Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3053
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3053
06 Nov 2024
 | 06 Nov 2024
Status: this preprint is open for discussion.

Comparison of variables from ocean, sea ice and atmosphere models as forcing data for iceberg drift and deterioration models in the Barents Sea in 2010–2014 and 2020–2021 (Part I)

Lia Herrmannsdörfer, Raed Khalil Lubbad, and Knut Vilhelm Høyland

Abstract. Numerical models of ocean, sea ice and atmosphere supply a wide range of information in the Arctic that are difficult to observe otherwise. Model disagreements emphasise the need to evaluate the suitability of the models for individual applications. This study compares selected ocean, sea ice and atmosphere variables from the models Topaz4b, Barents-2.5, ERA5 and CARRA in the Barents Sea during the years 2010–2014 and 2020–2021. The same data is used in the sequel paper (Herrmannsdörfer et al., 2024) to force simulations of iceberg drift and deterioration and to examine the impact of varied forcing on the iceberg simulations. Comparing Topaz4b and Barents-2.5, it is evident that sea ice is more extensive (larger sea ice concentration, thickness and southward extent) and sea surface temperatures are lower in Barents-2.5 with clear differences in the seasonal and spatial characteristics. Further, sea surface and sea ice drift speeds are larger in Barents-2.5, especially in shallow waters and the sea ice edge. On the side of atmospheric models, CARRA exhibits slightly larger 10 m wind speeds over open water while ERA5 show larger wind speeds over icy water. Those similarities and differences could partly be traced back to similarities and differences in spatial and temporal resolution, model setup, assimilated data and relations between the models. Despite fundamental difference in data assimilation, Barents-2.5 hindcast and forecast showed high similarity for some variables. The large occurrence of sea ice and its deviating representation in the models indicate large relevance for the iceberg pathways in the Barents Sea.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Lia Herrmannsdörfer, Raed Khalil Lubbad, and Knut Vilhelm Høyland

Status: open (until 26 Dec 2024)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Lia Herrmannsdörfer, Raed Khalil Lubbad, and Knut Vilhelm Høyland
Lia Herrmannsdörfer, Raed Khalil Lubbad, and Knut Vilhelm Høyland

Viewed

Total article views: 167 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
92 65 10 167 3 3
  • HTML: 92
  • PDF: 65
  • XML: 10
  • Total: 167
  • BibTeX: 3
  • EndNote: 3
Views and downloads (calculated since 06 Nov 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 06 Nov 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 161 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 161 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 23 Dec 2024
Download
Short summary
Disagreement between models describing the Arctic raises the question of suitability of those models for individual use-cases. We compared the ocean-sea ice models Topaz and Barents-2.5, and the atmospheric reanalyses ERA5 and CARRA in the Barents Sea. The results are later used to explain differences caused in iceberg simulations. We highlight spatial differences e.g. at the sea ice edge and coastlines, that are caused by different horizontal resolution and physical variable description.