The bulk parameterizations of turbulent air–sea fluxes in NEMO4: the origin of sea surface temperature differences in a global model study

Bonino, Giulia; Iovino, Doroteaciro; Brodeau, Laurent; Masina, Simona

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6873-2022

Articles | Volume 15, issue 17

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6873-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean - NEMO

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6873-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 17

Model evaluation paper

|

09 Sep 2022

Model evaluation paper |

| 09 Sep 2022

The bulk parameterizations of turbulent air–sea fluxes in NEMO4: the origin of sea surface temperature differences in a global model study

Giulia Bonino, Doroteaciro Iovino, Laurent Brodeau, and Simona Masina

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Sep 2022)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Jan 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Justin Small, 09 Feb 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2021-436/gmd-2021-436-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Giulia Bonino, 15 Jun 2022
  
  Response attached as supplement pdf file
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Feb 2022

See the file attached

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-RC2
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Giulia Bonino, 15 Jun 2022
  
  Response attached as supplement pdf file
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-AC5
CEC1:
'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Feb 2022

Dear authors,
A couple of issues have come to our attention regarding your manuscript. First, after checking your work, another executive editor and myself believe that your manuscript fits better as a "model evaluation paper" instead of a "model experiment description paper", as it is in the system at the moment. The topical editor should be able of changing this for you.
Secondly, fter checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our Code and Data Policy.

https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code in a web that does not comply with our trustable permanent archival policy. Therefore, please publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories according to our policy. Many versions of NEMO are already stored in ZENODO.org. You could want to use it for your work.
The same applies to the data used in your work: We can not accept embargoes such as registration or previous contact with the authors. We understand that some files used in your study can be large (e.g. full output from models). In such cases, instead of storing the complete files, you should at least keep the variables or final fields computed and used.
In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the new repository, including its DOI. Also, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, including the DOI.
Please, reply as soon as possible to this comment with the link for it so that the information is available for the peer-review process, as it should be.
Many thanks,
Juan A. Añel

Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-CEC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on CEC1', Giulia Bonino, 23 Feb 2022
  
  Dear Juan Antonio Añel,
  we thank you for arising this point on code and data sharing. We do apologize that the solution we proposed in the submitted paper does not respond properly to the journal requirements. We are evaluating two possible approaches, first is zenodo as you suggested, second is a Data Delivery System developed and maintained by CMCC. We will adopt the faster (in the time needed) and more appropriate solution that will be promptly communicated to you.
  Best regards
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-AC1
  - CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Feb 2022
    
    Dear authors,
    Many thanks for your quick reply. Please, be aware that we can only accept suitable repositories listed in our policy. We can not accept the CMCC DDS as a suitable repository for publication. It does not comply with the minimum requirements that assure long-term archival such as secured funding and commitment for archival for several decades and pledge not to remove the data, etc.
    
    The webpage of the CMCC in its "Terms and Conditions" clearly states that "CMCC reserves the right to freely and without notice modify, suspend, or cancel the terms, conditions, or content of this website." and includes vague statements about commitment for long-term archival: "this website has been designed and will be maintained as much as possible".
    
    Also, the CMCC DDS webpage does not provide any information regarding the possibility of removal of data by their authors or long-term funding.
    Regards,
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-CEC2
- AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Giulia Bonino, 24 Feb 2022
  
  Dear Juan Antonio Añel,
  Thank you again for arising this point on code and data sharing. We archived the code and the model outputs used in the manuscript in a Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6258085, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6258085).
  Here the statement for the "Code and Data availability" section:
  This version of the NEMO code is based on code release 4.0, revision number 12957 (https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/NEMO/trunk?rev=12957, last access: 24 February 2022). The original code was modified in the computations of the bulk transfer coefficients applied to perform the experiments. The code and the namelists to run each experiment are available in the Zenodo archive (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6258085, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6258085). The model outputs used to produce the figures are also available in the Zenodo archive.
  Best regards
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Anonymous Referee #3, 07 Mar 2022

comments attached as supplement pdf file

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-RC3
- AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Giulia Bonino, 15 Jun 2022
  
  Response attached as supplement pdf file
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-436-AC4

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Giulia Bonino on behalf of the Authors (15 Jun 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

EF by Daria Karpachova (16 Jun 2022) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Jun 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

RR by Justin Small (02 Jul 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (14 Jul 2022)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (14 Jul 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

AR by Giulia Bonino on behalf of the Authors (03 Aug 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (03 Aug 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

AR by Giulia Bonino on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

The sea surface temperature (SST) is highly influenced by the transfer of energy driven by turbulent air–sea fluxes (TASFs). In the NEMO ocean general circulation model, TASFs are computed by means of bulk formulas. Bulk formulas require the choice of a given bulk parameterization, which influences the magnitudes of the TASFs. Our results show that parameterization-related SST differences are primarily sensitive to the wind stress differences across parameterizations.