Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 5.240 IF 5.240
  • IF 5-year value: 5.768 IF 5-year
    5.768
  • CiteScore value: 8.9 CiteScore
    8.9
  • SNIP value: 1.713 SNIP 1.713
  • IPP value: 5.53 IPP 5.53
  • SJR value: 3.18 SJR 3.18
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 71 Scimago H
    index 71
  • h5-index value: 51 h5-index 51
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-363
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-363
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: model evaluation paper 29 Jan 2020

Submitted as: model evaluation paper | 29 Jan 2020

Review status
A revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal GMD.

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

Hiroyuki Tsujino1, L. Shogo Urakawa1, Stephen M. Griffies2,3, Gokhan Danabasoglu4, Alistair J. Adcroft3,2, Arthur E. Amaral5, Thomas Arsouze6, Mats Bentsen5, Raffaele Bernardello5, Claus W. Böning7, Alexandra Bozec8, Eric P. Chassignet8, Sergey Danilov9, Raphael Dussin2, Eleftheria Exarchou5, Pier Giuseppe Fogli10, Baylor Fox-Kemper11, Chuncheng Guo6, Mehmet Ilicak12,6, Doroteaciro Iovino10, Who M. Kim4, Nikolay Koldunov13,9, Vladimir Lapin5, Yiwen Li14,15, Pengfei Lin14,15, Keith Lindsay4, Hailong Liu14,15, Matthew C. Long4, Yoshiki Komuro16, Simon J. Marsland17, Simona Masina10, Aleksi Nummelin6, Jan Klaus Rieck7, Yohan Ruprich-Robert5, Markus Scheinert7, Valentina Sicardi5, Dmitry Sidorenko9, Tatsuo Suzuki16, Hiroaki Tatebe16, Qiang Wang9, Stephen G. Yeager4, and Zipeng Yu14,15 Hiroyuki Tsujino et al.
  • 1JMA Meteorological Research Institute (MRI), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
  • 2NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), Princeton, NJ 08542, USA
  • 3Princeton University Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
  • 4National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, CO, USA
  • 5Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, Spain
  • 6NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway
  • 7GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Kiel, Germany
  • 8Center for Ocean-Atmosphere Prediction Studies (COAPS), Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
  • 9Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI), Bremerhaven, Germany
  • 10Ocean Modeling and Data Assimilation Division, Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Bologna, Italy
  • 11Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
  • 12Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
  • 13MARUM‐Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, Bremen, Germany
  • 14LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
  • 15College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 16Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMTEC), Yokohama, Japan
  • 17CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale, Australia

Abstract. We present a new framework for global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on phase 2 of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP-2), making use of the JRA55-do atmospheric dataset. We motivate the use of OMIP-2 over the framework for the first phase of OMIP (OMIP-1), previously referred to as the Coordinated Ocean–ice Reference Experiments (CORE), via the evaluation of OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations from eleven (11) state-of-the-science global ocean–sea-ice models. In the present evaluation, multi-model means are calculated separately for the OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations and overall performances are assessed considering metrics commonly used by ocean modelers. Many features are very similar between OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations, and yet we also identify key improvements in transitioning from OMIP-1 to OMIP-2. For example, the sea surface temperature of the OMIP-2 simulations reproduce the observed global warming during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the warming hiatus in the 2000s and the more recent accelerated warming, which were absent in OMIP-1, noting that OMIP-1 forcing stopped in 2009. A negative bias in the sea-ice concentration in summer of both hemispheres in OMIP-1 is significantly reduced in OMIP-2. The overall reproducibility of both seasonal and interannual variations in sea surface temperature and sea surface height (dynamic sea level) is improved in OMIP-2. Many of the remaining common model biases may be attributed either to errors in representing important processes in ocean–sea-ice models, some of which are expected to be reduced by using finer horizontal and/or vertical resolutions, or to shared biases in the atmospheric forcing. In particular, further efforts are warranted to reduce remaining biases in OMIP-2 such as those related to the erroneous representation of deep and bottom water formations and circulations. We suggest that such problems can be resolved through collaboration between those developing models (including parameterizations) and forcing datasets.

Hiroyuki Tsujino et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: final response (author comments only)
Status: final response (author comments only)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Login for Authors/Topical Editors] [Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Hiroyuki Tsujino et al.

Data sets

Model Data to generate figures for “Evaluation of global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on the experimental protocols of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2 (OMIP-2)” (2020) H. Tsujino, L. S. Urakawa, S. M. Griffies, et al. https://doi.org/10.26300/g2a0-5x34

Analysis and Reference data to generate figures for “Evaluation of global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on the experimental protocols of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2 (OMIP-2)” (2020) H. Tsujino, L. S. Urakawa, and B. Fox-Kemper https://doi.org/10.26300/60wh-ak09

Model code and software

Python codes to generate figures for “Evaluation of global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on the experimental protocols of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2 (OMIP-2)” (2020) H. Tsujino, L. S. Urakawa, and B. Fox-Kemper https://doi.org/10.26300/p9be-8f06

Hiroyuki Tsujino et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 685 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
475 202 8 685 41 12 10
  • HTML: 475
  • PDF: 202
  • XML: 8
  • Total: 685
  • Supplement: 41
  • BibTeX: 12
  • EndNote: 10
Views and downloads (calculated since 29 Jan 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 29 Jan 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 516 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 511 with geography defined and 5 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 08 Jul 2020
Publications Copernicus
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.
The OMIP-2 framework for global ocean–sea-ice model simulations is assessed by comparing...
Citation