Evaluation of data sets used to force sea ice models in the Arctic Ocean

Abstract

[1] Basin-scale sea ice models are often run uncoupled to either an atmosphere or ocean model to evaluate the sea ice model, to compare different models, and to test changes in physical parameterizations. Such simulations require that the boundary forcing be specified. The specification of atmospheric forcing associated with the surface heat and freshwater fluxes has been done in various sea ice simulations using climatology, numerical weather prediction analyses, or and satellite data. However, the errors in the boundary forcing may be so large that it is difficult to determine whether discrepancies between simulated and observed properties of sea ice should be attributed to deficiencies in the sea ice model or to the boundary forcing. To assess the errors in boundary forcing, we use data from the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) to evaluate various data sets that have been used to provide boundary forcing for sea ice models that are associated with the surface heat and freshwater fluxes. The impact of errors in these data sets on a sea ice model is assessed by using a single-column ice thickness distribution model, which is alternately forced with in situ measurements from SHEBA and output from large-scale analyses. Substantial discrepancies are found among the data sets. The response of the sea ice model to the different forcing data sets was considerable.

Near-surface meteorology during the Arctic Summer Cloud Ocean Study (ASCOS): evaluation of reanalyses and global climate models

“…For one, reanalysis output is sometimes used to force large-scale or local sea ice and ocean models to evaluate their performance against available observations (e.g., Brodeau et al, 2010;Miller et al, 2007). Curry et al (2002) evaluated several data sets used to force sea ice models during the SHEBA time period and noted that substantial differences can be found between the different data sets. Our evaluation results in a similar conclusion, with notable differences between products in quantities relevant to ocean processes and sea ice growth and decay, such as winds, precipitation and radiation.…”

Study of the Impact of Ice Formation in Leads upon the Sea Ice Pack Mass Balance Using a New Frazil and Grease Ice Parameterization

“…The atmospheric forcing set is the National Centers for Environmental PredictionNational Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP-NCAR) 40-Year Reanalysis Project global dataset (Kalnay et al 1996). This forcing set was chosen for its good overall performance for surface-level processes in the Arctic (Jakobson et al 2012), although the radiative fluxes have been shown to be too high because of poor representation of the cloud fraction (Curry et al 2002;Zib et al 2012). For the Antarctic the data also perform well at surface levels, although there is a bias for too cold air temperatures in the western Antarctic (Yu et al 2010) and radiative fluxes that are too high (Vancoppenolle AUGUST 2015 W…”

Meteorological conditions in the Arctic Ocean in spring and summer 2007 as recorded on the drifting ice station Tara

“…Retrieval of atmospheric variables from remote sensing data is hampered in the Arctic due to the high cloud coverage and difficulties in distinguishing the signals originating from the atmosphere and ice/snow surface. The atmospheric model forecasts, analyses, and re-analyses include large errors, in particular in the near-surface wind, air temperature, air humidity, precipitation, as well as the radiative and turbulent surface fluxes [Curry et al, 2002;Tjernström et al, 2005]. Unfortunately, these are the meteorological variables that most directly control the sea ice growth, melt and drift.…”