A comparison of an operational wave–ice model product and drifting wave buoy observation in the central Arctic Ocean: investigating the effect of sea-ice forcing in thin ice cover

Takehiko Nose; Jean Rabault; Takuji Waseda; Tsubasa Kodaira; Yasushi Fujiwara; Tomotaka Katsuno; Naoya Kanna; Kazutaka Tateyama; Joey Voermans; Tatiana Alekseeva

doi:10.33265/polar.v42.8874

Takehiko Nose Department of Ocean Technology, Policy and Environment, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
Jean Rabault Norwegian Meteorological Institute, IT Department, Oslo, Norway
Takuji Waseda Department of Ocean Technology, Policy and Environment, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
Tsubasa Kodaira Department of Ocean Technology, Policy and Environment, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
Yasushi Fujiwara Department of Ocean Technology, Policy and Environment, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan; and Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
Tomotaka Katsuno Department of Ocean Technology, Policy and Environment, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
Naoya Kanna Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, the University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
Kazutaka Tateyama Kitami Institute of Technology, Kitami, Hokkaido, Japan
Joey Voermans University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Tatiana Alekseeva Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Saint Petersburg, Russia; and Space Research Institute, Moscow, Russia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33265/polar.v42.8874

Keywords: OpenMetBuoy, ARC MFC wave–ice model, neXtSIM sea-ice model, wave–ice interaction, MIZ wave predictability, ice thickness

Abstract

A prototype OpenMetBuoy (OMB) was deployed alongside a commercial buoy in the central Arctic Ocean, north of the Laptev Sea, where there are historically no wave observations available. The inter-buoy comparison showed that the OMB measured wave heights and periods accurately, so the buoy data were used to study the predictability of a wave–ice model. The first event we studied was when both buoys observed a sudden decrease in significant wave heights H_m₀, which was caused by the change of wind directions from along the ice edge to off-ice wind. The Arctic Ocean Wave Analysis and Forecast wave–ice model product (ARC MFC) underestimated the H_m₀ on the account of the fetch being constrained by the inaccurate model representation of an ice tongue. The second case was an on-ice wave event as new ice formed. In this instance, the ARC MFC wave–ice model product largely underestimated the downwind buoy H_m₀. Model sea-ice conditions were examined by comparing the ARC MFC sea-ice forcing with the neXtSIM sea-ice model product, and our analysis revealed the ARC MFC did not resolve thin ice thickness distribution for ice types like young and grey ice, typically less than 30 cm. The ARC MFC model’s wave dissipation rate has a sea-ice thickness dependence and overestimated wave dissipation in thin ice cover; sea-ice forcing that can resolve the thin thickness distribution is needed to improve the predictability. This study provides an observational insight into better predictions of waves in marginal ice zones when new ice forms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arctic Data Archive System 2023. AMSR2 Sea ice con. + sea surf. temp. + snow depth. Accessed on the internet at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent and plot 2012 and 2021 sea-ice extents on 5 May 2023.

Bohlinger P., Carrasco A. & Saetra Ø. 2022. Arctic Ocean wave analysis and forecast product ARCTIC_ANALYSIS_FORECAST_WAV_002_014. Quality Information Document Issue 1.6. Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service.

Boutin G., Williams T., Rampal P., Ólason E. & Lique C. 2021. Wave–sea-ice interactions in a brittle rheological framework. The Cryosphere 15, 431–457, doi: 10.5194/tc-15-431-2021.

Drange H. & Simonsen K. 1996. Formulation of air–sea fluxes in the Esop2 version of MICOM. Technical Report 125. Bergen: Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center.

Hori M., Yabuki H., Sugimura T. & Terui T. 2012. AMSR2 Level 3 product of daily polar brightness temperatures and product. Version: 1.00. Arctic Data Archive System (ADS), Japan. Accessed on the internet at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/dataset/A20170123-003 on 1 Aug 2022.

Linton C.M. 2010. Towards a three-dimensional model of wave–ice interaction in the marginal ice zone. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 662, 1–4, doi: 10.1017/S0022112010004258.

NABOS. no date. Nabos-II. Nansen and Amundsen Basins observational system. Report of the NABOS 2021 expedition. Activities in the Arctic Ocean. IARC Technical Report 11. Fairbanks: International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Nose T., Waseda T., Kodaira T. & Inoue J. 2020. Satellite-retrieved sea ice concentration uncertainty and its effect on modelling wave evolution in marginal ice zones. The Cryosphere 14, 2029–2052, doi: 10.5194/tc-14-2029-2020.

Nose T., Webb A., Waseda T., Inoue J. & Sato K. 2018. Predictability of storm wave heights in the ice-free Beaufort Sea. Ocean Dynamics 68, 1383–1402, doi: 10.1007/s10236-018-1194-0.

Ólason E., Boutin G., Korosov A., Rampal P., Williams T., Kimmritz M., Dansereau V. & Samaké A. 2022. A new brittle rheology and numerical framework for large-scale sea-ice models. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 14, e2021MS002685, doi: 10.1029/2021MS002685.

Rabault J., Nose T., Hope G., Müller M., Breivik Ø., Voermans J., Hole R.L., Bohlinger P., Waseda T., Kodaira T., Katuno T., Johnson M., Sutherland G., Johansson M., Christensen K.G., Garvo A., Jensen A., Gundersen G., Marchenko A. & Babanin A. 2022. OpenMetBuoy-V2021: an easy-to-build, affordable, customizable, open-source instrument for oceanographic measurements of drift and waves in sea ice and the open ocean. Geosciences 12, article no. 110, doi: 10.3390/geosciences12030110.

Rampal P., Bouillon S., Ólason E. & Morlighem M. 2016. NeXtSIM: a new Lagrangian sea ice model. The Cryosphere 10, 1055–1073, doi: 10.5194/tc-10-1055-2016.

Rampal P., Dansereau V., Ólason E., Bouillon S., Williams T., Korosov A. & Samaké A. 2019. On the multi-fractal scaling properties of sea ice deformation. The Cryosphere 13, 2457–2474, doi: 10.5194/tc-13-2457-2019.

Sakov P., Counillon F., Bertino L., Lisæter K.A., Oke P.R. & Korablev A. 2012. TOPAZ4: an ocean–sea ice data assimilation system for the North Atlantic and Arctic. Ocean Science 8, 633–656, doi: 10.5194/os-8-633-2012.

Squire V.A. 2018. A fresh look at how ocean waves and sea ice interact. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 376, article no. 20170342, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2017.0342.

Squire V.A. 2020. Ocean wave interactions with sea ice: a reappraisal. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 52, 37–60, doi: 10.1146/annurev-fluid-010719-060301.

Sutherland G., Rabault J., Christensen K.H. & Jensen A. 2019. A two layer model for wave dissipation in sea ice. Applied Ocean Research 88, 111–118, doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2019.03.023.

Tateyama K., Shirasawa K., Uto S., Kawamura T., Toyota T. & Enomoto H. 2006. Standardization of electromagnetic–induction measurements of sea-ice thickness in polar and subpolar seas. Annals of Glaciology 44, 240–246, doi: 10.3189/172756406781811484.

The WAMDI Group 1988. The WAM model—a third generation ocean wave prediction model. Journal of Physical Oceanography 18, 1775–1810, doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018<1775:TWMTGO>2.0.CO;2.

Thomson J., Ackley S., Girard-Ardhuin F., Ardhuin F., Babanin A., Boutin G., Brozena J., Cheng S.K., Collins C., Doble M., Fairall C., Guest P., Gebhardt C., Gemmrich J., Graber H.C., Hold B., Lehner S., Lund B., Meylan M.H., Maksym T., Montiel F., Perrie W., Persson O., Rainville L., Rogers W.E., Shen H., Shen H., Squire V., Stammerjohn S., Stopa J. & Smith M.M. 2018. Overview of the Arctic Sea State and Boundary Layer Physics Program. Journal of Geophysical Research—Oceans 123, 8674–8687, doi: 10.1002/2018JC013766.

Tilling R.L., Ridout A. & Shepherd A. 2018. Estimating Arctic Sea ice thickness and volume using CryoSat-2 radar altimeter data. Advances in Space Research 62, 1203–1225, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2017.10.051.

Wadhams P. 1975. Airborne laser profiling of swell in an open ice field. Journal of Geophysical Research 80, 4520–4528, doi: 10.1029/JC080i033p04520.

Waseda T., Alberello A., Nose T., Toyota T., Kodaira T. & Fujiwara Y. 2022. Observation of anomalous spectral downshifting of waves in the Okhotsk Sea marginal ice zone. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 380, article no. 20210256, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2021.0256.

Waseda T., Webb A., Sato K. & Inoue J. 2017. Arctic wave observation by drifting type wave buoys in 2016. ISOPE-I-17-569. San Francisco, CA: International Society of Offshore Polar Engineers.

Waseda T., Webb A., Sato K., Inoue J., Kohout A., Penrose B. & Penrose S. 2018. Correlated increase of high ocean waves and winds in the ice-free waters of the Arctic Ocean. Scientific Reports 8, article no. 4489, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22500-9.

Weber J.E. 1987. Wave attenuation and wave drift in the marginal ice zone. Journal of Physical Oceanography 17, 2351–2361, doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1987)017<2351:waawdi>2.0.co;2.

Williams T., Korosov A., Rampal P. & Ólason E. 2021. Presentation and evaluation of the Arctic Sea ice forecasting system neXtSIM-F. The Cryosphere 15, 3207–3227, doi: 10.5194/tc-15-3207-2021.

WMO 2021. Sea-ice information and services. WMO 574. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.