature. A discussion on the impact of specifying sea ice thickness in the WRF model is presented. Consistent with previous research, prescribing the sea ice thickness with observational information would result in the best simulation among the available methods. If no observational information is available, using an empirical method based on the relationship between sea ice concentration and sea ice thickness could mimic the large-scale spatial feature of sea ice thickness. The potential application of a thermodynamic sea ice model in predicting the change in sea ice thickness in a RCM is limited by the lack of sea ice dynamic processes in the model and the coarse assumption on the initial value of sea ice thickness.

Parameter calibration and uncertainty analysis for snow depths from the NASA Eulerian Snow On Sea Ice Model and derived sea ice thickness from ICESat-2

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Cabaj ◽  
Paul Kushner ◽  
Alek Petty
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Blowing Snow ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
Ice Model

<p><span>Snow on Arctic sea ice plays many, sometimes contrasting roles in Arctic climate feedbacks. During the sea ice growth season, the presence of snow on sea ice can enhance ice growth by increasing the sea ice albedo, or conversely, inhibit sea ice growth by insulating the ice from the cold atmosphere. Furthermore, estimates of snow depth on Arctic sea ice are also a key input for deriving sea ice thickness from altimetry measurements, such as satellite lidar altimetry measurements from ICESat-2. Due to the logistical challenges of making measurements in as remote a region as the Arctic, snow depth on Arctic sea ice is difficult to observationally constrain.<br><br>The NASA Eulerian Snow On Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM) can be used to provide snow depth and density estimates over Arctic sea ice with pan-Arctic coverage within a relatively simple framework. The latest version of NESOSIM, version 1.1, is a 2-layer model with simple representations of the processes of accumulation, wind packing, loss due to blowing snow, and redistribution due to sea ice motion. Relative to version 1.0, NESOSIM 1.1 features an extended model domain, and reanalysis snowfall input scaled to observed snowfall retrieved from CloudSat satellite radar reflectivity measurements.<br><br>In this work, we present a systematic calibration, and an accompanying estimate in the uncertainty of the free parameters in NESOSIM, targeting airborne snow radar measurements from Operation IceBridge. We further investigate uncertainties in snow depth and the resulting uncertainties in derived sea ice thickness from ICESat-2 altimetry measurements using NESOSIM snow depths.</span></p>

Using CryoSat-2 estimates to analyse sub-grid scale sea ice thickness distribution in HadGEM3 simulations for CMIP6

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schroeder ◽  
Danny Feltham ◽  
Michel Tsamados
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Annual Cycle ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Area Fraction ◽  
Strength Parameter ◽  
Striking Difference ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth

<p>A sub-grid scale sea ice thickness distribution (ITD) is a key parameterization to enable a large-scale sea ice model to simulate winter ice growth and sea ice ridging processes realistically. Recent sophisticated developments, e.g. a melt pond model, a form drag parameterization, a floe-size distribution model, fundamentally depend on the ITD. In spite of its importance, knowledge is poor about the accuracy of the simulated ITD. Here, we derive the ITD from individual Arctic sea ice thickness estimates available from the CryoSat-2 (CS2) radar altimetry mission during ice growth seasons since 2010. We bin the CS2 data into 5 ice thickness categories used by the sea ice component CICE of HadGEM3 climate simulations: (1) ice thickness h < 60 cm, (2) 60 cm < h < 1.4 m, (3) 1.4 m < h < 2.4 m, (4) 2.4 m < h < 3.6 m, (5) h > 3.6 m. Our analysis includes historical simulations and future projections with the HadGEM3-GC31 model as well as forced ocean-ice and standalone ice simulations with the same model components NEMO v3.6 and CICE v5.1.2. The most striking difference occurs regarding the annual cycle of area fraction of ice in the thickest category (> 3.6 m). According to CS2, in the Central Arctic the fraction is below 2% in October and increases to 15-40% in April. In contrast the annual cycle is weak in all simulations. The magnitude of the area fraction differs between the simulations. For simulations which agree best with CS2 for grid cell mean ice thickness, the area fraction of thick ice is around 5% constantly throughout the whole year. Potential reasons for the discrepancy are discussed and sensitivity experiments presented to study the impact of sea ice settings on the simulated ITD, e.g. ice strength parameter, parameter for participating in ridging, heat transfer coefficients.</p>

scholarly journals Near Real Time Arctic sea ice thickness and volume from CryoSat-2

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. L. Tilling ◽  
A. Ridout ◽  
A. Shepherd
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Arctic Climate ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Satellite Orbits ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice Thickness

Abstract. Timely observations of sea ice thickness help us to understand Arctic climate, and can support maritime activities in the Polar Regions. Although it is possible to calculate Arctic sea ice thickness using measurements acquired by CryoSat-2, the latency of the final release dataset is typically one month, due to the time required to determine precise satellite orbits. We use a new fast delivery CryoSat-2 dataset based on preliminary orbits to compute Arctic sea ice thickness in near real time (NRT), and analyse this data for one sea ice growth season from October 2014 to April 2015. We show that this NRT sea ice thickness product is of comparable accuracy to that produced using the final release CryoSat-2 data, with an average thickness difference of 5 cm, demonstrating that the satellite orbit is not a critical factor in determining sea ice freeboard. In addition, the CryoSat-2 fast delivery product also provides measurements of Arctic sea ice thickness within three days of acquisition by the satellite, and a measurement is delivered, on average, within 10, 7 and 6 km of each location in the Arctic every 2, 14 and 28 days respectively. The CryoSat-2 NRT sea ice thickness dataset provides an additional constraint for seasonal predictions of Arctic climate change, and will allow industries such as tourism and transport to navigate the polar oceans with safety and care.

scholarly journals New insight from CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness for sea ice modelling

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schröder ◽  
Danny L. Feltham ◽  
Michel Tsamados ◽  
Andy Ridout ◽  
Rachel Tilling
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Melt Pond ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness are available from the CryoSat-2 (CS2) radar altimetry mission during ice growth seasons since 2010. We derive the sub-grid scale ice thickness distribution (ITD) with respect to 5 ice thickness categories used in a sea ice component (CICE) of climate simulations. This allows us to initialize the ITD in stand-alone simulations with CICE and to verify the simulated cycle of ice thickness. We find that a default CICE simulation strongly underestimates ice thickness, despite reproducing the inter-annual variability of summer sea ice extent. We can identify the underestimation of winter ice growth as being responsible and show that increasing the ice conductive flux for lower temperatures (bubbly brine scheme) and accounting for the loss of drifting snow results in the simulated sea ice growth being more realistic. Sensitivity studies provide insight into the impact of initial and atmospheric conditions and, thus, on the role of positive and negative feedback processes. During summer, atmospheric conditions are responsible for 50 % of September sea ice thickness variability through the positive sea ice and melt pond albedo feedback. However, atmospheric winter conditions have little impact on winter ice growth due to the dominating negative conductive feedback process: the thinner the ice and snow in autumn, the stronger the ice growth in winter. We conclude that the fate of Arctic summer sea ice is largely controlled by atmospheric conditions during the melting season rather than by winter temperature. Our optimal model configuration does not only improve the simulated sea ice thickness, but also summer sea ice concentration, melt pond fraction, and length of the melt season. It is the first time CS2 sea ice thickness data have been applied successfully to improve sea ice model physics.

Winter Arctic sea ice freeboard, snow depth and thickness variability from ICESat-2 and NESOSIM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alek Petty ◽  
Nicole Keeney ◽  
Alex Cabaj ◽  
Paul Kushner ◽  
Nathan Kurtz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Cloud ◽  
Ice Drift ◽  
Thickness Variability ◽  
Arctic Ice

<div> <div> <div> <div> <p>National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite‐ 2 (ICESat‐2) mission was launched in September 2018 and is now providing routine, very high‐resolution estimates of surface height/type (the ATL07 product) and freeboard (the ATL10 product) across the Arctic and Southern Oceans. In recent work we used snow depth and density estimates from the NASA Eulerian Snow on Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM) together with ATL10 freeboard data to estimate sea ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean. Here we provide an overview of updates made to both the underlying ATL10 freeboard product and the NESOSIM model, and the subsequent impacts on our estimates of sea ice thickness including updated comparisons to the original ICESat mission and ESA’s CryoSat-2. Finally we compare our Arctic ice thickness estimates from the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 winters and discuss possible causes of these differences based on an analysis of atmospheric data (ERA5), ice drift (NSIDC) and ice type (OSI SAF).</p> </div> </div> </div> </div>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document