On the formulation of sea-ice models. Part 1: Effects of different solver implementations and parameterizations

429 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Dynamically and Kinematically Consistent Global Ocean Circulation and Ice State Estimates (2013, background): “By way of example, Figure 21.9, taken from Losch et al. (2010) depicts 1992–2002 mean March and September effective ice thickness distributions representing the months of maximum and minimum ice cover in both hemispheres.”
Challenges and Prospects in Ocean Circulation Models (2019, background): “Losch et al. (2010) compare different numerical solvers for dynamics and thermodynamics used in sea-ice models and found that the choice of the dynamic solver has a considerable effect on the solution.”
Mesoscale to submesoscale wavenumber spectra in Drake Passage (2016, positive): “These ﬁelds are converted to surface ﬂuxes using the bulk formulae of Large and Yeager (2004) and the dynamic/ thermodynamic sea ice model of Losch et al. (2010).”
Seasonality and long‐term trend of Arctic Ocean surface stress in a model (2014, methodology): “To avoid these complexities in this initial study, we follow Hibler and Bryan [1987] [as did e.g., Kauker et al., 2003; Condron et al., 2009; Losch et al., 2010] and compute the ocean surface stress socn as the vector sum of the air stress and the ice interaction force socn5sair1F i (2) Here the…”