57A062
Assessment of radiation forcing datasets for large-scale
sea-ice models in the Southern Ocean
Martin Vancoppenolle, Ralph Timmermann, Stephen F. Ackley,
Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Petra Heil, Jan Lieser, Katherine C. Leonard,
Marcel Nicolaus, Tim Papkyriakou, Jean-Louis Tison
Corresponding author: Martin Vancoppenolle –
vancop@atmos.washington.edu
Little is known about errors in the atmospheric forcings
of large-scale sea-ice–ocean models around Antarctica. These forcings
involve atmospheric reanalyses, typically those from the National Center for
Environmental Prediction and National Center from Atmospheric Research
(NCEP-NCAR), climatologies, and empirical parameterizations of
atmosphere–ice heat and radiation fluxes. In the present paper, we
evaluate the atmospheric forcing fields of sea-ice models in the Southern Ocean
using meteorological and radiation observations from two drifting station
experiments over Antarctic sea ice. The latter are Sea-Ice Mass Balance in the
Antarctic (SIMBA, Bellingshausen Sea, October 2007) and ISPOL (Ice Station
POLarstern, Weddell Sea, December 2004). Analysis suggests that the NCEP-NCAR
reanalyses have relatively low biases for variables that are assimilated by the
system (temperature, winds and humidity) and are less accurate for those which
are not (cloud fraction and radiation fluxes). The main deficiencies are
significant day-to-day errors in air temperature (root-mean-square error
1.4–3.8°C) and a 0.2–0.6 g
kg–1 mean overestimation in
NCEP-NCAR specific humidity. In addition, associated to an underestimation of
cloud fraction, NCEP-NCAR reanalyses shortwave radiation feature a large
positive bias (43–109 W
m–2) partly compensated by a
20–45 W m–2 negative
bias in longwave radiation. Those biases can be drastically reduced using
empirical formulae of radiation fluxes and climatologies of relative humidity
and cloud cover. However, this procedure obviously implies a loss of day-to-day
and interannual variability in the radiation fields. We provide technical
recommendations on how the radiation forcing should be handled to reduce sea-ice
model forcing errors. The various errors in forcing fields found here should not
hide the great value of atmospheric reanalyses for the simulation of the
ice–ocean system.
Go Back