4.7 Article

Antarctic Sea Ice Area in CMIP6

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 47, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2019GL086729

Keywords

sea ice; CMIP6; Antarctica; climate models; Southern Ocean; model evaluation

Funding

  1. WCRP-CliC Project
  2. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, SCAR
  3. WMO
  4. National Science Foundation [PLR-1643431]
  5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NA18OAR4310274]
  6. German Ministry for Education and Research
  7. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N01829X/1]
  8. Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme [GA01101]
  9. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under EXC 2037 CLICCS -Climate, Climatic Change, and Society [390683824]
  10. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  11. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - NSF [1852977]
  12. NERC [NE/N01829X/1, NE/N018486/1, bas0100032] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fully coupled climate models have long shown a wide range of Antarctic sea ice states and evolution over the satellite era. Here, we present a high-level evaluation of Antarctic sea ice in 40 models from the most recent phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Many models capture key characteristics of the mean seasonal cycle of sea ice area (SIA), but some simulate implausible historical mean states compared to satellite observations, leading to large intermodel spread. Summer SIA is consistently biased low across the ensemble. Compared to the previous model generation (CMIP5), the intermodel spread in winter and summer SIA has reduced, and the regional distribution of sea ice concentration has improved. Over 1979-2018, many models simulate strong negative trends in SIA concurrently with stronger-than-observed trends in global mean surface temperature (GMST). By the end of the 21st century, models project clear differences in sea ice between forcing scenarios.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available