Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Mark
dc.contributor.authorProshutinsky, Andrey
dc.contributor.authorAksenov, Yevgeny
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, An T.
dc.contributor.authorLindsay, Ron
dc.contributor.authorHaas, Christian
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Jinlun
dc.contributor.authorDiansky, Nikolay
dc.contributor.authorKwok, Ron
dc.contributor.authorMaslowski, Wieslaw
dc.contributor.authorHakkinen, Sirpa M. A.
dc.contributor.authorAshik, Igor M.
dc.contributor.authorde Cuevas, Beverly
dc.date.accessioned2012-04-10T14:22:04Z
dc.date.available2014-10-22T08:57:25Z
dc.date.issued2012-03-15
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Geophysical Research 117 (2012): C00D13en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1912/5122
dc.descriptionAuthor Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2012. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research 117 (2012): C00D13, doi:10.1029/2011JC007257.en_US
dc.description.abstractSix Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project model simulations are compared with estimates of sea ice thickness derived from pan-Arctic satellite freeboard measurements (2004–2008); airborne electromagnetic measurements (2001–2009); ice draft data from moored instruments in Fram Strait, the Greenland Sea, and the Beaufort Sea (1992–2008) and from submarines (1975–2000); and drill hole data from the Arctic basin, Laptev, and East Siberian marginal seas (1982–1986) and coastal stations (1998–2009). Despite an assessment of six models that differ in numerical methods, resolution, domain, forcing, and boundary conditions, the models generally overestimate the thickness of measured ice thinner than ∼2 m and underestimate the thickness of ice measured thicker than about ∼2 m. In the regions of flat immobile landfast ice (shallow Siberian Seas with depths less than 25–30 m), the models generally overestimate both the total observed sea ice thickness and rates of September and October ice growth from observations by more than 4 times and more than one standard deviation, respectively. The models do not reproduce conditions of fast ice formation and growth. Instead, the modeled fast ice is replaced with pack ice which drifts, generating ridges of increasing ice thickness, in addition to thermodynamic ice growth. Considering all observational data sets, the better correlations and smaller differences from observations are from the Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean, Phase II and Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System models.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research is supported by the National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs covering awards of AOMIP collaborative research projects: ARC-0804180 (M.J.), ARC-0804010 (A.P.), ARC-0805141 (W.M.), ARC080789, and ARC0908769 (J.Z.). This research is also supported by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research, projects 09-05-00266 and 09-05-01231. At the National Oceanography Centre Southampton, this study was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council as a contribution to the Marine Centres’ Strategic Research Programme Oceans 2025.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Geophysical Unionen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007257
dc.subjectAOMIPen_US
dc.subjectICESaten_US
dc.subjectIce thicknessen_US
dc.subjectSea iceen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of Arctic sea ice thickness simulated by Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project modelsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.embargo2012-09-15
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/2011JC007257


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record