EVP vs EAP

@sofarrell @anton @aekiss you may already be aware of this paper but I just became aware of it…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021JC017667

“Sea Ice Rheology Experiment (SIREx): 1. Scaling and Statistical Properties of Sea-Ice Deformation Fields”

This is basically an ad-hoc “MIP” for sea ice rheology. Interestingly for COSIMA it includes models with both EVP and EAP (both options within CICE).

I haven’t yet digested it but this sentence stuck out: “The improved spatial localization for RASM-WRF (EAP) nonetheless suggests that a more detailed analysis of the potential advantages of using the EAP rheology compared to the classic (E)VP rheology would be a welcome contribution in the future.”

I know there was some consideration of an EAP run at some stage which is why I bring it up here :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks @adfaser for the paper, I have seen it presented at conferences a few times whilst I have been listening online. I haven’t seen EAP used for Antarctic but it might be worth trying, we should discuss to try it when we make progress in ACCESS-OM3 (CICE6.4) though probably need to be at high resolution.

1 Like

A few notes if we come back to this:

  • CICE C-grid implementation doesn’t include EAP (see Lemiuex preprint). I am not sure if there are plans to include it.
  • There may be limited Antarctic records to compare to? i.e. ice buoys, although maybe the are SAR records that could be examined and would need to be fairly high resolution.
  • The SIREX paper suggests reducing the shear-to-compressive ice strength parameters, (i.e. e_yieldcurve/e_plasticpot and Pstar) would improve landfast ice and reduce the thickness bias (although Arctic focussed).