Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6945-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6945-2021
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
17 Nov 2021
Methods for assessment of models |  | 17 Nov 2021

Plume spreading test case for coastal ocean models

Vera Fofonova​​​​​​​, Tuomas Kärnä, Knut Klingbeil, Alexey Androsov, Ivan Kuznetsov, Dmitry Sidorenko, Sergey Danilov, Hans Burchard, and Karen Helen Wiltshire

Data sets

Plume spreading test case data Vera Fofonova, Tuomas Kärnä, Knut Klingbeil, Alexey Androsov, Ivan Kuznetsov, Dmitry Sidorenko, Sergey Danilov, Hans Burchard, and Karen Helen Wiltshire https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4389353

Model code and software

thetisproject/thetis: Thetis coastal ocean model (Thetis_20210413) Tuomas Kärnä, Stephan Kramer, Lawrence Mitchell, Joe Wallwork, Athanasios Angeloudis, tpkarna-cmop, Mariana Clare, David A. Ham, Nicolas Barral, Andrew T. T. McRae, swarder, and Matthew Piggott https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4683743

Fofonova-Plume GETM/GOTM codes Knut Klingbeil https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4695259

FESOM-C_v2 source_code_plume_spreading_test_case Vera Fofonova, Alexey Androsov, Ivan Kuznetsov, and Sergey Danilov https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4696058

Download
Short summary
We present a test case of river plume spreading to evaluate coastal ocean models. Our test case reveals the level of numerical mixing (due to parameterizations used and numerical treatment of processes in the model) and the ability of models to reproduce complex dynamics. The major result of our comparative study is that accuracy in reproducing the analytical solution depends less on the type of applied model architecture or numerical grid than it does on the type of advection scheme.