Articles | Volume 11, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1229-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1229-2018
Model evaluation paper
 | 
03 Apr 2018
Model evaluation paper |  | 03 Apr 2018

A 4.5 km resolution Arctic Ocean simulation with the global multi-resolution model FESOM 1.4

Qiang Wang, Claudia Wekerle, Sergey Danilov, Xuezhu Wang, and Thomas Jung

Related authors

CD-type discretization for sea ice dynamics in FESOM version 2
Sergey Danilov, Carolin Mehlmann, Dmitry Sidorenko, and Qiang Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2287–2297, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2287-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2287-2024, 2024
Short summary
Impact of increased resolution on Arctic Ocean simulations in Ocean Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (OMIP-2)
Qiang Wang, Qi Shu, Alexandra Bozec, Eric P. Chassignet, Pier Giuseppe Fogli, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Andy McC. Hogg, Doroteaciro Iovino, Andrew E. Kiss, Nikolay Koldunov, Julien Le Sommer, Yiwen Li, Pengfei Lin, Hailong Liu, Igor Polyakov, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Shizhu Wang, and Xiaobiao Xu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 347–379, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-347-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-347-2024, 2024
Short summary
Simulated stable water isotopes during the mid-Holocene and pre-industrial periods using AWI-ESM-2.1-wiso
Xiaoxu Shi, Alexandre Cauquoin, Gerrit Lohmann, Lukas Jonkers, Qiang Wang, Hu Yang, Yuchen Sun, and Martin Werner
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5153–5178, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5153-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5153-2023, 2023
Short summary
The mixed-layer depth in the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP): impact of resolving mesoscale eddies
Anne Marie Treguier, Clement de Boyer Montégut, Alexandra Bozec, Eric P. Chassignet, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Andy McC. Hogg, Doroteaciro Iovino, Andrew E. Kiss, Julien Le Sommer, Yiwen Li, Pengfei Lin, Camille Lique, Hailong Liu, Guillaume Serazin, Dmitry Sidorenko, Qiang Wang, Xiaobio Xu, and Steve Yeager
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3849–3872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3849-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3849-2023, 2023
Short summary
Arctic Ocean simulations in the CMIP6 Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP)
Qi Shu, Qiang Wang, Chuncheng Guo, Zhenya Song, Shizhu Wang, Yan He, and Fangli Qiao
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2539–2563, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2539-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2539-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Oceanography
Skin sea surface temperature schemes in coupled ocean–atmosphere modelling: the impact of chlorophyll-interactive e-folding depth
Vincenzo de Toma, Daniele Ciani, Yassmin Hesham Essa, Chunxue Yang, Vincenzo Artale, Andrea Pisano, Davide Cavaliere, Rosalia Santoleri, and Andrea Storto
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5145–5165, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5145-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5145-2024, 2024
Short summary
DELWAVE 1.0: deep learning surrogate model of surface wave climate in the Adriatic Basin
Peter Mlakar, Antonio Ricchi, Sandro Carniel, Davide Bonaldo, and Matjaž Ličer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4705–4725, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4705-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4705-2024, 2024
Short summary
StraitFlux – precise computations of water strait fluxes on various modeling grids
Susanna Winkelbauer, Michael Mayer, and Leopold Haimberger
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4603–4620, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4603-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4603-2024, 2024
Short summary
Comparison of the Coastal and Regional Ocean COmmunity model (CROCO) and NCAR-LES in non-hydrostatic simulations
Xiaoyu Fan, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Nobuhiro Suzuki, Qing Li, Patrick Marchesiello, Peter P. Sullivan, and Paul S. Hall
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4095–4113, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4095-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4095-2024, 2024
Short summary
Intercomparisons of Tracker v1.1 and four other ocean particle-tracking software packages in the Regional Ocean Modeling System
Jilian Xiong and Parker MacCready
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3341–3356, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3341-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3341-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Aagaard, K., and Carmack, E. C.: The role of sea ice and other fresh-water in the Arctic circulation, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 14485–14498, 1989.
Aagaard, K., Swift, J. H., and Carmack, E.: Thermohaline circulation in the Arctic mediterranean seas, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 90, 4833–4846, 1985.
Aksenov, Y., Ivanov, V. V., Nurser, A. J. G., Bacon, S., Polyakov, I. V., Coward, A. C., Naveira-Garabato, A. C., and Beszczynska-Moeller, A.: The Arctic Circumpolar Boundary Current, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, C09017, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018080, 2011.
Aksenov, Y., Karcher, M., A. Proshutinsky, R. Gerdes, B. de Cuevas, E. Golubeva, F. Kauker, A. T. Nguyen, G. A. Platov, M. Wadley, E. Watanabe, A. C. Coward, and A. J. G. Nurser: Arctic pathways of Pacific Water: Arctic Ocean model intercomparison experiments, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 121, 27–59, 2016.
Arrigo, K. R. and van Dijken, G. L.: Continued increases in Arctic Ocean primary production, Prog. Oceanogr., 136, 60–70, 2015.
Download
Short summary
For developing a system for Arctic research, we evaluate the Arctic Ocean simulated by FESOM. We use two global meshes differing in the horizontal resolution only in the Arctic Ocean (24 vs. 4.5 km). The high resolution significantly improves the model's representation of the Arctic Ocean. The most pronounced improvement is in the Arctic intermediate layer. The high resolution also improves the ocean surface circulation, mainly through a better representation of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.