@article{GoelzerLevermannRahmstorf2009, author = {Goelzer, Heiko and Levermann, Anders and Rahmstorf, Stefan}, title = {Two-way coupling of an ENSO model to the global climate model CLIMBER-3 alpha}, issn = {1463-5003}, doi = {10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.03.004}, year = {2009}, abstract = {We present a model study that investigates to what extent it is possible to introduce ENSO variability to an Earth system Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC). The Zebiak-Cane ENSO model is dynamically coupled to the EMIC CLIMBER-3 alpha, which by itself exhibits no interannual or multidecadal variability. ENSO variability is introduced to CLIMBER-3 alpha by adding ENSO-related sea surface temperature anomalies to the upper layers of the model ocean. For the other coupling direction, changes in the mean CLIMBER-3 alpha climate on decadal time scales are used to change the background state of the ENSO model, achieving a two-way coupling. We compare typical ENSO-related patterns of a fully coupled pre-industrial model run to reanalysis data and point out the possibilities and limitations of this model configuration. Although introduced ENSO-related SST anomalies and other related variables like the Southern Oscillation Index are well reproduced by the EMIC in the forcing domain, teleconnections to other regions are damped, especially in meridional direction. The reason for this limitation is the atmospheric model, which does not sufficiently resolve the necessary transport mechanisms. Despite this limitation the presented coupling method may still be a useful tool in combination with higher resolution atmospheric models as being in development for the successor model CLIMBER-3 and possibly other EMICs.}, language = {en} } @article{SeroussiNowickiPayneetal.2020, author = {Seroussi, Helene and Nowicki, Sophie and Payne, Antony J. and Goelzer, Heiko and Lipscomb, William H. and Abe-Ouchi, Ayako and Agosta, Cecile and Albrecht, Torsten and Asay-Davis, Xylar and Barthel, Alice and Calov, Reinhard and Cullather, Richard and Dumas, Christophe and Galton-Fenzi, Benjamin K. and Gladstone, Rupert and Golledge, Nicholas R. and Gregory, Jonathan M. and Greve, Ralf and Hattermann, Tore and Hoffman, Matthew J. and Humbert, Angelika and Huybrechts, Philippe and Jourdain, Nicolas C. and Kleiner, Thomas and Larour, Eric and Leguy, Gunter R. and Lowry, Daniel P. and Little, Chistopher M. and Morlighem, Mathieu and Pattyn, Frank and Pelle, Tyler and Price, Stephen F. and Quiquet, Aurelien and Reese, Ronja and Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne and Shepherd, Andrew and Simon, Erika and Smith, Robin S. and Straneo, Fiammetta and Sun, Sainan and Trusel, Luke D. and Van Breedam, Jonas and van de Wal, Roderik S. W. and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Zhao, Chen and Zhang, Tong and Zwinger, Thomas}, title = {ISMIP6 Antarctica}, series = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, volume = {14}, journal = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, number = {9}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1994-0416}, doi = {10.5194/tc-14-3033-2020}, pages = {3033 -- 3070}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Ice flow models of the Antarctic ice sheet are commonly used to simulate its future evolution in response to different climate scenarios and assess the mass loss that would contribute to future sea level rise. However, there is currently no consensus on estimates of the future mass balance of the ice sheet, primarily because of differences in the representation of physical processes, forcings employed and initial states of ice sheet models. This study presents results from ice flow model simulations from 13 international groups focusing on the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet during the period 2015-2100 as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). They are forced with outputs from a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), representative of the spread in climate model results. Simulations of the Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level rise in response to increased warming during this period varies between 7:8 and 30.0 cm of sea level equivalent (SLE) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario forcing. These numbers are relative to a control experiment with constant climate conditions and should therefore be added to the mass loss contribution under climate conditions similar to present-day conditions over the same period. The simulated evolution of the West Antarctic ice sheet varies widely among models, with an overall mass loss, up to 18.0 cm SLE, in response to changes in oceanic conditions. East Antarctica mass change varies between 6 :1 and 8.3 cm SLE in the simulations, with a significant increase in surface mass balance outweighing the increased ice discharge under most RCP 8.5 scenario forcings. The inclusion of ice shelf collapse, here assumed to be caused by large amounts of liquid water ponding at the surface of ice shelves, yields an additional simulated mass loss of 28mm compared to simulations without ice shelf collapse. The largest sources of uncertainty come from the climate forcing, the ocean-induced melt rates, the calibration of these melt rates based on oceanic conditions taken outside of ice shelf cavities and the ice sheet dynamic response to these oceanic changes. Results under RCP 2.6 scenario based on two CMIP5 climate models show an additional mass loss of 0 and 3 cm of SLE on average compared to simulations done under present-day conditions for the two CMIP5 forcings used and display limited mass gain in East Antarctica.}, language = {en} } @article{SeroussiNowickiSimonetal.2019, author = {Seroussi, Helene and Nowicki, Sophie and Simon, Erika and Abe-Ouchi, Ayako and Albrecht, Torsten and Brondex, Julien and Cornford, Stephen and Dumas, Christophe and Gillet-Chaulet, Fabien and Goelzer, Heiko and Golledge, Nicholas R. and Gregory, Jonathan M. and Greve, Ralf and Hoffman, Matthew J. and Humbert, Angelika and Huybrechts, Philippe and Kleiner, Thomas and Larourl, Eric and Leguy, Gunter and Lipscomb, William H. and Lowry, Daniel and Mengel, Matthias and Morlighem, Mathieu and Pattyn, Frank and Payne, Anthony J. and Pollard, David and Price, Stephen F. and Quiquet, Aurelien and Reerink, Thomas J. and Reese, Ronja and Rodehacke, Christian B. and Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne and Shepherd, Andrew and Sun, Sainan and Sutter, Johannes and Van Breedam, Jonas and van de Wal, Roderik S. W. and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Zhang, Tong}, title = {initMIP-Antarctica}, series = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, volume = {13}, journal = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, number = {5}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1994-0416}, doi = {10.5194/tc-13-1441-2019}, pages = {1441 -- 1471}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Ice sheet numerical modeling is an important tool to estimate the dynamic contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to sea level rise over the coming centuries. The influence of initial conditions on ice sheet model simulations, however, is still unclear. To better understand this influence, an initial state intercomparison exercise (initMIP) has been developed to compare, evaluate, and improve initialization procedures and estimate their impact on century-scale simulations. initMlP is the first set of experiments of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6), which is the primary Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) activity focusing on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Following initMlP-Greenland, initMlP-Antarctica has been designed to explore uncertainties associated with model initialization and spin-up and to evaluate the impact of changes in external forcings. Starting from the state of the Antarctic ice sheet at the end of the initialization procedure, three forward experiments are each run for 100 years: a control run, a run with a surface mass balance anomaly, and a run with a basal melting anomaly beneath floating ice. This study presents the results of initMlP-Antarctica from 25 simulations performed by 16 international modeling groups. The submitted results use different initial conditions and initialization methods, as well as ice flow model parameters and reference external forcings. We find a good agreement among model responses to the surface mass balance anomaly but large variations in responses to the basal melting anomaly. These variations can be attributed to differences in the extent of ice shelves and their upstream tributaries, the numerical treatment of grounding line, and the initial ocean conditions applied, suggesting that ongoing efforts to better represent ice shelves in continental-scale models should continue.}, language = {en} }