Abstract. Sea ice is composed of discrete units called floes. Observations show that
these floes can adopt a range of sizes spanning orders of magnitude, from
metres to tens of kilometres. Floe size impacts the nature and magnitude of
interactions between the sea ice, ocean, and atmosphere including lateral
melt rate and momentum and heat exchange. However, large-scale geophysical
sea ice models employ a continuum approach and traditionally either assume
floes adopt a constant size or do not include an explicit treatment of floe
size. In this study we apply novel observations to analyse two alternative
approaches to modelling a floe size distribution (FSD) within the
state-of-the-art CICE sea ice model. The first model considered is a
prognostic floe size–thickness distribution where the shape of the
distribution is an emergent feature of the model and is not assumed a
priori. The second model considered, the WIPoFSD (Waves-in-Ice module and
Power law Floe Size Distribution) model, assumes floe size follows a power
law with a constant exponent. We introduce a parameterisation motivated by
idealised models of in-plane brittle fracture to the prognostic model and
demonstrate that the inclusion of this scheme enables the prognostic model
to achieve a reasonable match against the novel observations for mid-sized
floes (100 m–2 km). While neither FSD model results in a significant
improvement in the ability of CICE to simulate pan-Arctic metrics in a
stand-alone sea ice configuration, larger impacts can be seen over regional
scales in sea ice concentration and thickness. We find that the prognostic
model particularly enhances sea ice melt in the early melt season, whereas
for the WIPoFSD model this melt increase occurs primarily during the late
melt season. We then show that these differences between the two FSD models
can be explained by considering the effective floe size, a metric used to
characterise a given FSD. Finally, we discuss the advantages and
disadvantages to these different approaches to modelling the FSD. We note
that although the WIPoFSD model is unable to represent potentially important
features of annual FSD evolution seen with the prognostic model, it is less
computationally expensive and produces a better fit to novel FSD
observations derived from 2 m resolution MEDEA imagery, possibly making this
a stronger candidate for inclusion in climate models.