Arctic Ocean simulations in the CMIP6 Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP)
-
Published:2023-05-10
Issue:9
Volume:16
Page:2539-2563
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Shu QiORCID, Wang QiangORCID, Guo ChunchengORCID, Song ZhenyaORCID, Wang ShizhuORCID, He Yan, Qiao Fangli
Abstract
Abstract. Arctic Ocean simulations in 19 global ocean–sea-ice
models participating in the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) of
the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) are evaluated in this paper. Our findings show no significant
improvements in Arctic Ocean simulations from the previous Coordinated
Ocean-ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II) to the current OMIP.
Large model biases and inter-model spread exist in the simulated mean state
of the halocline and Atlantic Water layer in the OMIP models. Most of the
OMIP models suffer from a too thick and deep Atlantic Water layer, a too deep
halocline base, and large fresh biases in the halocline. The OMIP models
qualitatively agree on the variability and change of the Arctic Ocean
freshwater content; sea surface height; stratification; and volume, heat, and
freshwater transports through the Arctic Ocean gateways. They can reproduce
the changes in the gateway transports observed in the early 21st
century, with the exception of the Bering Strait. We also found that the
OMIP models employing the NEMO ocean model simulate relatively larger volume
and heat transports through the Barents Sea Opening. Overall, the
performance of the Arctic Ocean simulations is similar between the
CORE2-forced OMIP-1 and JRA55-do-forced OMIP-2 experiments.
Funder
National Natural Science Foundation of China Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province Helmholtz Association Norges Forskningsråd
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference114 articles.
1. Aagaard, K. and Carmack, E. C.: The role of sea ice and other fresh water in the Arctic circulation, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 14485, https://doi.org/10.1029/jc094ic10p14485, 1989. 2. Aksenov, Y., Karcher, M., Proshutinsky, A., Gerdes, R., de Cuevas, B., Golubeva, E., Kauker, F., Nguyen, A. T., Platov, G. A., Wadley, M., Watanabe, E., Coward, A. C., and Nurser, A. J. G.: Arctic pathways of Pacific Water: Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison experiments, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 121, 27–59, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011299, 2016. 3. Ardyna, M. and Arrigo, K. R.: Phytoplankton dynamics in a changing Arctic Ocean, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 892–903, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0905-y, 2020. 4. Armitage, T. W. K., Bacon, S., Ridout, A. L., Thomas, S. F., Aksenov, Y., and Wingham, D. J.: Arctic sea surface height variability and change from satellite radar altimetry and GRACE, 2003–2014, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 121, 4303–4322, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011579, 2016 (data available at: http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/dynamic_topography, last access: 5 May 2023). 5. Årthun, M., Eldevik, T., Smedsrud, L. H., Skagseth, Ø., and Ingvaldsen, R. B.: Quantifying the influence of atlantic heat on barents sea ice variability and retreat, J. Climate, 25, 4736–4743, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00466.1, 2012.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|