the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Enhancing sea ice knowledge through assimilation of sea ice thickness from ENVISAT and CS2SMOS
Abstract. Arctic sea ice extent has declined significantly over the past two decades, opening up the Arctic to shipping and resource extraction while also impacting wildlife and local communities. This has led to an increasing need for skillful sea ice predictions. We focus on furthering the understanding of the role that sea ice thickness plays in the skilfulness of seasonal Arctic sea ice predictions. We look at how observations of sea ice thickness can improve both sea ice reanalyses and predictions. We use the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model (NorCPM), which has previously assimilated ocean and sea ice concentration observations. We additionally assimilate two sea ice thickness products: CS2SMOS, and, for the first time in any study, ENVISAT. This allows us to produce a 2-decade reanalysis with sea ice thickness assimilation focusing on the Arctic Ocean. This reanalysis is then used to initialise and generate a series of year-long seasonal hindcasts for each season of the reanalysis. The reanalysis and hindcasts are compared to observations and other reanalyses to assess the impact of sea ice thickness observations. Assimilation of sea ice thickness data strongly improves the representation of sea ice thickness and volume, primarily in the central Arctic as well as the ice edge location. Although ENVISAT observations have greater uncertainties, the dataset still provides a useful impact on the model. For prediction, sea ice thickness initialisation reduces the model biases of thickness throughout the year as well as errors in the detrended anomalies. Ice thickness bias correction results in improvements in the representation of the ice edge location, i.e., the timing and extent of the summer melting. Thickness initialisation has little improvements for detrended sea ice extent anomalies, but yields some skill in the Beaufort Sea and Central Arctic during summer. Overall, we show the impact of sea ice thickness assimilation has a positive effect on prediction skill in NorCPM.
- Preprint
(5155 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1495 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-104', Alison Delhasse & Francois Massonnet (co-review team), 19 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-104/egusphere-2025-104-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicholas Williams, 02 Jul 2025
Thank you to the reviewers for their valuable insight, feedback and comments on our submission. We have completed a review response and have a revised manuscript. The review response is attached below. The revised manuscript will be submitted in due course.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Nicholas Williams, 04 Jul 2025
Apologies, but the previous version of the response we posted was not the most up-to-date version, and we attach the most up-to-date version here (note the only differences are further clarifications in responses to two of the reviewers points.) Thanks.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicholas Williams, 02 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-104', Imke Sievers, 07 Jul 2025
Summery
The article focuses on assimilation of sea ice thickness (SIT) in a coupled climate model. The novelty of the article is that it presents an assimilation of ENVIAT SIT observations in addition to the commonly assimilated observations from CryoSat and SMOS combined in the CS2SMOS product. The assimilation is done by employing an ensemble Kalman Filter and the study investigates the skill of two assimilation runs in comparison to a free model run. The two assimilation runs are: One run called CRLT, assimilating sea ice concentration and sea surface temperature and hydrographic profiles, and the second run called +SIT assimilated in addition to the variables in CRLT also SIT. The performance of the assimilation is validated against independent and assimilated data and their forecasting skill is assessed, well in line with the standards of the field. The model it self has, as the author points out, a rather large sea ice thickness error, which is reduced by both assimilating CS2SMOS and ENVISAT. Further the study investigates the skill of the assimilation to predict the sea ice edge and extent. Better results are found for predicting the sea ice edge than for the sea ice extent.
General comments
Overall the article is of good scientific quality and presents a significant body of work as well as citing current and relevant literature, with the assimilation of ENVISAT SIT being the main novelty. I currently though see two main points in need of improvement:
1) Currently the article is missing a clear discussion of the differences in skilfully predicting the sea ice state between assimilating ENVISAT and CS2SMOS. The title, summery and aim in the introduction (line 60) give the impression that the article mainly addresses new insight from assimilating ENVISAT in comparison to only assimilating CS2SMOS, however the article only discusses the difference between the reduction of bias and bias free root mean square error for both satellites, not the difference in forecasting skill. Keeping the large SIT bias of the model in mind, the bias correction is to be expected. Either additional analysis should be added, or this should be made clear in the title, introduction and summery and the choice to not analysing the difference in skill between assimilating only CS2SMOS and assimilating both SIT products should be motivated. For example does the summery state that the article focuses on the skill of seasonal prediction. From reading this I would expect that the article analysis the differences in skill from assimilating ENVISAT vs. CS2SMOS, however this is not the case. This is unfortunate, since the assimilation of ENVISAT is the main novelty of the study.
2) It is clear that a lot of work and testing has gone into the assimilation set up, which is very well done. However the method section is currently a bit confusing and lacks some important information for the study to be reproducible: 1) how is the SIC updated by the SIT assimilation, in one categories, in several categories, etc? 2) How does Full filed assimilation differ from anomaly field assimilation? What effects on the results are expected of mixing them? 3) Is there a reason why you choose to not assimilate both SIT observations during their overlap? 4) Please add version numbers to the model components where applicable. 5) Which variables are in the state vector. For the Ocean this is clear, but how about the sea ice?
Minor comments
line 25-27: please add reference
line 234: first occurrence of acronym RHS
line 280-281: add citation
line 315 which visual agreement is referred to?
table 2: it would increase readability to use the same exponent within one column (not the case for SIV of +SIT)
line 319: +SIT has a strong discontinuity only in SIV, the SIE is actually in line with observations, or? (figure 5)
1) line 320-325 which table figures are you referring to?
3) figure 3: what is the criteria for not enough point to calculate a yearly average?
2) figure 7: please add a accessible colour bar varying between two colours.
Line 408-409: Which section is this based on? From figure 5 it looks as if the sea ice extent is only improved in September, not in March during the EVISAT period.
Line 410: CS2SMOS is only available from 2010, so it can not improve anything before.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-104-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Nicholas Williams, 28 Jul 2025
Thank you to the reviewer their valuable insight, feedback and comments on our submission. We have completed a review response and revised manuscript. The response is attached as part of this comment. The revised manuscript will be submitted in due time.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-104-AC3 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Nicholas Williams, 04 Aug 2025
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Nicholas Williams, 28 Jul 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
509 | 77 | 22 | 608 | 33 | 22 | 38 |
- HTML: 509
- PDF: 77
- XML: 22
- Total: 608
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 38
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1