The tidal effects in the Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2.1): a comparison between parameterised tidal mixing and explicit tidal forcing

Song, Pengyang; Sidorenko, Dmitry; Scholz, Patrick; Thomas, Maik; Lohmann, Gerrit

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-383-2023

Articles | Volume 16, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-383-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-383-2023

© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 1

Model evaluation paper

|

13 Jan 2023

Model evaluation paper |

| 13 Jan 2023

The tidal effects in the Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2.1): a comparison between parameterised tidal mixing and explicit tidal forcing

Pengyang Song, Dmitry Sidorenko, Patrick Scholz, Maik Thomas, and Gerrit Lohmann

Download

Final revised paper (published on 13 Jan 2023)
Preprint (discussion started on 31 Jan 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-25', Jonas Nycander, 01 Mar 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2022-25/gmd-2022-25-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-25-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Pengyang Song, 22 Mar 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2022-25/gmd-2022-25-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-25-AC2
CEC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-25', Juan Antonio Añel, 01 Mar 2022

Dear authors,
After 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 GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories.
In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the repository used in your manuscript, with its DOI. Moreover, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, including the DOI of the code.
Please, reply as soon as possible to this comment with the link for it so that it is available for the peer-review process, as it should be.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel

Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-25-CEC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Pengyang Song, 10 Mar 2022
  
  Thanks for informing. We have archived the model source code on zenodo. The new citation and DOI number is below.
  Song, Pengyang, Sidorenko, Dmitry, Scholz, Patrick, Thomas, Maik, & Lohmann, Gerrit. (2021). The tidal effects in the Finite-volumE Sea ice--Ocean Model (FESOM2.1): a comparison between parameterized tidal mixing and explicit tidal forcing. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6342761
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-25-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2022-25', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Mar 2022

This manuscript deals with a comparison of an coarse resolution ocean model with a very simplistic parameteriation of tidal mixing and a model version without that scheme but explicit tidal potential included.

There is a major physical flaw in this model setup. The authors seem to believe that having the long internal tidal waves in their model they have implemented "tidal mixing". This is not the case. The long tidal waves do not break, except mabye close to continental shelves. In contrast, it is the energy transfer by non-linear interaction from the long internal tides to the shorter background internal wave field, the "GM wave field", and the breaking of the shortest wave lengths in that GM wave field, which leads to the bulk of the "tidal mixing" in the interior ocean. This process is certainly not resolved in the current model. One would need very high resolution and non-hydrostatic dynamics to simulate that process. In the present manuscript, it is unclear how the long tidal waves would induce mixing, and the issue is not touched at all. However, it is clear that it would not correspond in any way to what happens in the ocean.

It is therefore of no use to compare the model experiments as done here, and this manuscript should be rejected.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-25-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Pengyang Song, 22 Mar 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2022-25/gmd-2022-25-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-25-AC3

Peer review completion

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

AR by Pengyang Song on behalf of the Authors (23 Jun 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (23 Jun 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

RR by Jonas Nycander (15 Jul 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (03 Oct 2022)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Upon request from the topical editor, the revised version of the manuscript has been reviewed in view of the interactive public discussion. I should report on this assessment.
In the light of a criteria whether the authors responded appropriately to the reviewers’ original concerns or not, I think that the authors have made a basically good response. But I think some additional work is required before the paper can be accepted for final publication.

- The second comment of Reviewer #1 and the first comment of Reviewer #2 commonly concern the reality of the sink for the long internal tidal waves in LSTIDE experiment with explicit tides. Authors seems to have reached a conclusion that the convergence of vertical turbulent buoyancy flux due to tides balances the vertical advection term for the mean field, contrary to their first thought that the vertical mixing in LSTIDE experiment would be enhanced by vertical shear of baroclinic tides. This may not be realistic as the reviewers have pointed out, but would be reasonable given the spatial resolution of the model being used here. I think the novelty and value of this paper is to have presented how the meridional overturning circulations would change in a simulation with explicit tides. For the paper to set a useful basis for future works with high-resolution models and to have a lasting value, two-dimensional map of energy sink for LSTIDE experiment should be desirably compared with one of state-of-the-science estimates such as the one presented by de Lavergne et al. (2019) and differences are discussed.

- The globally integrated kinetic energy budget for the three experiments is presented in Table 3. The value for the buoyancy flux term is the same for all experiments. I think more explanation for this feature would be useful.

- What is the source of the temporal mean square tidal velocity distribution used for CVTIDE experiment? How different are the distribution used for CVTIDE and that of LSTIDE? Or are they common?

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (17 Oct 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

AR by Pengyang Song on behalf of the Authors (12 Dec 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Dec 2022) by Riccardo Farneti

AR by Pengyang Song on behalf of the Authors (19 Dec 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

Tides have essential effects on the ocean and climate. Most previous research applies parameterised tidal mixing to discuss their effects in models. By comparing the effect of a tidal mixing parameterisation and tidal forcing on the ocean state, we assess the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods. Our results show that tidal mixing in the North Pacific Ocean strongly affects the global thermohaline circulation. We also list some effects that are not considered in the parameterisation.