Articles | Volume 13, issue 8
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3643–3708, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3643-2020

Special issue: Evaluation of Model Intercomparison Projects

Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3643–3708, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3643-2020

Model evaluation paper 21 Aug 2020

Model evaluation paper | 21 Aug 2020

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

Hiroyuki Tsujino et al.

Related authors

An inter-comparison of the mass budget of the Arctic sea ice in CMIP6 models
Ann Keen, Ed Blockley, David A. Bailey, Jens Boldingh Debernard, Mitchell Bushuk, Steve Delhaye, David Docquier, Daniel Feltham, François Massonnet, Siobhan O'Farrell, Leandro Ponsoni, José M. Rodriguez, David Schroeder, Neil Swart, Takahiro Toyoda, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Martin Vancoppenolle, and Klaus Wyser
The Cryosphere, 15, 951–982, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-951-2021, 2021
Short summary
Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections
Lester Kwiatkowski, Olivier Torres, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Aumont, Matthew Chamberlain, James R. Christian, John P. Dunne, Marion Gehlen, Tatiana Ilyina, Jasmin G. John, Andrew Lenton, Hongmei Li, Nicole S. Lovenduski, James C. Orr, Julien Palmieri, Yeray Santana-Falcón, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Charles A. Stock, Alessandro Tagliabue, Yohei Takano, Jerry Tjiputra, Katsuya Toyama, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Michio Watanabe, Akitomo Yamamoto, Andrew Yool, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 3439–3470, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3439-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3439-2020, 2020
Short summary
OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project
Stephen M. Griffies, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Paul J. Durack, Alistair J. Adcroft, V. Balaji, Claus W. Böning, Eric P. Chassignet, Enrique Curchitser, Julie Deshayes, Helge Drange, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Peter J. Gleckler, Jonathan M. Gregory, Helmuth Haak, Robert W. Hallberg, Patrick Heimbach, Helene T. Hewitt, David M. Holland, Tatiana Ilyina, Johann H. Jungclaus, Yoshiki Komuro, John P. Krasting, William G. Large, Simon J. Marsland, Simona Masina, Trevor J. McDougall, A. J. George Nurser, James C. Orr, Anna Pirani, Fangli Qiao, Ronald J. Stouffer, Karl E. Taylor, Anne Marie Treguier, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Petteri Uotila, Maria Valdivieso, Qiang Wang, Michael Winton, and Stephen G. Yeager
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3231–3296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, 2016
Short summary
A practical scheme to introduce explicit tidal forcing into an OGCM
K. Sakamoto, H. Tsujino, H. Nakano, M. Hirabara, and G. Yamanaka
Ocean Sci., 9, 1089–1108, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-9-1089-2013,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-9-1089-2013, 2013

Related subject area

Oceanography
Improved representation of river runoff in Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean Version 4 (ECCOv4) simulations: implementation, evaluation, and impacts to coastal plume regions
Yang Feng, Dimitris Menemenlis, Huijie Xue, Hong Zhang, Dustin Carroll, Yan Du, and Hui Wu
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1801–1819, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1801-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1801-2021, 2021
Short summary
The Regional Ice Ocean Prediction System v2: a pan-Canadian ocean analysis system using an online tidal harmonic analysis
Gregory C. Smith, Yimin Liu, Mounir Benkiran, Kamel Chikhar, Dorina Surcel Colan, Audrey-Anne Gauthier, Charles-Emmanuel Testut, Frederic Dupont, Ji Lei, François Roy, Jean-François Lemieux, and Fraser Davidson
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1445–1467, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1445-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1445-2021, 2021
Short summary
Global storm tide modeling with ADCIRC v55: unstructured mesh design and performance
William J. Pringle, Damrongsak Wirasaet, Keith J. Roberts, and Joannes J. Westerink
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1125–1145, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1125-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1125-2021, 2021
Short summary
Development of a MetUM (v 11.1) and NEMO (v 3.6) coupled operational forecast model for the Maritime Continent – Part 1: Evaluation of ocean forecasts
Bijoy Thompson, Claudio Sanchez, Boon Chong Peter Heng, Rajesh Kumar, Jianyu Liu, Xiang-Yu Huang, and Pavel Tkalich
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1081–1100, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1081-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1081-2021, 2021
Short summary
Advanced parallel implementation of the coupled ocean–ice model FEMAO (version 2.0) with load balancing
Pavel Perezhogin, Ilya Chernov, and Nikolay Iakovlev
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 843–857, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-843-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-843-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Abel, R.: Aspects of air-sea interaction in atmosphere-ocean models, Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades de Mathematisch – Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, available at: https://oceanrep.geomar.de/44980/ (last access: 17 March 2019), 2018. 
Adcroft, A. and Campin, J.-M.: Rescaled height coordinates for accurate representation of free-surface flows in ocean circulation models, Ocean Model., 7, 269–284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2003.09.003, 2004. 
Arakawa, A. and Hsu, Y.-G.: Energy conserving and potential-enstrophy dissipating schemes for the shallow water equations, Mon. Weather Rev., 118, 1960–1969, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1990)118<1960:ECAPED>2.0.CO;2, 1990. 
Assur, A.: Composition of sea ice and its tensile strength, in: Arctic sea ice; Conference held at Easton, Maryland, February 24–27, 1958, Vol. 598, Publs. Natl. Res. Coun. Wash., 106–138, Washington, DC, US, 1958. 
Download
Short summary
The OMIP-2 framework for global ocean–sea-ice model simulations is assessed by comparing multi-model means from 11 CMIP6-class global ocean–sea-ice models calculated separately for the OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations. Many features are very similar between OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations, and yet key improvements in transitioning from OMIP-1 to OMIP-2 are also identified. Thus, the present assessment justifies that future ocean–sea-ice model development and analysis studies use the OMIP-2 framework.