MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4255508872 · doi:10.5194/tc-2019-314

An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea icein CMIP6 models

2020· preprint· en· W4255508872 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Keen, Ed Blockley, David A. Bailey, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Mitchell Bushuk, Steve Delhaye, David Docquier, D. L. Feltham, François Massonnet, Siobhan O’Farrell, Leandro Ponsoni, José María Ros Rodríguez, David Schröeder, Neil C. Swart, Takahiro Toyoda, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Martin Vancoppenolle, Klaus Wyser

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilEuropean CommissionSight Research UKMet OfficeDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
KeywordsSea iceArctic ice packClimatologyIce-albedo feedbackArcticCryosphereAdvectionEnvironmental scienceGeologySea ice thicknessOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We compare the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice for 14 models submitted to the latest Climate Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP6), using new diagnostics that have not been available for previous model inter-comparisons. Using these diagnostics allows us to look beyond the standard metrics of ice cover and thickness, to compare the processes of sea ice growth and loss in climate models in a more detailed way than has previously been possible. For the 1960–89 multi-model mean, the dominant processes causing annual ice growth are basal growth and frazil ice formation, which both occur during the winter. The main processes by which ice is lost are basal melting, top melting and advection of ice out of the Arctic. The first two processes occur in summer, while the latter process is present all year. The sea-ice budgets for individual models are strikingly similar overall in terms of the major processes causing ice growth and loss, and in terms of the time of year during which each process is important. However, there are also some key differences between the models. The relative amounts of frazil and basal ice formation varies between the models. This is, to some extent at least, attributable to exactly how the frazil growth is formulated within each model. There are also differences in the relative amounts of top and basal melting. As the ice cover and mass decline during the 21st century, we see a shift in the timing of the top and basal melting in the multi-model mean, with more melt occurring earlier in the year, and less melt later in the summer. The amount of basal growth in the autumn reduces, but the amount of basal growth later in the winter increases due to the ice being thinner. Overall, extra ice loss in May–June and reduced ice growth in October-November is partially offset by reduced ice melt in August and increased ice growth in January–February. For the individual models, changes in the budget components vary considerably in terms of magnitude and timing of change. However, when the evolving budget terms are considered as a function of the changing ice state itself, behaviours common to all the models emerge, suggesting that the sea ice components of the models are fundamentally responding in a broadly consistent way to the warming climate. Additional results from a forced ocean-ice model show that although atmospheric forcing is crucial for the sea ice mass budget, the sea ice physics also plays an important role.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→