Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 5.154 IF 5.154
  • IF 5-year value: 5.697 IF 5-year
    5.697
  • CiteScore value: 5.56 CiteScore
    5.56
  • SNIP value: 1.761 SNIP 1.761
  • IPP value: 5.30 IPP 5.30
  • SJR value: 3.164 SJR 3.164
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 59 Scimago H
    index 59
  • h5-index value: 49 h5-index 49
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-374
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-374
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: model evaluation paper 11 Mar 2020

Submitted as: model evaluation paper | 11 Mar 2020

Review status
This preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

Impact of horizontal resolution on global ocean-sea-ice model simulations based on the experimental protocols of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (OMIP-2)

Eric P. Chassignet1, Stephen G. Yeager2, Baylor Fox-Kemper3, Alexandra Bozec1, Fred Castruccio2, Gokhan Danabasoglu2, Who M. Kim2, Nikolay Koldunov4, Yiwen Li5, Pengfei Lin5, Hailong Liu5, Dmitry Sein4,6, Dmitry Sidorenko4, Qiang Wang4, and Xiaobiao Xu1 Eric P. Chassignet et al.
  • 1Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
  • 2National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
  • 3Brown University, New Providence, RI, USA
  • 4Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI), Bremerhaven, Germany
  • 5State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
  • 6Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia

Abstract. This paper presents global comparisons of fundamental global climate variables from a suite of four pairs of matched low- and high-resolution ocean and sea-ice simulations that are obtained following the OMIP-2 protocol (Griffies et al., 2016) and integrated for one cycle (1958–2018) of the JRA55-do atmospheric state and runoff dataset (Tsujino et al., 2018). Our goal is to assess the robustness of climate-relevant improvements in ocean simulations (mean and variability) associated with moving from coarse (~ 1º) to eddy-resolving (~ 0.1º) horizontal resolutions. The models are diverse in their numerics and parameterizations, but each low-resolution and high-resolution pair of models is matched so as to isolate, to the extent possible, the effects of horizontal resolution. A variety of observational datasets are used to assess the fidelity of simulated temperature and salinity, sea surface height, kinetic energy, heat and volume transports, and sea ice distribution. This paper provides a crucial benchmark for future studies comparing and improving different schemes in any of the models used in this study or similar ones. The biases in the low-resolution simulations are familiar and their gross features – position, strength, and variability of western boundary currents, equatorial currents, and Antarctic Circumpolar Current – are significantly improved in the high-resolution models. However, despite the fact that the high-resolution models "resolve" most of these features, the improvements in temperature or salinity are inconsistent among the different model families and some regions show increased bias over their low-resolution counterparts. Greatly enhanced horizontal resolution does not deliver unambiguous bias improvement in all regions for all models.

Eric P. Chassignet et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: open (until 06 May 2020)
Status: open (until 06 May 2020)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Eric P. Chassignet et al.

Eric P. Chassignet et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 184 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
132 49 3 184 13 1 1
  • HTML: 132
  • PDF: 49
  • XML: 3
  • Total: 184
  • Supplement: 13
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 1
Views and downloads (calculated since 11 Mar 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 11 Mar 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 155 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 155 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 28 Mar 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation