ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2022
Modelling the Arctic wave-affected marginal ice zone: a comparison with ICESat-2 observations.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modelling the Arctic wave-affected marginal ice zone: a comparison with ICESat-2 observations.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Article
- Floes, the marginal ice zone and coupled wave-sea-ice feedbacks.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Review
- Theory, modelling and observations of marginal ice zone dynamics: multidisciplinary perspectives and outlooks.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Article
- Marginal ice zone dynamics: future research perspectives and pathways.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluate marginal ice zone (MIZ) extent in a wave-ice 25 km-resolution coupled model, compared with pan-Arctic wave-affected sea-ice regions derived from ICESat-2 altimetry over the period December 2018-May 2020. By using a definition of the MIZ based on the monthly maximum of the wave height, we suggest metrics to evaluate the model taking into account the sparse coverage of ICESat-2. The model produces MIZ extents comparable to observations, especially in winter. A sensitivity study highlights the need for strong wave attenuation in thick, compact ice but weaker attenuation as sea ice forms, as the model underestimates the MIZ extent in autumn. This underestimation may be due to limited wave growth in partially covered ice, overestimated sea-ice concentration or the absence of other processes affecting floe size. We discuss our results in the context of other definitions of the MIZ based on floe size and sea-ice concentration, as well as the potential impact of wave-induced fragmentation on ice dynamics, found to be minor at the climate scales investigated here. This article is part of the theme issue 'Theory, modelling and observations of marginal ice zone dynamics: multidisciplinary perspectives and outlooks'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.